ONE OF THE SCARIEST THRILLERS THIS SEASON - "NIGHTCRAWLER"

As we all know, Hollywood loves films about itself. And it doesn’t necessarily need to be Hollywood per se, if it involves filmmaking on any level and you have some idea of what you are doing, well, you’re pretty much guaranteed a warm welcome to the table. The length of your stay there will of course largely depend on what you have to offer.

In this context, we have to admit Nightcrawler has A LOT to offer. Not only is it a piercing look at our hunger for information – more specifically the gory details – it is, through the analysis of this obsession a very, very powerful thriller… And when you add talent like Jake Gylenhaal to the mix… Well… Let’s say you’re in for one heck of a ride.

Lou Bloom (Jake Gylenhaal) is unemployed. He is a high school graduate and largely self-taught but he doesn’t let that stop him – he is on the lookout, actively seeking out his next chance and ready to grip it with both hands when it comes along… And come along in does, quite literally in a blaze of smoke and fire : Lou witnesses a traffic accident purely by chance and as he is idly watching the goings on – as one does – he notices the two men with cameras jumping out of another car. They film the event and dash off again. And lo and behold, next day their footage is in the news. Lou likes this idea. He likes it a lot. And he quickly sets about setting up his own business… At first, no one takes him very seriously. True, the news director of KWLA, a local tv channel (Rene Rousso) tells him that he has a good eye but apart from that, as far as anyone is concerned, Lou is small fry… But there is something about Lou… Something people dismiss as just being “a little odd”. They have no idea what truly lies below Lou’s witticisms memorised from the internet… It is blind ambition and determination, at a level that goes way, way beyond the average entrepreneur…

I have said this before. I will say it again. Lou Bloom is categorically one of the most frightening heroes I have ever seen on film. We learn quite early on in the film that Lou is self-taught. He talks a little too much, his sentences are just a little bit too long and he parrots generic phrases that he has clearly read off just about every job-hunting website on the net. The front is both ill-fitting and a little too perfect. And try as Lou might to “be like everyone else”, the effort is obvious – which is why, we feel quite clearly, he fails to find work at first. But suddenly, it turns out, Lou has a “good eye” for news footage – the gory kind, just the kind KWLA needs to lead stories with – and the rest is history… Thing is no one – including us – wonders how come Lou is so at his ease around blood and gore. (SpOILER ALERT – skip to next paragraph) And the grim realisation comes two thirds through the film when Lou turns to his unfortunate associate Rick (who will be the very first to clock the fact that something is very wrong with Lou) and calmly asks “What if my problem wasn’t that I don’t understand people but that I don’t like them ?” Yes ladies and gents, Jake Gylenhaal actually portrays one of the most terrifying psychopaths I have seen portrayed on film. The entire first half of his performance is beautifully balanced; we go through it feeling very clearly that there is something “not quite right”- it is not until the big reveal that we realise how “not right” things are inside his head… Gylenhaal – and of course writer/director Dan Gilroy- have us exactly where they want us throughout; I honestly think the film – and more specifically Gylenhaal -  deserved every honour it got bestowed on it this awards season.

But apart from being a very impressive thriller, Nightcrawler also clearly contains criticism and allegory. We are officially living in the digital age, we are hungry for constant information, constant thrills, we are being bombarded by multiple channels vying for our attention, each with bigger, better, more shocking, more interesting wares… And if Lou is the villain in this story, he is only able to become so because the news director Nina (Rene Rousso’s character) enables him. Nina is worried about her ratings, her position and – of course – her job. And as their relationship evolves, Lou brings her better and better stuff and she becomes so dependent on his gory wares that ethics and the “how”s and the “is this ethically right”s fall to the wayside one by one until she becomes the very embodiment of the capitalist media monster that we accuse of doing things like killing princess Diana. There is a clear indictment of a greedy information and technology driven society, too preoccupied with its own thrills and not in the least worried about potential consequences for others…

Technically the film gives a nice balance of contrasting fast paced segments, car chases and gory accidents shown in the style of the news it criticises with moments of stillness that adds to the underlying eeriness the story has built up and brings no peace. I guarantee you, you will be on the edge of your seat from the beginning of the show to the end… Definitely one of my favourite films this season… 

ABOUT FINDING YOURSELF IN A DARK PLACE... "DRIVE"

I fully intend to get more “up to date” on my reviews by the way. Just putting it out there. I was chatting to a colleague at work the other day and I was glad to hear that I am in fact not the only person who makes about ten New Year’s resolutions. I mean, you know, it’s good to have spares. I have like 5 or 6 this year. Tidying up the blog is one of them. Making my reviews more up to date comes under that heading. I mean, I will keep these randoms. Because this blog has always been about me going “Oh my God you guys, you’ll never guess what I discovered!” But yeah. Let’s  not lag too far behind either. I know this isn’t the clearest possible description of what changes I have in mind for the blog but don’t worry, it will become clearer. In the meanwhile let us concentrate on a more important question. How the heck did I take nigh on 3 years to watch Drive? It’s only, oh I don’t know, one of my top 5 favourite movies.

The driver (Ryan Gosling) is a man of few words. When you talk to him, you get the feeling life has made him this way. And to be absolutely frank, the life he leads doesn’t leave him much time to be touchy – feely. By day, he is a stunt driver on Hollywood movies. By night, he is one of the best get-away drivers that can be had for the right amount of cash. Meet his terms and he is yours, no matter what. And more often than not, he will get you out of no matter what. In short, as far as driving is concerned, he has a God given talent and he is using it every single way he knows how. And he has a rather solitary if fast-paced existence until his next-door neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her little son come into his life. This in itself is not a bad thing; it’s not a bad thing at all. It’s when his relationship with his neighbours enters a head-on collision course with his dark night-time dealings that the driver reaches a very dangerous point. He will need all his courage and talent to salvage even some of the things he loves. If he makes it out alive that is.

Ok, several things. First of all, be warned this film is full of dark places. I mean, you know me. I’m all about dark places and ultra-realism and all those things that make a film… Well not a fluffy romantic comedy. You know what I mean. No. The world of the driver is hard and dark. You may, at the beginning, be tempted to judge our hero as “bad” but it soon becomes very obvious that he is just keeping his feelings under lock and key. Why? We can only imagine. Because even in the credits Ryan Gosling is listed as “Driver” –we never even learn the hero’s name. And then, a ray of sunlight enters his world. A true, bright, warm ray of sunlight he cannot help but turn to. Unfortunately though, as is often the case with these things, clouds quickly scurry on to cover the sun and the driver is left bewildered and more vulnerable than before. Because those feelings he had under lock and key were there for a reason and now innocent lives are at stake.

Ryan Gosling is absolutely marvellous as the driver. One thing I loved about the whole film is that he is completely silent for a very large part of it. It is almost the character’s trademark. This, among other things, makes it very easy for us to project ourselves onto him. Well think about it; since you’ll be using your own experiences and imagination to figure out what’s going through his head, you will create a character sympathetic to yourself. Thus, anyone who has anything marginally similar to the Driver is going to end up adoring him. You might have been down on your luck relationship-wise and feeling lonely. You might be in a job you’re not particularly happy in and desperately want to get out. You might have been unlucky enough to have been backstabbed or may, for whatever reason, feel you need to keep your emotions hidden. You will like this guy. You will find something of yourself in him. The genius of the film is the fact that it makes it so easy for you to put it there J . Oh don’t get me wrong. I love the driver too. I’m just pointing out to you I reckon this comes about.

And then of course there is the supreme contrast of this state with his changed state when Irene enters his life. Pay attention and you will see all the little details like the changes in the lighting, the softer colours… But more importantly, the Driver speaks. He smiles. And the couple work so well together, the acting is just so brilliant your heart swells. I mean, at this point a word or two needs to be said about Carey Mulligan. She is one of the brightest stars of our time and yet I love the fact that she pulls of being completely, believably normal.  Yes, even an old cynic like me was rooting for a happy ending on this one. Did I get what I wanted? Well… Like a lot of things in life – and in this film – nothing is black or white. You will have to watch the film and figure the answer out for yourselves.

What I love about this film is that it is so close to real life and I saw – as I am confident a lot of you will – so many emotions I have felt and psychological places I have found myself in. I know that some people advocate a completely different you know, restful world where all the problems are nicely tidied up and any rough edges on characters are nicely filed down by the end. Thing is, that doesn’t tap into my real emotions. Life simply does not work out like that. I find it is rare that a film grips me at the heart strings like this and has me pausing the film now and again, simply because I just feel so tense I just can’t take any more adrenaline. It will not come on you all at once, oh but it definitely will grow on you… Now go watch the darn thing…

OF DREAMS AND MONSTERS... "MARNIE"

Ok, I know you guys kinda prefer me writing about the newer things out on the cinema screen. I respect that. This is why this week is about compromises. Something old and something new. Nothing borrowed but my pyjamas are blue so that should count for something. Ehm. Moving on.  Now I picked this film because it has a little bit of something for everything I think. You may have seen the name “Alfred Hitchcock” and automatically assumed “crime and gore” well, here’s some good news for you : Not every film Hitchcock did was a derivative of Psycho. Oh no. Mr Hitchcock was a man of many, many talents not a one trick pony. So this is, in fact, a top notch psychological thriller with some romance and drama thrown in. You’ll like it. I know you will.

Marnie (Tippy Hedren) is many things for many people. She is not a “lady of the night” nor is she a special agent – she is, in fact, a secretary. But she is not exactly content with the life or salary of a secretary. She makes her “real” living changing identities and moving from job to job, robbing the safes of the companies she works for as she goes. And she has got quite a nice little side line going in this way until she stumbles into Rutland Coop. Now the dashing young owner of the company, Mark Rutland (Sean Connery) takes a shine to her. He takes a shine to her in a big way. So much so, not only does he want to “make her his” – which is easier said than done, believe you me – but he also wants to cure her of her thieving and lying. What starts as something cross between a love affair and an interesting project for him and a minor inconvenience for Marnie will end up taking the couple on an eventful journey, both psychological and physical, that will lead to more and greater discoveries than either of them could possibly imagine.

Now this is an interesting one. Firstly, it’s a Hitchcock classic as far as suspense goes. This is undoubtedly a voyage of adventure and discovery. And the added benefit? No blood or gore. That’s good news for those of you who are weaker in the stomach area. Mom, yes, that means you too. The chase this time takes place largely in the human psyche. And I have always said, our minds can dream up monsters and horrors greater than anything the “real” world can provide. Of course the construction of the story is picture perfect and you are just chomping on the bit trying to figure out where the whole thing is going, not least because Mr Hitchcock is not exactly renowned for his happy endings. He invented the concept of killing of the lead character mid plot, remember (yes, that was Hitchcock, NOT Game of Thrones).

But why is it, I pondered as I watched, that we get so enthralled in the fates of this typically good looking movie couple ? I am a romantic at heart, but it takes more than “beautiful people” and some /any premise that they are together for me to root for them. Then I did a bit more deep thinking and worked it out, well I worked out my perspective at an answer anyway. See, the film taps into what we all really, deep down inside want in life. At a certain age, we have all got hang ups, old wounds, battle scars… Things that have hurt us, that makes us suspicious or over-protective or whatever your own particular Achilles heel might be. Now, we may or may not voice it openly, as we know this is a rare occurance, but deep down, yes we would love a beautiful stranger of the gender and sexual preference of our choice to sweep us off our feet, fall madly in love with us, face up to all our excess baggage, not shy away or be daunted by it at all, and “cure us” of the baggage. Thus we emerge, perfectly healed, at peace with our past and madly in love. I mean yes, in this particular piece the couple are very “typical Hollywood” – blond beautiful woman with a set of problems clearly (and unabashedly) taken straight from Freud’s own textbooks (at least Hitchcock has the integrity to slip Freud in there too) coupled with a tall dark and handsome Sean Connery who just happens to be a millionaire and an amateur scientist (and thus in possession of the means and knowledge to cure her). I mean the premise is as unrealistic as they come, yes, bosses fall for their secretaries but it is rare that they actually stick around to “cure” them. In fact, like most people, they probably shout “excess baggage” and bail if they have as much baggage as Marnie. Then again, you are so enthralled in the story you can easily put yourself in Marnie’s shoes and have your own “dream relationship” for two hours. This, my friends is the beauty of cinema. Maybe not therapy per se, but catharsis guaranteed… 

THE SUBCONSCIOUS CAN BE A SCARY THING WHEN YOU'RE IN "TRANCE"

I’m always intrigued when multiple people tell me they “need to watch the film again to be sure they “got” what was going on. It’s usually means one of two things for me. It’s either going to be one of those annoying things you actually need a user’s manual to watch. Or it’s going to be something with really a good dollop of meat on it that I can sink my teeth into. See, I’m fussy like that. I love a good challenge. I definitely don’t like simplistic endings and half – baked storylines. God knows I’ve moaned about it here often enough. But the challenge always is, with these “multiple levels of reality” type film, not ending up with a film so sophisticated you need dedicated websites explaining it in full for people to get it. Which is why I am not a fan of Donnie Darko. But I’ll moan about that some other time. I’m happy to say, having watched Trance, it doesn’t make the sh.t list. It scrapes through. Just, in places, but it scrapes through.

As the late great John Lennon said once, life is what happens to us while we are busy making plans. You can plan something down to the last detail, you can think of every single eventuality, but in the end… Life will happen. Something will “go wrong”.  This is precisely what happens during a seemingly “perfectly” planned heist at a well-known London auction house. The auction house has stringent security systems so the heist has to be planned within an inch of its life. They have everything thought of, down to an “inside man” in the shape of the auctioneer. But then… Life happens. The criminals cannot find the picture they stole, and a blow on the head means the auctioneer, the last person who had it, cannot remember it either. The criminals are utterly desperate to get their booty back so in their desperation they hire the services of a hypnotherapist. But see, that’s the thing with things like hypnosis. Once you let someone so deep into your mind… Well… Practically anything can happen.

Ok, I have to say, I really shouldn’t have mistrusted a master like Danny Boyle. He has done a spectacular job. Don’t sit down to the film with any expectations. Or do, it won’t make much of a difference, you’ll be changing your mind as to what is happening every fifteen minutes. But don’t worry. You go for a very, very exciting ride, but you get the explanation in the end. Yes, yes it’s a tad like the much caricatured “villain explaining his master plan” scene. Don’t be disheartened by that comment though and trust me, by the time Mr Boyle has quite finished with you; you will need someone to sit you down and explain what the heck just happened. The film is fast paced, a bit like the more modern editing style that people see younger directors “accused of” a bit of that, you know,  MTV style, snappy, video clip like editing, you know what I mean. But I reckon it suits the film. It really augments that sense of disorientation that is brought about in Simon, the auctioneer – played by James McAvoy.  I think the “explanation” scene is legit also because, you are as confused as Simon by that point and the editing, the storytelling, the way the film has been structured all compliments that fact.

So, if you want something that is going to present a bit more of a challenge for you, go for Trance by all means. It is different enough so that fogies like me literally have nothing to grumble about and familiar enough so that if you are not a lover of massively complicated plotlines and convoluted films you will still not be completely alienated but actually have a real good time. And also, yes,  it totally deserves a re-watch!

YOU DON'T NEED ENNEMIES IF YOU HAVE FRIENDS LIKE "THE FRIEND FROM AMERICA"

Ok, I feel I need to give you a heads up on this one. This is by no means, shape or form easy viewing. It’s tricky, because on the surface it very much seems so – and indeed, it can be taken as such – but if you want to burrow down into the whole thing, you’re going to suddenly find there is one heck of a lot of burrowing to do. But then again, hey. It is Wim Wenders. If you’re a fan, you’re a fan because you like to burrow. I have been on the fence with him on quite a few films, but I have to put this in here because well… Say what you will he is damn good at making a truly striking film. This is one of them, without a doubt.

This is the story of Tom Ripley (Dennis Hopper). He is a wheeler- dealer and makes a living passing off imitations of famous artworks to rich clients and auction houses as genuine. While he has a several fingers in some rather dark pies, however, that’s about as far as he is prepared to go. So when one of his “darker” acquaintances calls in an old favour and asks him to kill a man, Tom is not exactly overjoyed at the prospect. But ducking and diving is his “thing”, so he is quick to spot an easy way out: a German restorer and picture framer he ran into on his travels, Jonathan Zimmerman. Now the man doesn’t actually lead a double life as a hit man, but he is severely ill. There are rumours going round that he is at death’s door. So surely,  a man with nothing (well, almost nothing) left to lose should be easy enough to convince? Right? After all, everyone has their price. Unfortunately though, these kinds of things tend to have a habit of not being as “clean cut” as they first seem. And with a complete novice to the underworld in the picture as well, things could get very ugly, very quickly.

Now, you can watch this film with no “burrowing” at all. It is a rather “film noir” ish thriller. And an arm-chair gripper of a thriller it is too (is that a thing?). I love the ambiguity that comes with a lot of Wenders’ films, it is rather close to life. Possibly too close for comfort for some. The characters are, like a lot of us, neither quite one thing nor the other. This puts you in the rather bizarre position of neither being able to get too angry with the “villain” nor quite sympathize with the protagonist. I think it’s this feeling of detachment that gives the film its realistic edge and doesn’t quite allow you to “submerge” yourself into it. I mean, it’s a “thing”, you either like it or you don’t. I’m a fan. It gives you time to think – which is the aim of making a film like this of course. You can’t get people completely immersed in a film then expect them to extract complex political and philosophical messages from it.

And there is a lot of deep questions to be asked here. I have read multiple reviews and ranges from the philosophical (specifically whether it is “ok” to kill a criminal The type of thing we have been discussing since Crime and Punishment) to the political, reading the relationship between Zimmermann and Ripley as an allegory of the relationship between East Germany and USA back in the day. I don’t really want to comment on it too much, because it’s one of those films where you’re going to get as many interpretations as you have viewers. I don’t want to influence you. Give it a gander (or possibly two) and see for yourself.

But I can promise you that, by Wim Wenders’ standards it’s a pretty damn accessible film. And even if you don’t want to “burrow”, it’s definitely a fun film to watch just for the sake of the story. Tell you what, watch it with a few friends with strong opinions. You’ll have a whale of a time discussing it afterwards J

"KAFKA" - AND YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON LIFE...

Now, in our family it is often me who calls up Mom and gives her a list of things to watch. I am the big “movie watcher” in the family and Mom, it has to be said (sorry Mom) is a creature of habit when it comes to the kinds of films she watches. I mean don’t get me wrong, once I manage to chide her out of her comfort zone she’s often glad I did it, but it does take work. Usually. This is why when she actually sat down and watched a film by Sodebergh completely on her own volition, I was surprised. I was even more surprised when she loved it and insisted I watched it too. I had put the film duly on my list, but when it transpired she had gone as far was watching it twice in the same week, I knew I had to pull it up to the top of the list.

Franz Kafka (Jeremy Irons) is a clerk in an insurance office in the city. The city is much like all others, except that it’s administrative hub is The Castle. The officials from The Castle make sure order is constant and everyone knows their place.  And Kafka’s place is a particularly non-descript one, deep in a world where it pays not to stick out too much. And Kafka fulfils his duty of keeping to himself a little too well. He writes in his spare time and has a problematic relationship with a lady friend /fiancée of yore but apart from that there are very few people in his life. This is why it spikes more of his attention than average when Eduard, a colleague and one of his few friends, goes missing. The official channels hand out the usual explanations and soon his fears are realised and Kafka is called to identify the body of his friend on the mortician’s slab. Kafka is deeply saddened by this. But he also has something most of his colleagues don’t seem to possess: an inquiring mind. And the more he uses it, the more he begins to realise something doesn’t quite scan. The deeper he digs the fancier the conspiracy theories seem to become and at first Kafka will have nothing to do with them but then… Kafka runs out of explanations until he is only left with the unthinkable. And the only way to confirm his suspicions is to somehow break in to The Castle and find out…

There are several ways you can take this film. On the surface, you can assume it’s a simple thriller. And in that sense, it does its job beyond admirably. You will be gripping the arms of your seats and there is at least one jump-scare in there that will have you bodily leaping out of said seats. Jeremy Irons is perfect, so are his rather admirable co-actors Joel Grey and Alec Guinness. But one can’t help but stop and wonder whether that is really all the film is about.

Now, as the film is actually set in Prague you might actually think that “the officials” who conspire against the people and make the subversives “disappear” is an allusion to the Soviet occupation of the city – and I must say I thought of that myself for a while but then I realised… Well hang on, Kafka died in 1924. That’s even before the Nazis, much less the Soviets. It’s a mighty strange choice of protagonist if that’s the true aim of the film, one would have thought they would have put a bit more of an emphasis on Kafka, a turn of the century man, trying to adapt to Soviet ways… At this point, I took a leaf out of Kafka’s book and dug a little deeper. Like Kafka, my digging was rewarded with an uncomfortable truth.

The anonymity of the city, of the officials, of Kafka’s place of work is not really simply artistic licence. He is not “interpreting” some period or another. It is, in fact, the life we live. The world we live in. Kafka is, in fact, a beautiful and painful testament of an individual trying to come to terms with the fact that we live in a world that pushes us away from our individuality and towards conformism. Oh come on, I’m not romanticising, you know it’s true. I know you know. In the film, Kafka is not young, he has been in his position for a number of years now. But you know the feeling you got when you started your first full time job? You know, that grey, numb, nameless feeling when you looked down at the rush hour crowd around you as you came down the escalator when you were commuting to or from work? That sinking feeling you got when you thought “what a beautiful day” but then realised you were going to be at work all day? That heart ache when you realised your paint brushes / musical instrument / books/ whatever the particular tools of your artistic dream used to be are now under several inches of dust because work doesn’t leave you the time or the energy? What about when you realised you had the same phone /hair cut /clothes (possibly more than one of the above) as your colleagues? You laughed, but didn't you feel a certain, soreness that is hard to name? That’s what this film is about. It is not a “happy” film by any stretch of the imagination. But it does such a good job of putting a feeling into motion and making a thriller out of it that well… You MUST see it. Joel Grey’s perfect characterisation of the petty official whose work has become his entire life is work watching on its own. He obsesses over every detail and is draconian about the observation of the most meaningless rules. I mean, EVERYONE knows at least someone like that… You don’t? Oh that’s dangerous… I advise a long hard look in the mirror. It might not be too late. 

THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS MISSED BY "THE PAPERBOY"

Well, with Lee Daniels’ The Butler looming on the horizon, no time like the present for a Lee Daniels mini-retrospective! Oh, you know how I love long words. What I really mean is that I got a chance to see The Paperboy recently – and grabbed. I was quite excited to see it too, I loved Precious and this was a true story too. A true crime story to be precise and you all know by now that I have a huge “gory tooth” as far as true crime goes. I checked the imdb score – it wasn’t high – but I didn’t let that trouble me as I have found that my view of a film often doesn’t match up with its review. This time however… Heartbreak and disappointment I’m afraid. The film made its way onto the blog from the sheer amount of potential it holds. And because well, it’s my blog and I want to rant.

Charlotte Bless (Nicole Kidman) is in a very deeply passionate relationship with Hilary Van Wetter (Jon Cusack). This may sound like a normal enough sentence but there is one problem. Mr Van Wetter is on death row for murder and he and Charlotte have barely met face to face. This is by no means Charlotte’s first prison pen-pal, but it is definitely the most passionate affair she has been in. She is determined that it is fate that brought her and Hilary together and that she will find a way to get him out of prison. To this end, she contacts Ward Jensen (Matthew McConaughey), a reporter whom she asks to prove, somehow, that Hilary is innocent. Hilary and his partner Yardley Acheman (David Oyelowo) begin to look into the case and there are indeed some technicalities in the story that have been overlooked. Well and even if they lacked motivation, Charlotte is quite a character… So much so that Ward’s younger brother Jack (Zac Effron) is absolutely besotted with her, following her and the investigation around wherever it may lead. One thing is for sure: Charlotte is onto something. It’s just that it may not quite be what she thinks it is…

One thing I can take my hat off to Mr Daniels for is this: He sure knows how to pick a story. Think of his two other “true story” films, Precious and now the up-coming The Butler… And as we all know, the backbone to a good film is a good story. After all, we go to “watch” a film, it is a very visual experience and how the story unrolls is very important, but it is easy to be accused of being all flash and fire and no substance, like a lot of action based films. (Latest example to that being Neil Bomkamp’s Elysium). Now this film has substance. It has tension, it has huge conflict, so we’re all set for a good show, right?

Well… See, you might find it hard to believe with a film of this kind, where there is no CGI, no special effects, no monsters or robots, but what Lee Daniels does here is, sorry to say, exactly the same thing. The visual side of it is… Well  I don’t want to say all wrong but, it’s… It’s too much. It’s totally ok (hey, it might even be considered compulsory) for a director to try new visuals, new editing styles and to insert a little bit of dead time here and there purely for “effect”. When Mr Daniels was adding the dead time though, clearly the lid fell off the jar as it were. The first 10 minutes of the film, aside from the lengthy exposition (the combination of Macy Gray’s accent with rather iffy sound equipment made the narration nigh-on impossible to understand even for us native English speakers) there was a lot of emphasis on how Jack used to be a swimmer, and him “posing”. Clearly Mr Effron’s body made quite an impression as it is masqueraded throughout the film; it even gets its own little spotlight slap bang in the middle of a chase sequence (I mean, if there was any other point of cutting to memories of him swimming in the pool right when he was being chased by a murderer in a swamp do let me know, I am at a loss). But it’s not just that. The whole “superficiality” reduces a lot of emotion that we feel ought to be present in the film to mere surfaces. It is clear that Miss Bless puts more emphasis on her looks than her character for example. Fine, cinematic history is full of characters like that. But that reduces the chemistry that clearly exists between her and Jack to a kind of Barbie-Ken type relationship. This is a tad unfortunate because they are supposed to be the most important characters in the film. And once we fail to empathize with them, the film is pretty much lost.

And another thing. The editing is clearly inspired from 80’s – 90’s tv shows. There are effects in there I haven’t seen on a screen for over a decade. I realised as a I watched, there was a good reason for that. Now, it may be one of two things, either it is meant to further insert us into the period, or, the editing is just doing “all it can” to draw attention to itself.  This is a valid cinematic point, you know, the whole nouvelle vague message of not getting immersed in the film, the conscious viewer and all of that. However, taken in context I find this improbable. When we look at films like Precious or The Butler (for the last one I’m basing myself more on the trailer than anything else of course), while the filming styles are quite different, the aim is very much to tell the story. And Lee Daniels’ The Butler is already being earmarked for the Oscars ® in some circles which definitely says something about how “out there” and philosophical it is. No, if there was a consistent philosophical aim, I’m sure we would have seen it before…  So maybe it’s one of those days where you’re torn between a few different items of jewellery and end up wearing them all… And looking like a Christmas tree.

So I reckon The Paperboy is very much a missed opportunity. And to me, a clear lesson that a story can easily become the victim of the visual. There is a whole philosophical debate in there somewhere on which is the true “heart” of cinema, but I’ll leave that for another post. There are only so many tangents a blog post can take. 

A LOOK INTO THE DARK PAST : "MISSISSIPPI BURNING"

Ok. You know how a lot of movie genres work right? There are a few “ancestral” films – as it were – that come with a convention, a “something”. And they do it so well that tons of other films try to copy it, and succeed to a greater or larger extent, creating a “movie convention”. I have discovered one of these ancestral movies ladies and gents. It is not much of a momentous discovery as such, as the film is quite well known generally speaking. It’s just that I had never watched it before.

So, if you watch a lot of crime drama and thrillers (ehm), you will be aware of one convention: the older versus younger cop. They are put together as a team to solve a momentous crime. The young cop has passion, the older, more cynical cop has the wisdom of years on his side. They clash at first, but then find a common path and use their respective strengths to put baddies behind bars. Yeah. I have a sneaking suspicion this is the film that others copied. If not the ultimate original, it definitely “does it” so well that it sure deserves to be counted among the great forefathers. I mean, to the point that, writing the review a day later I am still “hot under the collar” about it. And the best part? It was based on real life…

Our story starts in a small town in Mississippi, in the year 1964. Segregation is still very much a lifestyle in America, but the winds of change have finally begun to blow. African-Americans have finally got the right to vote but unfortunately, the battle does not end there. There is the whole matter of actually getting people registered and voting, and if the bigots of the country have anything to do with it, that won’t be happening any time soon… Luckily there are those more than willing to stand up to these bullies and three civil rights workers, one black and two white, are trying to work with the black community to get voter registration complete.                Until, that is, they go missing. A team from the FBI is sent to investigate as the area is known to be volatile, showing a strong presence of the KKK. The two agents are the young and passionate Agent Alan Ward (a Willem Dafoe so young I barely recognised him) and the older, more experienced Agent Rupert Anderson (Gene Hackman) who used to be the sheriff of a small town just like this one.  The personality clash between them kicks off as early as on the drive down, but the moment they arrive it is very clear indeed that all is not well in the town. Agent Ward, the lead investigator on this case, is full of passion and is ready to move Heaven and earth to bring the killers to justice. However, Agent Anderson knows that in this close-knit and complex community, the strong-arm approach is simply not going to work. As Agent Ward’s approach seems to be doing more harm than good, it is up to Agent Anderson to rein him in, the question is can he? And more importantly, will their powers combined be enough to uncover the dark secrets of this town?

Ok, first of all, if you watch this film, keep an eye on Gene Hackman for what is, in my opinion, one of the greatest “raaah” moments on television. To those of you familiar with the movie I mean the scene where he goes to the social club on his own. It’s like all the Clint Eastwood movies you can think of rolled together and made ten times better. I’m not even a particular fan of Clint Eastwood movies. But there you are. Powerful stuff.      

That is not the only thing powerful about the film however. I would go as far as claiming you had a heart of stone if you didn’t become rather emotional and angry upon watching this film. There are many famous reviews and articles about the film and one of the main objections seems to be that  the events were very much distorted and exaggerated for dramatic effect. A criticism to which the director responded by saying it was a work of fiction not a documentary. And I must say, when you are able to (heck, if you are able to) distance yourself from the emotions stirred up by this film you will find that yes, some of the things that happened do seem a little OTT. There is that and the second criticism that the black population is shown as mere passive victims – which is also a fair comment in my view.

However another thing to remember about this film is, I think, that it is more about emotions than the exact representations of facts. It is about the terror the KKK spread in certain areas and the hopelessness felt by the people fighting for their civil rights  and with the prejudices  -  that were much more deeply set – even after the legal changes have been achieved. It seems ridiculous to me that anyone should have ever thought segregation was a good idea (and thankfully most of the world’s population now agrees with me) but it is good to remember how bad things once were, especially since we live in a world where prejudices of all sorts are still strong. Think gay rights for example, and all the people around the world fighting for marriage equality to name but one. Yes the world still has a good distance to go as far as peace and harmony goes. But it is good to remember that we have come a good distance already. And if we can do this while enjoying a good thriller of the armchair-gripping variety, well… What more could one want, really?

THE SCARIEST JOURNEY IS SOMETIMES THE ONE INTO YOUR OWN MIND : "FELICIA’S JOURNEY"

Oooh guys and dolls – this is all very exciting! We may have spotted my first ever sense of déjà vu! People who know me in real life may know this little quirk I have – at the age of 30 I can honestly say I have NEVER had déjà vu in my life. I strongly suspect it may be something completely made up by script writers and novelists but then again, the rest of the planet seems to disagree with me so I’m not entirely sure where that leaves us… Anyway, about this film. Well, for the entire first half of it, I could have sworn blind I had seen it before. I just couldn’t for the life of me figure out when and where. It was just a continual sense of familiarity, coupled almost – almost mind – with a sense of what the next picture would be. This sense sort of petered out towards the middle and vanished at the end. I may have become self-conscious. Then again, there is a much higher possibility I watched it when I was far too young to have a clue what it was about and got bored towards the middle. Well, either that or I got caught by my mother who put a stop to the whole thing. Good thing too really – if I was so young I can’t even remember it now, there was no way on earth I would have truly grasped what was happening. Oh. See what I did there, destroyed my own theory. *Sigh*. Oh well no déjà vu again. I guess I shall have to swallow my disappointment and get to my review…

Joe Hildich (supremely portrayed by Bob Hoskins) is an elderly catering manager. Living alone but seemingly content, he fills his time left free from work with experiments in the kitchen and re-watching tapes of Gala,  television chef with which he is seemingly a tiny bit obsessed  but hey,  we all need a hobby. His path crosses with Felicia. Felicia is a young girl from rural Ireland and seems a tad bit on the naïve side. She is looking for her boyfriend. She neither knows her boyfriend’s address or his place of work but it’s somewhere in the city. Making parts for lawnmowers. Possibly. As you can imagine her search isn’t going that well, so Mr Hildich takes her under his wing. This is a good thing, right? Not necessarily. This is not yet another cutesy film about a naïve pure heart giving a lease of life to a lonely old man. Well what is it then? I hear you cry. Dear reader, you will have to just watch, and see.

Ok, I need to do a bit more research but I may have found a new director to be crazily obsessed with. Atom Egoyan. I had heard a lot about him, and yet he was one of those many greats I simply hadn’t got round to yet. I now kick myself for the delay. As you can imagine, the whole “set-up” of the story is an entry point. An entry point to something sinister that you will not receive any clues about. I don’t want you to have clues because that is precisely the point of the film. There is seemingly nothing wrong with the picture to start with. But that weird aftertaste, that “something you can’t put your finger on” persists. It grows. It grows before you even quite know yourself what you’re so tense or nervous about. Then it hits you. And for the rest of the film you are left a juddering mass of “well what comes next??” It is rare that I am completely clueless about a storyline. I absolutely love it when it happens. Especially in film this good. This kind of film is also a dying breed, if you will. These days, psychology seems to have fallen by the wayside, being taken over in popularity by monsters and such like in horror, and action heroes or romances in general. In fact, and I say this often, there is nothing as scary as the human mind if you look at it up close. I don’t know, maybe that’s why we’ve stopped looking up close. Then again, if you’re like me, you ‘ll be all over the really scary stuff, even if it gives you terrible nightmares later (since I don’t remember most of my dreams either that’s a bit of a cop-out for me too. Yes, I do rather suspect there may be something odd going on what with the déjà vu thing and this, but that’s a different story. I think). Suffice it to say my dears; I haven’t watched anything this creepy in a very, VERY long time. This is old school quality of the highest degree – perfect for old-school peeps like yours truly…  

TOE-CURLING TERROR :"PANIC ROOM"

Ok, embarrassing confession time. I almost saw this film in cinema years ago. I walked out in the middle. It is one of about 3 films I have walked out of, because , a true film fan as it were, I am always curious as to what is going to happen in the end, even though the film is not “going well” for me. I remember I was with friends at the time; we all seem to have agreed… Although to be fair, I don’t exactly remember what our objection was. But at a guess, it may just have been that the tension just got to us. This, people, is one of the most “toe-curling” films I have watched in a very, very long time… But then again, with David Fincher at the helm, I honestly cannot expect anything less.

Newly divorced Meagan (Jodie Foster) and her sassy teenage daughter Sarah (Kristen Steward – otherwise known as Bella Swan, this was long before the Twilight saga of course) have just moved into their new home – and what a home it is too! Snapped up at a bargain, it is a three story house that once belonged to an eccentric millionaire. It comes equipped with all the mod-cons but also an elevator and a Panic Room. Now for those of us who didn’t know, a panic room is a high security room you can lock yourself in if intruders break in. There is no way in for the intruders and you have a secure line, not connected to the main landline in the home, you can call the police with. Except of course, if you are Meagan and forget to hook up the line. This does not come in handy at all when, on their first night there, intruders break into the house and Meagan and Sarah, terrified, lock themselves in the panic room. There are, however, two problems. Firstly, Sarah is diabetic and there is no insulin in the panic room either so unless they can somehow get out  and get to her medication, she will die. Secondly, these aren’t any old robbers who will just go through the family possessions and leave. They are looking for something very specific, and as luck would have it this thing is hidden in… You guessed it. The panic room.

As a side note, I just want to add that the intruders are played by Jared Leto, Forrest Whitaker and Dwight Yoakam (country music star and a damn good actor in case you hadn’t heard of him).  Now, if there is one thing Fincher is an absolute master of, it is thrillers. The tension creeps up on you so quickly and so inexorably, you are on edge pretty much from beginning to end, even in the sequences when you can pretty much guess what will happen next because, you know… I mean what if it doesn’t? This is compounded by Fincher’s mastery of the “in the meanwhile” type shots. You know, when you are told and shown, in various ways what two different groups in the film are doing at the same instant, that kind of thing always gives me the chills, especially if it is used as well as Fincher uses it. I watched this film as part of a personal project more than anything else and never, ever, in all my born days did I expect to enjoy it so much. It left me, as most Fincher films tend to, mentally exhausted and in need of watching something you know, simple. Easy to follow. Just to rest my brain – and my cardio vascular system. If you want a movie to make your evening fly by, this is the one folks – go right for it!

RETURN OF THE CLASSICS IN "THE DEBT"

Well, I guess the news was going to hit the airwaves at some point, there is a boyfriend in my life as of quite recently (haha that got you didn’t it baby?). And the reason I mention him in this particular post is that this film is mainly his discovery. (I mean, of course he’s into movies, could you imagine it being otherwise? J ) Anyhow, we watched this together the other night, and it was so absolutely riveting that I had to share it with you. I mean, put your hands on your hearts, everyone likes a good thriller. Especially a spy thriller.

The story is that of three Mossad agents that went to East Berlin in 1965. Their mission is a dangerous one, to capture and bring to justice one of the most notorious Nazi villains in history. The mission is carried out and goes down in history with its success, the three agents taking their places amongst the most famous Israelis in history. However, the glamour and success they live with conceals secrets. The secrets are both personal and professional and have given a bitter edge to their fame and fortune, unbeknown to all but the three of them. And as we all know by now, the past has this annoying habit of not staying buried. 30 year later, someone needs to go back undercover to salvage not only their reputations, but their very lives...

I know, we are all somewhat divided about spy films in the first place. And at first glance, the film seems to pack a few too many clichés into one film. Spies during the Cold War with Second World War overtones thrown in, combined with the “Jews vs the Nazis” paradigm AND a love triangle (this is not really a spoiler, it is pretty self-evident from the moment we see the main protagonists, one woman and two men). Not to mention the “secret from the past that doesn’t remain buried” thing. I mean wow. I would really understand if you took one look at the synopsis and ran for lack of original content alone. But hear me out, because despite all this, the film has a lot, and I do mean a lot, going for it.

Think about it, clichés are actually clichés for a reason, it was  because they have been “done” way too often. And the reason they were done often is, presumably, because at one point, before we decided that it was cheesy and “uncool”, it (whatever it may be) was considered cool. And popular.  This means that there is something we would potentially enjoy a lot in any of “it”, provided it is done well. The same goes for anything with multiple “cheesy” factors in it – as long as they are all done well, there is nothing really wrong with it. And this film does do a sterling job of everything. First of all, and perhaps most importantly the acting is absolutely superb. The cast numbers names such as Helen Mirren, Sam Worthington, Tom Wilkinson and Sam Worthington. The director, John Madden, uses every classic spy-film trick in the book to keep us on the edges of our seats from the word go. The main action is psychological, which is also good, it doesn’t really rely that much on flashy fights and special effects like some films of the genre do (James Bond is a spy as well technically, don’t forget). So I mean, yeah, the film can be considered a tad old fashioned in some ways. But just because a way you do something is old, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong. Take a good, old fashioned Martini for example... But maybe that’s the topic of another post all together... 

THE SECRET LIFE OF "THE RED SQUIRREL" / LA ARDILLA ROJA

Allrighty. Time for a bit of Spanish spice and salsa methinks. But this film is NOT your typical Spanish film. Nor was it directed by Almodovar. Now, I specify that because in some circles, I am getting the impression, Almodovar’s name and Spanish cinema are getting entangled in a way that Depardieu and Reno’s names are getting entangled in French cinema. As in, we don’t seem to see a film from France without one of the two actors in it. This, however, would be slightly unfair on the rest of French cinema. The same is true for Almodovar and Spain. Almodovar is one of my categorically favourite directors, but there are some really good films out there that he didn’t actually direct. This is one of them. And I really want to share it because this film really impressed me. It starts off looking as if it’s going to be something quite mundane –a very dear friend and I were watching it for a lecture and were unsure as to why the lecturer would ask us to watch it in the first place – but as the film progressed, it turned into something so exciting and so extraordinary that it made its mark on the entire year (not least because, much to our frustration, the film was slightly longer than our slot in the viewing room so we had to fast forward the end first, then watch it properly later).  But anyway. Enough talk. Let’s get on with this thing.

Having broken up with his girlfriend of many years, Jota has decided that life, all in all, is really not worth living. He is on a bridge contemplating ending it all when he witnesses a motorcycle accident. The driver – who turns out to be a young woman – is badly hurt so Jota calls an ambulance. When the young woman tells the doctors she cannot even remember her own name, Jota steps in. He invents a name and a past for her, pretending her name is Lisa and that they have been living together for many years. Soon, when her physical injuries heal, Lisa is discharged with no apparent sign of her memory returning… The couple decide to take a few days off and go camping. Which is where the whole thing begins to fall apart. Not only does Jota begin to suspect Lisa may actually remember things she is not telling him, other characters begin to appear on the scene that begin to cast doubt both on Jota’s story and on Lisa’s. The rest is such a surreal masterpiece that I really do not want to give more away but believe me, you will NOT see what is coming.

This film manages so many things at once. First of all it is a world class thriller. Seriously, Hitchcock himself would be proud to sign his name under it, it’s that good. Another director that supports the film is, the internet informs us, Kubrick who apparently said it was among his favourite films.  I have not actual proof of this statement but I would not be at all surprised if it were true…  Because seriously, it is THAT good. You may think, for example, that sticking surreal bits into a thriller would  be a bad idea  no matter how good the thriller was – or possible especially IF  the thriller is that good. No. When it is done well, it is done well. Serving venison in chocolate sauce does not sound like a good idea on the surface either but it is a delicacy (ask Gordon Ramsey if you don’t believe me) served in very expensive restaurants. Same here. You may also think that the plot is a little too cliché to be as good as I say. Ah but you see, to every story there is a kernel of cliché, no matter which way you slice it. It is the original treatment of it as detailed above, coupled with the great acting and the intelligent plot twists that mean that this film is something properly special. On the other hand, let me just point out that when I say surreal, don’t think it’s going to go all arty on you and shy away. Oh no. It is very tastefully done, at just the right amount. Besides, you’ll be so caught up in the story that I’m pretty sure that even if you positively loath surrealism, you could forgive it, just to get to the bottom of things…

FACING "THE GHOST (WRITER)" OF HIS PAST...

I am not quite sure where this borderline obsession with Roman Polanski stems from. It  wasn’t a “wow” moment for me. Like Kubrick for example. I saw Clockwork Orange and the film shook me up so much that I simply had to watch everything he did. Same with Tarantino. I saw Pulp Fiction – I had to see them all. Not Polanski. Of course his “reputation” usually precedes him. You hear the stories, the arguments back and forth. You decide to watch a film or two he did, just to get a view into the mind of the man. Then another. Then, oh incidentally another seems to come your way. Oh, there’s another Polanski in the bargain baskets – shame to leave it there really… Before you know it, you turn around and you’ve actually watched almost everything he has directed. It’s like that moment you look down at the box of chocolates you had on your lap to find that you’ve actually finished the box without realising it. Or a typical Captain Jack Sparrow “Where has all the rum gone?” moment.  Polanski is a versatile director with a great many talents but I think suspense is very much his forte.  So I honestly think this political thriller plays to his strengths and coupled with some rather brilliant acting from actors like Ewan McGregor and Pierce Brosnan, it makes for the kind of thriller that makes you wave your arms and squeal at the television set at key moments. (Yes, this really happened. The fact that I was alone in the house at the time only adds to the um… Atmosphere…).

Ewan McGregor plays an ordinary ghost writer with an extraordinary assignment. He has been hired to complete the memoirs of a former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (Pierce Brosnan) after the tragic suicide of the former ghost writer on the job. Mr Lang has retired to the USA and lives on an island with his wife and core staff. The ghost (whose name we never discover, rather poignantly) starts doing a good job on the memoirs, but soon their work is interrupted by Lang getting embroiled in a political scandal. This affair obviously stirs up a lot of emotions and events, from which The Ghost begins to glean, firstly, that his predecessor may not actually have committed suicide. That secondly, he may have discovered something that meant that he now “knew too much” and had to be disposed of. Then, he realises what his predecessor has discovered… The question is can he “survive” the consequences of this discovery?

As I said, one thing Polanski is a master of is racking up the suspense. And his method, I have found, very much lies in his minimalism. You see, there are hints. Subtle hints. But that is just what they are, hints. In some more mainstream films, one has to admit, the “hints” take the form of large neon signs and arrows. No, these are tiny. So in the first instance we are hanging onto the edges of our seats desperately scrutinising the screen trying to figure out where the next tiny clue might be. We know it’s there somewhere we’re just not…quite… And then there is another thing. A lot of Polanski’s films are very much based on dialogue. There is A LOT of talking. And not necessarily much in the way of illustration of what is being said. Now this is a risky method, it has to be said, but as Polanski often works with the best actors around; it almost never blows back into his face. But the result is, of course that not only are we desperately searching for clues, we are hanging on to every word that is being uttered to figure out the next twist. Then we catch something. We follow it through into the next sequences… Oh my God, hang on, NO!! The reason this is so successful is that Polanski’s world is, in its subtleties, very close to the real world. No massive, weird coincidences, no  “neon lights” pointing the way, little clues. And these little clues make us all the more uncomfortable. So no, you will feel no surge of adrenaline or wave of fear. You will, however, have millions of niggling little questions. You will, with a growing sense of dread, piece them together with The Ghost, picking up an answer here and an answer there. And as you go through your discoveries with The Ghost, who at some point becomes your partner in crime (Metaphorically) I defy you not to wave your arms at the television at certain key moments… A truly brilliant watch. Do NOT miss it.  

A BLAST FROM THE PAST FOR A CLASSIC : "BLOOD SIMPLE"

I hate to sound biased but the Coen Brothers are my favorite writer/director / producers ever. I have spoken of them before, and be warned, I definitely plan to speak of them again. And as you all know, most of their films make headlines, but you may not have heard of this one… I’m talking about Blood Simple, their first feature film. And anyone who saw that film saw them coming…
So, I hear you cry, what is the story-line, how does it go ? Well, actually it’s a pretty typical Coen Borthers film. You know what I mean, just cast your mind back to their other films. An innocent looking story begins. Then suddenly an unpredictable and often violent character enters the scene. Suddenly the story has gone in a direction you NEVER thought it would. And the true beauty of all this is that the movie is quality every time and you willingly go for it every time, if only just to see what the twist will be this time…
Well, this one’s no different, in story and in quality. I mean it got the grand prize at the Sundance film festival and that’s saying something for a first feature. At the beginning we have a simple matter of infidelity on our hands. Julian Marty is a particularly unpleasant man. He runs a bar in a small town and gives both his wife and his employees a hard time 24 / 7. His wife is called Abby, and unsurprisingly she is seeking affection elsewhere, namely in a bar worker called Ray. Julian Marty may be many things but a fool he is not. Soon he guesses there is trouble afoot and hires a private detective to confirm this. Once the affair is out in the open though, Abby moves out and gets ready to start a new life with Ray. Not so easy with Julian around. He contacts the detective again and asks him to do the one sensible thing he can think of – killing them both. The private detective however has a much better plan and is not afraid to put it into action. However, his decision has rather unexpected consequences…
As we all know, knowledge is power. The Coen brothers play unashamedly with this concept for the full 91 minutes. Throughout the film we are totally confused by who knows what and we are unable to guess what these people will do with the knowledge they have. The Coen brothers being the Coen brothers, they rarely react the way you think they will. The result is a arm-chair arm gripping nail biter from beginning to end. You’d be a fool to miss it; it will be a classic if it isn’t one already.