"TRANSCENDENCE" - THE FILM THAT JUST DOESN'T...

I used to be such a big fan of Johnny Depp. No, I really was. I remember the excitement welling up in me when I saw the second pirates of the Caribbean. Jack Sparrow was atop a mast of a small dingy, you saw him from behind and... A proper “squeeee” moment. One  has to say, the veteran actor’s looks have not dimmed at all with age. But as for his output… It’s definitely a series of “oh dear” moments. The latest film critics love to hate being Mordecai – no one seemed to have a single good word to say about it. He seems to have quite a few films coming out this year, let’s hope one of them is the film to relaunch the Johnny Depp we remember and love from classics like Edward Scissorhands or – a particular favourite of mine – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. In the meanwhile, this week we peruse the latest booty from my trip to the DVD store – a little number called Transcendence.

Sporting a cast absolutely chock-full of stars – Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy, Rebecca Hall and Kate Mara – and a first-time, though passionate director who had Dp’d on many films before, Transcendence looked more than promising. The subject matter was current and thought-provoking too, as it explores the domain of AI (one of a long series of films to recently ask questions on the matter) and in particular – as the name suggests – Transcendence. It’s a weird one. You can see promise and lots of “good things” bubbling right beneath the surface, but when all is said and done the film just doesn’t…  You know, it just doesn’t.

Dr Will Caster (Johhny Depp) and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) are scientists at the cutting edge of AI, they are working on creating a sentient machine. Will would much rather tinker about in his laboratory with no contact with the outside world at all but anti-AI activists has other plans.  An attempt on Will’s life pushes the team’s hand to attempting Transcendence, that is to say, uploading Will’s consciousness onto a computer. The attempt is successful and what seems to be painfully similar to Will’s spirit now resides in a computer. And the moment the computer connects to the internet truly extraordinary things begin to happen. For Will, the sky is literally the limit… The question is, what does this mean for the rest of the planet…

There were several problems with this film as far as I was concerned. First of all, the characters seemed unfinished. Of course there are a “set” lot of characters in every story and a little bit of digging reveals them for the tropes they are. The key in that case is in the digging. A combination of the actor’s performance and the director’s vision make the characters complex and we don’t just yawn and go “mentor” or “turncoat”. In this film, the actors performances are good – but I suspect they were just doing what was being asked of them, which, sadly, was not enough for my money. I was particularly disturbed by the fact that the two main female characters (heck the only two actual female characters in the film) were the worst when it came to being caricaturised. Both Evelyn – Will’s wife (though credit where it’s due, she is a scientist so at least credited with intelligence) and the leader of the rebels Bree (Kate Mara – again at least in a leader’s position) are by and large portrayed as “excitable women” acting on their emotions, making mistakes and being “guided” by men. Morgan Freeman is the typical older mentor, Paul Bettany is the “sceptic”, Cillian Murphy is “the cop”. All the characters are perfectly executed but that is what you would expect from a veteran cast. Things could definitely have been made interesting through performance alone – and an opportunity was missed…

The bit things were “added to” was the storyline. And oh boy, did they add “things” to that. When you take a gander at the extra features you see a clue as to what went wrong – “It’s a sci-fi film” say the crew members, “so the film definitely has a fiction and fantasy element”. Well of course it does.  Basically the film has taken the much disputed concept of transcendence – the uploading of the human consciousness onto a computer system and – coupled with the developments that would allow us to have –in theory at least – artificial bodies thus leading to immortality for all intents and purposes. Some scientific centres claim that all of this could be a mere and unbelievable 30 years away. Others aren’t quite as optimistic.

What the film tries to do is to give us a terrifying hint at what could happen if this Transcendence somehow “got out of control” and “took over the world”.  Apart from the fact that the whole concept stinks of The Terminator,  the film simply does not do enough to instil this fear into us. What it does do is at best hard to follow and very loosely based in logic (for those who have seen the film, I credit myself with at least average intelligence and good education but I am still at a loss as to how Will can actually manipulate the gravel and the concrete in the town around him). The film should have either leant a bit more on the plotlines that were actually laid out within the domain of logic, or gone a bit more spectacular on the “fantastic” elements and made more of a spectacle of them. I mean I get it, they are trying to go understated and hint at the horrors to come but with the cast performances already reduced to clichés and none of the storylines quite followed through the film just… Doesn’t. By the time you go “Ok fine, I officially suspend disbelief, he can manipulate nature via wifi or whatever” the film is done. You just don’t have the opportunity to “settle into” anything.

 I have a feeling that our first time director Wally Pfister just had so much he wanted to do with his first feature that he just crammed it all into the same film on a superficial level and explored none of them in depth. I do wish he had picked a few concepts and burrowed down instead of across. It could have been a fascinating film… It ends up being just.. Meh… 

"LUCY" THE NEXT, "NEXT GENERATION" HUMAN...

When I began bemoaning my utter disappointment upon watching Lucy, I was met with loud protests from my male friends. I was amused by their argument : “Did you watch it on a small screen? Well that would be it then. It’s an action film, you’re supposed to watch it in cinema!”. I do realize that action as a genre is supposed to be heavily visual. You know, don’t ask too many questions. Enjoy the spectacular fight scenes and the big explosions. OK fair enough, the genre has its fans, and I am just as capable of appreciating a good explosion as the next man. But when putting Lucy into this context, two questions spring to mind. Firstly, since when have “pretty action sequences” been a legitimate saving grace if the rest of a film has gone awry? Secondly, my main point would be that Lucy is actually trying to be more than that. It’s just… You know… Failing.

The story of Lucy is told quickly enough. “Baddies” have discovered a new drug. Oh the kids are going to love it! It is the synthetic form of a hormone produced naturally by pregnant women and induces growth. Lucy is the typical “innocent stander by” roped into a dastardly situation. She, along with a few other randoms, are chosen by what looks suspiciously like the Yakuza (but we are in Taipei so possibly not) to be the couriers of this drug to European capitals. The thing is, Lucy’s trip goes horribly wrong, the packet she is carrying in her abdomen bursts and the drug starts seeping into her body, which in turn allows her to unlock the “unused” parts of her brain. This… Well… It has unexpected results…

Now, here’s my argument as to Lucy trying to be more than just an action movie. I mean, before I get into it let me underline this, the action sequences are nothing short of stunning. I am not; as you may know by now, the biggest fan of one single hero steamrolling every single opponent without so much as breaking a sweat but… You know. Let’s not get lost in details. It’s a genre, and in its own way its very well done – it’s just not to my own personal taste.  But come on. This is Luc Besson we are talking about. Since when has he been into making “just” action films?

From pretty much the get-go we are surrounded by hints that the film is trying to ground itself very firmly in science. The action in the film interspersed with what appear to be stock images from a David Attenborough documentary that “cleverly” parallel the action. You know, we cut from Lucy just before she is attacked in some way to a group of deer grazing in the Savannah, then she is attacked and we see a lion attacking the group of deer. That kind of thing. Rather too  much of it at that – but ok, you have to be blind to see what the film is trying to do, we are grounding ourselves in natural history, disenchantment of the world and all that jazz, humans are animals, predators in fact, and we should not “separate” ourselves from it by pretending any “mystic” side. Okey dokey. Then we get a looong explanation of the whole “humans only a limited percentage of their brain… Let’s imagine what would happen if we could use it all” theory. The saving grace of the whole “lecture” (both as a filmic device and in the actual storyline) is that it is delivered by Morgan Freeman. By that time, of course Lucy is now rampaging around the globe, able to control electronic devices from a distance (I’m still not exactly sure how that conversation between her and the doctor from Taipei to Paris actually worked on a technical level but ok, moving on) and her aim is to get to the Professor so she can pass on the “information” she has gained to the next generation just like any other mammal. OK HERE COME THE SPOILERS. Then she spectacularly kills all the baddies, she reaches 100% brain capacity, this makes her immune to the concepts of space and time and we finally see that she is tantamount to becoming God, as she sends a last message to the cop who has rather ineffectually being “assisting her” (he at least has the good grace to point out that he is not being much help) “I am everywhere”. Yeah, so she becomes God. It’s a wonderful atheist / humanist parable of how God is a construct of our own minds and if humans would only unleash their own capabilities they would be the only God they would ever need… There is even a slightly Nietschean rant in the film about how men limit themselves from realizing their true potential etc , just in case you missed the actual point of the film.

To make a complete aside for two seconds, in an age where we are seriously debating uploading our consciousness onto computers this is definitely a matter to be discussed. I mean the concept isn’t even new, think of Ghost in the Shell, think of Neon Genesis Evangelion – the Japanese, true to form, saw this coming 20 years ago. My point is that Lucy tries to clunk a very complex ontological concept onto a very flashy action movie packed with clichés and add it weight with a mock- David Attenborough documentary. Oh and to get this whole thing across in 80 minutes. Err… Yeah.

And if you thought that our final “God” is a woman is some kind of saving grace, think again. Lucy is pretty much the only speaking female part in the film (her flatmate hardly counts, she is only on for 2 minutes and has about 20 lines, almost all, incidentally about her date the previous night so yeah. It barely passes the Bechdel test because Lucy ends up giving her some advice about her health – but does it count if the other party doesn’t respond? Weigh in here someone… ). We barely get to know her anyway, apart from one conversation with her mother and the mention of exams, so she is some form of student... So yeah, she is the only woman literally surrounded by male gangsters, academics and police officers and she can only “outsmart” them by becoming less and less human and decidedly less feminine. So her whole empowerment actually amounts to beautiful blonde beating up a bunch of guys which, I believe, is considered a fun night out in some circles…

 We have had quite a few ones about computer-human hybrids and how we as humans would cope with consciousness  levels amped up infinitely, haven’t we? There are clues in this film that it is possibly meant as tongue in cheek, ranging from the very fact that Morgan Freeman’s iconic voice is used to lecture us to the fact that the secrets of the universe actually end up on a USB stick… I dunno, maybe I’m taking this a tad too seriously… But… I mean lay aside the pretty action sequences… You do see what I mean, don’t you? Go on… I know you do… 

THE CLOSER YOU LOOK, THE LESS YOU SEE : "NOW YOU SEE ME"

For my first trick tonight, I will make two hours of your life disappear J Wow, ok, that came out a tad bit darker than I intended it to. But you know what I mean. You sit down to watch a film, what with the dazzling special effects (yes, I know, I do moan about special effects a lot but you can’t beat them when they’re well used), glamorous actors and a whirlwind of a storyline, you’ll be walking out of the cinema scratching your head before you became fully conscious of ever sitting down.

It all starts, you see, with four illusionists (Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Woody Harrelsson and David Franco). They have banded together to form a troupe entitled “The Four Horsemen” – and for their tour around Las Vegas they use “magic” to “rob banks”. An amusing gimmick and nothing more, right? Well, possibly not. As the banks the four horsemen say they are robbing on stage in front of a live audience indeed start turning up empty the next morning, the police force (headed by Mark Ruffalo) is faced with the very same perplexing question we are all faced with at the end of magic shows (I know I’m supposed to call them mentalists or illusionists or whatever. For me, they will always ever be magicians. Sorry J ) : “How the heck did they do that?”  But with even one of the most famous “illusionist de-maskers” (Morgan Freeman) baffled by the turn of events and the possibility of an agenda that stretches way beyond just the cash… Is this simply a rather glamorous set of heists? Or is there actually something a lot bigger at stake?

Ok, quick question: Did you like the Ocean’s franchise? You did? Then jump right on the bandwagon my friends! This is most definitely one for you! And I mean, don’t get me wrong, I loved the Ocean’s films. But this is a tad bit better methinks. First of all, I like the fact that it doesn’t rely so much on star power. I mean don’t get me wrong there are one heck of a lot of stars in this one too. There are even a few I couldn’t get into the blurb like Michael Cane for example. But there are not 15 of them.  Which, in my view is a good thing. I mean 15 a-list celebrities are all very well and good – in fact in some cases but it always makes me a tad nervous about the rest of the film. You know, the directing, the storyline, the effects… I know it’s a tad unfair, but I always get the nagging question “what are they trying to hide?” – you know. If they’re throwing that much talent at it, my head reasons, there must be something going not quite right with it. Now this little number has a significant amount of star talent in the mix, you can ask what it’s trying to hide until you are blue in the face; I am pretty darn confident you won’t get it.

This is not simply because there is nothing that is obviously wrong with it; I have to say that this was one of the best heist  /stroylines I have seen in a very long time. I know that technology and development allows us to design visual effects gimmicks that are more intricate than ever before, but this was truly spectacular. And all the visuals – be it the effects all the stars – definitely do not retract from a complicated plotline you will literally “not see coming” until the very end. But don’t worry. There is a an actual “explanation”  bit very neatly inserted into the film so I can guarantee you won’t get completely lost.  This is actually my favourite kind of plot. I don’t like it when I can see films “coming” a mile away. And my “eyesight” is pretty darn good what with one thing and another  (mainly the sheer volume of films I have watched in my life).

If I were to say one negative thing about the film, it might be that it suffers from a slight lack of character development. I’m not going to go as far as saying they are “stock characters” they definitely are not, but… I mean we could, in an ideal world, get to know them a tad bit better. But then again, that is not what the movie is about. The movie is about the show – that’s why this is what the movie concentrates on. Which is fair enough, I think.

So next time you have a few hours to spare, feel free to spare it on this little number. You will not regret it – this much I promise you.

FACE YOURSELF IN "OBLIVION"

You know what I said to myself as I watched this film? If I had half the sense I have now back in the day, I would have plunged headfirst into special effects. I’d be a special effects artist. It’s where the money is. And let’s face it, technology today allows you to do pretty amazing things. You can do these amazing things “already” as it were. Just imagine what will be possible in a few years. A few decades. But ah, do I think they should be chucked into every plotline willy-nilly? No. A resounding NO. Take Oblivion. Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s a great film in a wonderful, Hollywoody way, but let’s face it. We’ve seen the same story done before. Low-tech and better.

Jack (Tom Cruise) is a veteran serving his planet. The entire population of the earth has moved to Titan after a devastating war; Jack and his partner (in more senses than one) Victoria are a key part of the taskforce left on Earth to syphon off vital supplies like fresh water and protect the hardware from what remain of the “scavengers” who destroyed the planet in the first place. It’s a pretty lonely job – mostly it’s just the two of them – but Jack and Victoria don’t really complain. That being said, it is almost the end of their mission, two weeks later and they will be sent back home for a hero’s welcome and much more low-risk jobs. But as time goes on, something is nagging at Jack, even though he is not quite sure what it is himself… He is plagued by constant, strange dreams and a nagging feeling something is not quite right… Not that he can see what could possibly be wrong… It’s just another day in paradise… No?

Ok, I’m going to do something I rarely do. My review is going to contain a bit of a spoiler so be warned. The thing is this film is just TOO similar to a film I really, really like and admire for me to ignore in this review. The thing is, and my point is, that the storyline itself is just so powerful that there was absolutely NO need to Hollywood it up.

I’m talking about Moon, directed by Duncan Jones. I mean, think about the story of Moon for a second. Why oh why oh why did they have to jazz it up? Insert not just a love interest but a full-blown love triangle if you please, all the “typical” trope characters, a wise, older man to give advice (although Morgan Freeman can really do no wrong in my eyes) and a young rebel who “doesn’t trust” Jack, to whom Jack must prove himself (a very wise attempt by Nicolaj Coster-Waldau to prove he can do things apart from Game of Thrones. Though judging by the fact my friend asked “Isn’t that the Kingslayer?” (not even Jamie Lanister mind you, Kingslayer)  when he came on, it may be too little too late. Much in the same way that Daniel Ratcliffe is called “Harry Potter” now and probably for the next 5 – 10 years at least.). There are more special effects than you can shake a stick at. Beautifully done – hence it prompted me to wish I could do that – but still, too much. We even have (here comes the real spoiler) a perfect  “family unit re-united” type ending.  How many actual characters did Duncan Jones have in his movie? One. Well, one man and a robot. How awesome was the film? Pretty f.ckin awesome. The topic is one that, I feel, might well become one that deserves exploration in the future. It is being explored today, slowly and surely in popular culture but there is still a lot of scope for originality. Moon does a wonderful job of looking at the psychology of Sam (the equivalent to Jack) and the entire process of his “awakening” from the first inkling that something is wrong to the sickening confrontation with his own reality. I left that film seriously questioning my own sense of reality for a second there. Oblivion takes a beautiful topic with true philosophical potential and reduces it to big guns, open references to the Matrix (well that or a seriously atheist message : remember the dialogue? “I am your god” - “F.ck you”) and beautiful people making out. I mean, it makes for a fun night out and all but it’s a real waste. It takes something that could be truly original and makes into something we’ve seen a thousand times before. I have to say, that takes some doing.

Now, I know I sound a bit venomous as I talk about it, but really, I don’t necessarily mean to dissuade you from watching it. Like I said, it is a fun night out. I was ranting to my friend about the ending especially (I’m not averse to happy endings. I just hate forced happy endings. Unrealistic ones. The friend I watched it with protested loudly when I called the ending  “naff”. “No, I like happy endings! If they’re missing I feel as if the film is missing a whole bit!” she exclaimed. Well, it depends on what you watch the movie for of course. You watch this one purely for entertainment, despite the potential… 

AND A HEART-WARMER TO ROUND IT OFF : "DOLPHIN TALE"

Ok, so, this little lady, the hero of this real life story, is not really dangerous. She’s quite something though; she is a force to be reckoned with. Trouble is she is not actually human either. Some of you might remember the story of Winter, a dolphin in Florida. The film is inspired by her story, although I strongly suspect some of the characters are added on, the main bulk of the story – Winter’s story – is very much a reality. Sawyer is a bit of an oddball. He isn’t good at sport, he isn’t social, and he is kind of closed and quiet. He is nothing like his older cousin Kyle, a successful swimmer, now going into the army, social and outgoing. He is quite content living in a world of his own until coincidence means he runs into a dolphin, trust up in the ropes of a crab trap. She is badly injured, the rope has cut off most of the circulation to her tail and she seems to have lost the will to live. Luckily the marine hospital and aquarium are close by so the dolphin is delivered into safe hands. For Sawyer, this is a revelation. He literally cannot keep away from the marine hospital and in time becomes friends with Winter and the whole staff there including Dr. Clay and his daughter Hazel. The thing is, Winter’s injuries mean her tail has to be amputated. And with the marine hospital risking shutting down due to lack of funds, will anyone want to lend a helping hand /fin to an amputee dolphin? Now, any of you who have actually followed the story in the news pretty much knows what happens. But honestly this is not the main attraction of the film. The story itself, like I said is basically made up – not the winter bit, I strongly suspect the characters around it though. The “lost” boy finding himself through the company of an animal (Free Willy – anyone? And that’s only the latest incarnation) is by no means original. Hazel’s mother – Dr. Clay’s wife – is dead. Sawyer’s father left when he was five. Hint, hint. There is a goofy mascot running around the place (isn’t there always – a rogue pelican of all things). There is a wise grandfather, guiding the way. The two 11 year-olds – a girl and a boy – are clearly each other’s’ true love – they just don’t know it yet. The hospital WOULD be risking shutting down. And as you can probably imagine the cousin comes back from the front injured and depressed (rightly so I might add) but Winter “nurses” him back to life too. Which would be fine in itself if she already hadn’t nursed Sawyer back to life, i.e. they used the same trop twice. It works but I mean, still. Anyway, you get the picture, all the clichés of a feel good movie, and then a few. But it is a true story. The real Winter actually “acts” in it as herself so watching her is fun. And there are quite a few “aww” moments where I went a bit dewy eyed. Not least when Winter turns upside down to show the depressed and now disabled Kyle her amputated stump as if to say “Look, I’m like you”. I just welled up, I will not lie. It’s a good ‘un all in all. I mean it’s not high art. But who cares. Get a glass of wine, a box of chocolates, a couple of good friends and go “aaah” at it. It’ll go down a treat.

GREAT DIRECTORS MEDLY : CLINT EASTWOOD - "MILLION DOLLAR BABY"

Ok, I guess we all remember this one. Back in 2004 it wiped the floor with at the Oscars® and a lot of other reputed awards shows as well. We all heard of it. Some of us were vaguely surprised at the fact that Clint Eastwood (acting, producing and directing this one!) was still churning out winners. Some of us watched it. Others (me included) reckoned they had seen a few boxing films too many and decided to give it a miss. I was rather disappointed today, on watching it, to realize that my first judgment could also have worked. Million Dollar Baby is an excellent example of its genre, but not original. By a LONG shot.
The interesting one about this film is that it kinda mixes too films into one. It starts off as your typical common or garden sporting movie. Clint Eastwood is Frankie Dunn (heck, who am I kidding, he’s Clint Eastwood like in every single one of his films but that’s what he is called here anyway) and he is one of the best trainers for boxing in the US of A. He is a tough old fella, and has old-school principals. He runs a boxing gym along with his old friend Scrap (Morgan Freeman) and his life has been going on as it always has been until Maggie (Hilary Swank) enters his life. She is 31 (i.e. waaay too old to begin boxing) yet a complete beginner and yet she will NOT rest until Frank agrees to train her. Frank does not train girls. End of story. However Maggie persists. She persists and Scrap kinda gets on side and persists a bit with her and in the end (surprise surprise) Frank takes her on. She is as good as she claims to be. She works hard, develops a killer left hook and shoots up to the stars, match after match, round after round, win after win… Until the title match. The result of which will turn both her and Frank’s lives upside down – and I don’t mean in a good way…
Here the film breaks off and turns into a class A tear-jerker. A good tear-jerker but none the less, that’s what it is. By this time we have found out that Frank is estranged with his own daughter and that Maggie’s father is dead leaving her alone with her “hillbilly” family so Maggie and Frank are in fact a kind of surrogate father – daughter now. Frank is going to have to face is demons and both are going to have to make very, VERY tough choices.
I am in two minds about this one. There is nothing wrong with it. There are some brilliant “raaah” moments in it (you know the kind I mean don’t look all blank like that!). True, the fact that Maggie tends to knock her opponents out cold in the first round is a little well… Unbelievable AND annoying but Hilary Swank is so endearing as Maggie you tend to forgive her for that. Eastwood then takes every single tear-jerking storyline and sideline and stuffs it into the movie. I concede the fact that the film is an adaptation and I have not read the story it was adapted from but still… I mean, I reckon it could have been toned down a bit. The interesting thing is though, is that it works somehow. What I mean to say is if a mediocre filmmaker had tried to cram all the stuff Eastwood does into the film it would just be comical. Here it works after a fashion. You watch it to the end – and get excited about it – even though you can pretty much guess every single plot twist to the end. Not my kinda thing that, I like to be surprised (hence my love of Tarantino – I can never EVER guess where the guy is going to pop up from next if you see what I mean). It’s a good film, deserves the pat on the back that it got, and you should watch it. Do it in your spare time or something though, there is no rush.

INVICTUS

Do you know what I like most in a film? The ability to show me a different side of things. A different angle. So difficult these days as well, in our age of mass commercial film production, we seem to be rapidly running out of topics. That is, I think, why we are turning more and more towards real events, because real life is nearly always stranger than fiction. And this is how we can find fascinating stories even in the most famous events in history.

Take the election of Nelson Mandela (portrayed in the film by Morgan Freeman) as the president of South Africa. I’m sure we all have at least cursory knowledge of the Apartheid regime. And I’m sure we at least know that Nelson Mandela spent a lot of time in prison and was then elected president, right? The big question is what did he do after that? The Apartheid regime had ended, everyone was equal but that, in fact, was just the beginning. You see, think about it, the white South Africans had not just vanished over night… They were there, the memories of the Apartheid were there with everyone and the whole country seethed with enmity and division. Mr. Mandela was, therefore, faced with the rather formidable task of uniting his supporters with the very people they had been fighting against for all those years… The very people, in some cases, who had sent him to prison…

In troubled times like this, symbols gain more importance than ever. And the most mundane things sometimes suddenly gain symbolic meaning. Case in point, the Springboks, the South African National rugby team. Well, when I say National, don’t take it too literally, because at the time the team was seen as one of the tools of the Apartheid regime and black South Africans would cheer against literally anybody they were playing against just so they didn’t cheer for the Springboks. Not that the Springboks gave their fans much to cheer about, in 1990, when the story took place, they were going through the lowest of low patches performance-wise. Nelson Mandela quite unexpectedly for most, summoned François Pienaar (Matt Damon) the captain of the Springboks to tea at his residence one afternoon. You see, the people needed something to unite them. Something to rally behind. South Africa was hosting the rugby world cup in under a year. And the Springboks were the designated champions behind whom the people would rally… If François could motivate his team into getting their act together that is…

The film has a lot going for it to give it its due… It is produced and directed by Clint Eastwood – and that surprised me… I mean don’t get me wrong I have all the respect in the world for Clint Eastwood; however, his films generally tend have a rather “rugged, masculine” feel about them. This is especially pronounced if he is actually acting in them too. Now, I hear you protesting already: “Hey, it’s a RUGBY team. It doesn’t get more masculine than that, surely?” Ok, fair enough. And I won’t deny the fact that with the exception of ??? Mr. Mandela’s faithful assistant, almost all the female characters fell into nice little stereotypes (faithful wife, worried mother, homely housekeeper, serious secretary). However, the quiet, peaceful yet determined outlook of Mr. Mandela and the emotions of the South African people are portrayed with finesse and feeling – a fact that will surprise anyone who thinks of Mr. Eastwood as basically “A Cowboy”. I mean, naturally Mr. Morgan Freeman may have had just a touch to do with it – the man’s less of an actor and more of an institution as far as I’m concerned. Mr. Damon also holds his own – in fact both were nominated for Oscars ® this year for their respective performances in this film…

I am not a sports fan. I don’t see “the point” of a lot of sports (I won’t bore you with details that is the topic for a whole other entry). However, the power a sport has and the power of success are undisputable. This is a story about the vision of a truly extraordinary leader and a story of reconciliation – something the world truly needs a lot of these days. And I know I’ve ribbed Mr. Eastwood about being too macho in this article but it has to be admitted that the director of this films needs to be someone who “sees the point” of rugby (you know what I mean ladies – not the “esthetics” of the players but the actual sport ;) ) to tie it in with the social union of the people. A film of powerful emotion – and very deserving of a gander…

SE7EN

I have some difficulty understanding why human beings seem to have this innate need to be scared. Horror movies for instance. I have great respect for a well executed horror film, and when I come across one I don’t hesitate to put it on the site (Triangle for instance). But the genre is tough to pull off – it tends to descend into complete mayhem story-wise and / or rely on liters of fake blood and loud sound effects to scare us (read make us jump). People are quite scary enough in real life as far as I’m concerned. I mean, take Zodiac for example. (Alternatively, take the story of the real thing, here). Serial killers. Now that’s scary. Not least because they’re actual real people, not characters dreamt up by a screenplay writer. All though, I must say there are some “pretend” serial killers and evil characters that are just as scary. I mean, without resorting to “magical powers” and the like. I have in mind, a film by the director of Zodiac, Mr. David Fincher. Mr. Fincher is also the praiseworthy director of cult movie “Fight Club” and in my view, has a flair for the scary, gory (without the whole “God, that’s a lot of ketchup” effect). His works are most definitely parental and sensitive stomach-al advisory. The film I want to talk about in this particular write-up is Se7en (or Seven for anyone who is confused). It has attained cult status in its own right but it’s been around for a while now and is not as famous as it’s brother Fight Club so I just wanted to make sure you remember / learn about it =)

The beginning of the film will be familiar to anyone who has seen a “cop-flick” or two. Detective Lt. William Sommerset (master-actor Morgan Freeman) is ready to retire. He has an earned reputation for being both eccentric and one of the best officers on the force. His last duty, before being sent off to enjoy his retirement, is to have rookie cop David. But Sommerset’s last case turns out to be anything but simple. A simple if rather bizarre murder turns out to be the first in a series: There is a psychotic serial killer out there… He’s using the seven deadly sins as an M.O. As time goes on, the deadly sins get more and more serious and the murders more and more… Imaginative… Mills and Sommerset have to act fast, because if they run out of sins, they run out of time. And then, they may never catch him…

Now, here, ladies and gentlemen, is one scary film that doesn’t need ghosts and ghouls. Brr… Apart from that, the film deserves a mention on its technical merits too. It was, for instance, nominated for an Oscar® for Best Editing. The whole atmosphere of the film is very dark which is noticeable in the choice of location, dialogue and characters. We also see Gwyneth Paltrow as Mills’s young wife, rounding off a very talented leading cast. Morgan Freeman is, in a nutshell, Morgan Freeman. And just watching Mr. Pitt leaves us with no doubt as to why David Fincher chose him for his extraordinary cult movie 4 years later. I mean, it’s easy to forget but Brad Pitt is a lot more than just a pretty face. He can ACT. Anyone who doubts that can just pick up cult movie “12 Monkeys”. I admit there may have been a slight “dip” in the middle but I feel he’s “back” now. That was my distinct impression on leaving “Inglorious Bastards” anyway. But I digress. Yes, well, the film is basically a VERY well executed murder mystery. It is the VERY well executed bit that carries the caution factor. The adrenalin never stops; you are literally chilled to the bone and I actually got up and screamed at the screen in the final minute or so – anyone who has watched the film will know why. You’ll enjoy it. You may have nightmares afterwards, but you’ll enjoy it.