The Limits of Control

Director: Jim Jarmusch
Starring: Isaach De Bankole, Paz de la Huerta & John Hurt

Another meditative drama from Jarmusch that will please most fans but frustrate audiences not already familiar with the director’s style.

As several other, independent, directors have done recently (Woody Allen with Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Wes Anderson with The Darjeeling Limited), Jim Jarmusch has followed suit in relocating the action of his latest film to foreign climes. The Limits of Control is similar in theme and approach as many of Jarmusch’s other films but in moving the location from America to Spain allows Jarmusch to allow his camera to linger on the beautiful locations and vistas that Spain has to offer. European in his approach to storytelling already, Jarmusch’s latest film will please his fans and the use of locations may please some other film goers.

The Lone Man (De Bankole) is an agent, a supposed assassin, hired to fulfil a job in Spain. Given directions to wait at cafés, enjoy local sights and await further instructions as to his target and their location, the Lone Man meets a variety of colourful agents at various Spanish locations, each with their own philosophies on life and art and imagination that may, or may not, aid him in the completion of his assignment.

While The Limits of Control holds plenty that will satisfy fans of Jim Jarmusch, the film itself, while entertaining, occasionally feels lacking through its assemblage of various familiar traits and themes from Jarmusch’s previous films. With the lone assassin recalling Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai and the frequent conversations over coffee recalling Coffee & Cigarettes, even Broken Flowers in it’s episodic approach to the Lone Man’s encounters and the frequent familiar faces from Jarmusch’s past films, The Limits of Control sometimes feels as though Jarmusch is drawing too much on past works than developing anything new, much like Almodovar in his recent effort Broken Embraces. However, the pieces do work together fairly well and still satisfy and where The Limits of Control does impress is in its use of Spain as a location. Using Christopher Doyle, known from the works of Wong Kar Wai, as cinematographer means Jarmusch has a film that looks beautiful and when the camera lingers on one of Jarmusch’s many scenes of meditation and contemplation, the scenery enriches the scenes and the film. The lack of a plot will no doubt frustrate audiences unfamiliar with Jarmusch’s work, but there are hints of a political sub-text below the surface with the Lone Man’s contacts representing various nations opposed to US actions and the Lone Man’s target referred later as just the American.

Featuring an impressive cast of talented actors, many having worked with Jarmusch before, The Limits of Control features many likeable, if brief, performances. Tilda Swinton, John Hurt and Gael Garcia Bernal all appear as various contacts of the Lone Man’s, each reciting their musings on art, film, music and life in engaging style and each represented as more casual looking and dishevelled than the last (perhaps representing the Lone Man’s need to let go of control and embrace his imagination if he is to complete his assignment). Paz de la Huerta is engaging as the film’s equivalent to a femme fatale but it is Isaach De Bankole who truly engages throughout as the Lone Man. De Bankole, a frequent collaborator with Jarmusch, is an actor who embodies quiet cool. His character, the Lone Man, rarely speaks in the film so it is good that De Bankole, with a face and a demeanour that draws attention and impresses silently, is cast in the film’s leading role.

Overall, while drawing a little too much on the director’s past films to stand up as one of his best, The Limits of Control will still satisfy fans of Jarmusch and many will certainly be impressed by the lush cinematography and the Spanish locations. Newcomers though may be frustrated by the film’s slow pace and meditative tone. A film mainly for independent film and Jarmusch fans.

Rating: 3/5

Avatar

Director: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana & Sigourney Weaver

Stunning effects and use of 3D makes Avatar the ground breaking blockbuster James Cameron promised the film to be with it being incredibly impressive and entertaining in spite of a fairly predicable and average plotline.

Approximately 14 years in the making and requiring technological advancements in special effects so sophisticated that, director, James Cameron had to build them himself, Avatar finally reaches the big screen utilising the latest in CGI and 3D effects to present a world and a film experience beyond anything yet seen in cinemas and like Cameron’s previous films such as Terminator, Terminator 2 and Titanic, pushing forward the future of effects driven blockbusters. The resulting film is certainly impressive visually with CGI people and creatures as realistic look as live action and 3D used well enough to make the film’s environment and its action sequences truly breathtaking however, the story on which Avatar is based is still fairly clichéd in plotting and dialogue but this is more than made up for by the sheer spectacle of the film.

It is 2154 and soldier Jake Sully (Worthington) who lost the use of his legs in a previous battle is given the chance to walk again in a new body when, following the death of his twin brother, he is enlisted to take his brother’s place in the Avatar Program which will allow him control of an alien body with which to engage and negotiate with an alien population called the Na’vi on an alien world which possesses valuable minerals the human race needs. Initially sent in by his military commander to infiltrate the Na’vi and find a way to get them to relocate their home for the human’s mining operation, Sully finds himself coming to know and love the Na’vi people after meeting a female Na’vi named Neytiri (Saldana). When it becomes obvious that Na’vi will not relocate, Sully is torn between helping the Na’vi survive an oncoming military assault to remove them by force and with his loyalty to his own race and the promise of his commander to restore his ability to walk in his human body.

The plot of Avatar won’t be what audiences really remember the film for and the plot itself is actually fairly average and follows the well worn tale of: Man sent to infiltrate foreign culture, falls in love with a woman there and the culture, finds himself torn between love and duty. Fortunately, as average as the plot itself and some of the dialogue is, the story is satisfactory enough to allow Cameron to develop a new world, that of Pandora, with which to use his advancements in CGI and 3D effects and the visuals are certainly stunning. With much of the film surrounding the Na’vi people, a race of tall, blue skinned aliens, it is important that they appear realistic and they do. Solving the dead eye problem that has plagued many a CGI humanoid character in earlier blockbuster films, Avatar’s CGI effects, particularly in bringing the Na’vi to life, are impressive with the Na’vi able to display a full range of expressions which is helped that several are made to resemble the actors providing their voices like Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana. The use of 3D in Avatar is also stunning and rather than used for cheap, gimmicky ‘shots out at the audience’ moments, it is instead utilised to give a greater sense of depth and scale to the world of Pandora which looks and feels as close to a realistic representation of an alien environment as audiences are ever likely to experience and with the use of CGI and 3D complementing each other effectively to make Avatar’s many action sequences truly breathtaking.

While character’s in Avatar are very much stereotypical or straying close to stereotype such as Stephen Lang’s tough-as-nails Colonel Quaritch or Giovanni Ribisi’s greedy corporate leader Parker Selfridge, the performances of the cast are still generally enjoyable. Sam Worthington makes a satisfying leading man as Jake Sully whether in the live action role of Sully’s human self or in the voice acting with his Avatar counterpart. There are a few moments where Worthington is good at portraying Sully’s conflicting emotions from being able to move from his fully functioning Avatar body to his own, crippled body which are genuinely impressive. Zoe Saldana gives a decent performance too, giving voice to Neytiri the Na’vi princess whom Jake Sully falls in love with while Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez and Joel David Moore are likeable in the supporting roles as members of the Avatar program’s team. The most memorable character though is likely Stephen Lang’s Colonel which, while written and performed to type, is gloriously alpha-male that he is even able to breath Pandora’s poisonous atmosphere without constant help of respirators.

Overall, the story and performances in Avatar are generally average and predictable but the effects, the visualisation of an alien world, the intense action sequences and effective use of 3D (in cinemas) means the enjoyment of the spectacle, or the experience of seeing Avatar, overcome many of its flaws. It is ‘must see cinema’.

Rating: 4/5 if seen in 3D, 3/5 if not.

Paranormal Activity

Director: Oren Peli
Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat & Mark Fredrichs

A very scary and expertly handled horror that shows that there is still potential in The Blair Witch Project formula and showing that horror needs not always resort to extreme violence to generate scares.

Filmed on a low budget of merely $15,000, Paranormal Activity has since received critical acclaim at the 2008 Sundance Film Festival and become a hit film in America. Fortunately, the film lives up to the hype taking a very simple plot and set up and delivering a chilling horror film without the need for well known actors, extreme gore or big budgets. Using the gimmick of ‘found footage’ of a supposed real event in the style of 1999’s The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity is far more effective in its execution.

Couple Katie (Featherston) and Micah (Stoat) decide to set up a camera in their home, at Micah’s request, to attempt to capture footage of what is occurring in their home at night after having experienced several incidents of strange noises in their home which has Katie convinced she is being haunted after having experienced similar phenomenon throughout her life. After calling in a psychic who claims it is Katie being haunted and that they should not attempt to antagonise the spirit, Micah’s continued attempts to film and prove the spirit’s existence leads to an increase in incidents and in their severity with several incidents finally caught on camera and the danger facing the couple becoming life threatening.

Using an incredibly simple set up involving a static camera in the night time scenes filming events in the couple’s bedroom while having Micah use a handheld camera throughout the day to document the pair’s reactions to events going on around them and what they should do about it, Paranormal Activity is surprisingly effective. Director Oren Peli certainly makes the most of his set up with the night time sequences filmed on a static camera proving to be an impressive use of limited resources. The bedroom itself and placement of the camera is delicately done to allow full view of our sleeping couple whilst being able to see beyond the bedroom door into the hallway and just able to glimpse other rooms in the darkness. Using shadow and mainly sound effects (footsteps, creaks), Peli builds up the tension slowly over many nights of footage to the point where a suddenly slamming door or a light randomly turning on and off in a far room can generate jumps and tension and with the somewhat amateurish look of the film and of its actors lending a feeling or authenticity to the events being witnessed that a glossier, bigger budgeted horror with known faces would be unlikely to achieve. There are the usual concessions to the horror movie genre and stereotypes that do sometimes detract from the scares such as bringing in a psychic or a moment involving Micah following a sound into the house’s loft that still feel clichéd in spite of the film’s look, but otherwise the film is effective even if you don’t ascribe to any belief in the supernatural.

Not much can be said about the acting in Paranormal Activity. Filmed around mainly two actors played by amateur actors, even keeping their own first names on screen, the performances are fine enough that you get a feeling of their fear and reactions but beyond their reactions to the events around them there is little added development to either character with Micah in particular feeling almost stereotypically sceptical of the events and unsupportive of Katie’s needs until it is too late. Nevertheless, for the purpose of the film’s approach, the anonymity of the actors does add believability to their performances and sympathy for their situation as it gets progressively worse.

Overall, Paranormal Activity is an incredibly effective horror film that makes the most of its low budget to achieve genuine scares. While it occasionally follows familiar horror movie clichés, the simple set up and almost authentic look of the film makes this a more believable and frightening horror than its bigger budget, gore driven competitors. Recommended.

Rating: 4/5

Where the Wild Things Are

Director: Spike Jonze
Starring: Max Records, James Gandolfini (voice of) & Lauren Ambrose (voice of)

A wonderful adaptation of the classic children’s story which builds upon the original story without losing the tone or magic of Sendak’s story.

Eight years in the making since Spike Jonze, director of Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, was brought in to adapt the classic children’s story for the big screen, Where the Wild Things Are is finally released after many rumours of problems with the studios over Jonze’s early cut of the film which scared many children during its test screening. Whether any re-shoots were done since then is hard to see as the resulting film is an excellent adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s book which remains very scary at times, very mature for grown ups yet still embraces the fun of childhood to make this still a film for children, albeit not little ones.

A troublesome child, Max (Records), has troubles with his broken family made up of a distant sister, absent father and a mother who he feels spends more time with her new boyfriend than with him. After throwing a temper tantrum at dinner and running away from home, he imagines himself travelling across the ocean to a strange land where large, beast like creatures live who are undergoing their own dysfunctional family problems. Led by the short tempered, yet imaginative Carol (Gandolfini), the Wild Things are tricked by Max into believing Max is a king and able to solve their problems and reunite them with their own runaway member KW (Ambrose). With life improving for the group for a small time, Max finds them falling apart again through their own differences and his own safety at risk should the Wild Things discover he is not a king.

An ambitious undertaking, adapting a beloved children’s story with few words into feature length feature film, so much could have gone wrong in the adaptation. With the help of writer Dave Eggers in writing the screenplay for the film, Jonze has managed to add enough to the original story to justify the extra running length for a film yet manages to make the additions feel organic to the story, as if they were always intended. The Wild Things have been fleshed out and given names and personalities and those personalities themselves appear to aspects of Max’s own personality and feelings towards those around him with Carol representing his imagination and frustration, KW his love and feelings of distance for/from his mother and sister amongst others. It is it delicate and engaging development of the original story and one that received the approval of Maurice Sendak himself. Relying on old fashioned suit and make up effects, with minimal CGI, to bring the Wild Things to life, they look like they have stepped directly from the pages of the original book. They are convincing, expressive and maintain the feelings of awe and fear of the original creatures. The tone of the film, whilst too layered and dark for smaller children is also impressively handled with moments of real fear (such as Max glimpsing the skeletons of former, failed kings) and also joy in the Wild Things childlike games.

In the lead role of Max, newcomer Max Records is impressive. He manages to embody Max’s turbulent, angry yet needy, nature with apparent ease and demonstrating Max’s vulnerabilities and fears as much with a subtle expression or gesture as much as through tears or dialogue. The voice casting in the film is also excellent with James Gandolfini leading the way as Carol, bringing the same childish anger to his voice performance as he did physically in his role as Tony Soprano in The Sopranos. The rest of the cast from Paul Dano as Alexander to Forest Whitaker and Catherine O’Hara as Ira and Judith, bring their character’s to life both fulfilling the personality traits each is meant to represent whilst interacting believably within the group itself.

Overall, Where the Wild Things Are is an excellent adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s original book that builds upon the original story believably and brings all the characters to life with great performances from the cast while maintaining a tone that is both dark and joyful like the original book and should please adults and children alike. Just don’t take the little children!

Rating: 5/5

Bunny and the Bull

Director: Paul King
Starring: Edward Hogg, Simon Farnaby & Veronica Echegui

A wonderfully dark and surreal road trip comedy from the makers of The Mighty Boosh that should entertain fans of that series but is much more mature but still funny and visually impressive.

After having much success directing the TV series The Mighty Boosh, Paul King has chosen to make his big screen debut a film that, while possessing actors, humour and a visual style familiar to fans of The Mighty Boosh, is a new creation with new characters instead of merely making The Mighty Boosh: The Movie. The resulting film, Bunny and the Bull, is a surreal, funny and mature road trip that never leaves the flat in which its lead character resides and instead takes place within a series of impressively crafted sets based around household objects.

Stephen (Hogg) has been living a hermit’s life in his flat for the past year, too stricken by fear to leave its confines. When his daily routine is upset by mice and he is faced with the thought of having to leave the flat for the first time he instead begins to dwell upon a past break up with a previous girlfriend and the road trip he ended up taking across Europe with his friend Bunny (Farnaby) that led up to him returning home and having not left it since. Envisioning the sights they say and people they met through items in his flat reminding him of those events, he recalls a trip that was emotional and life changing and incredibly surreal.

The most notable thing about Bunny and the Bull is its visual style. The imagination represented in King’s attempts to depict various locations throughout Europe via household objects laying around Stephen’s flat is incredibly impressive and on a level equal to that of director Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Be Kind Rewind). Whether it is Switzerland reconstructed through a snow globe, a Belgian restaurant through a takeaway box or a German fairground built from the parts inside Stephen’s clock, the sets of Bunny and the Bull never fail to engage and entertain. Such an eye for visuals was obvious from King’s work on The Mighty Boosh but Bunny and the Bull excels even further. The film’s story is also very entertaining. Despite following the familiar episodic beats that most road trip films follow, the visuals and King’s surreal, slightly dark, sense of humour enlivens most scenes and while The Mighty Boosh fans might be most entertained by sequences where that series’ stars make cameos, the best sequences are actually when more time is spent just with our three leads of Simon, Bunny and their love interest in Eloisa (Echegui) whom they meet in Belgium and take along with them on their trip to Spain. The characters themselves though are difficult to like at times, all being too self-absorbed to truly love, but the humour makes them likeable enough.

The stars of Bunny and the Bull are all sufficiently charming and performed well in those aspects by the cast. Edward Hogg makes for a likeable, if unlikely, lead character in Stephen whose lack of self esteem and introverted nature makes him easy to sympathise with yet find annoying too when necessary when his reluctance to take risks to find happiness infuriate the audience as much as it infuriates his friend Bunny. Hogg nevertheless keeps Stephen on just the right side of likeable that, in spite of the character’s faults, you can’t help but hope for his life and outlook to change for the better. Simon Farnaby is incredibly entertaining as the womanising, selfish and care free Bunny who gets most of the best lines and is well performed by Farnaby who, like with Hogg and Stephen, is able to make his character one to like and loathe when necessary. Slightly less well-represented is Eloisa by Veronica Echegui who, while occasionally likeable, is often too annoying a character to understand why Stephen would be interested. Filling out supporting roles are Paul King production familiars such as Noel Fielding, Julian Barrett and Richard Ayoade who all entertain though they do distract from the main leads.

Overall, The Mighty Boosh fans should enjoy Bunny and the Bull, it having the same visual style, sense of humour and featuring cameos by familiar faces, but the film is more mature and darker in tone than that show. Most audiences should find the film’s visual style very impressive though and the film certainly is funny.

Rating: 4/5

Me and Orson Welles

Director: Richard Linklater
Starring: Zac Efron, Christian McKay & Claire Danes

A likeable period drama that captures the period and environment of the stage at the time with an impressive performance from Christian McKay as Welles.

Orson Welles, infamous in film and on stage as a visionary performer and producer whose ego matched his ambition, has been played on screen many times before in films such as Cradle Will Rock and RKO 281, but his latest depiction on screen is possibly the best yet. Me and Orson Welles, despite starring teen heart-throb Zac Efron (of the High School Musical film series), will be most memorable for the performance of Christian McKay as Welles who captures the look and attitude of Welles impressively. The film itself is quite enjoyable, if conventional in it’s plotting, but will be most enjoyed for Orson Welles.

It is 1937 New York and teenager, Richard (Efron), has ambitions of becoming an actor. When out of school and trying to get roles on stage he is cast, by chance, in a small role in part of Orson Welles’ (McKay) stage adaptation of Julius Caesar. Finding himself awestruck by the presence of Welles and hitting it off with the theatre’s production assistant Sonja (Danes), Richard soon finds that in between moments of greatness, Welles is also spiteful and egotistical with Richard’s youthful ambitions challenged by the legendary performer.

Me and Orson Welles is a perfectly likeable film. Despite their flaws, the characters portrayed with whether fictional, like Richard, or based on real life figures like Joe Cotton and Norman Lloyd, are all portrayed as being warm and friendly most of the time. Even Orson Welles, whose temper was as infamous as his charm, is never portrayed as too much of a monster despite his many outbursts but then this helps with the film’s charm. The audience, like the character of Richard and Welles’ many fellows, are supposed to won over by Welles’ genius and charm in spite of his faults and in this, the film succeeds. However, the constant charm on display does serve to allow the director, Richard Linklater, to serve up some bittersweet moments of reality such as Richard’s realisation of what Sonja would be willing to do to succeed in the theatre/film business and ultimately discovering Welles’ vindictiveness first hand towards the film’s conclusion. As likeable as the film is, and as effective as some moments are, and as exciting the portrayal of life on stage appears, the plot itself does follow a rather predictable course though.

While Zac Efron, the star of the popular High School Musical film series, is billed as the star of Me and Orson Welles, and his character is the lead character, the most memorable performance is that of Christian McKay as Orson Welles himself. It seems oddly fitting that, while a supporting role, McKay’s performance dominates the film much like the real Orson Welles dominated any stage, film or radio project he was involved in. While not only looking the part, McKay’s performance is very impressive and not merely a caricature of Orson Welles, he has many opportunities to play the character in quieter, out of the spotlight, scenes and still impresses. Compared to McKay, Efron leaves less of an impression. Playing a more reserved character than the roles he’s performed recently, Efron is perfectly decent at making Richard’s naivety believable but it is difficult to recall moments where he really impresses. The same can be said for Claire Danes as Sonja. Several bit parts in the film are memorable though such as James Tupper and Leo Bill as actors Joe Cotton and Norman Lloyd, and Eddie Marsan as manage John Houseman.

Overall, the plot might not be too impressive and Efron and Danes are decent though not memorable, but Me and Orson Welles is still an enjoyable film thanks to the excitement of the stage, which is portrayed well, and an excellent performance from Christian McKay as Orson Welles.

Rating: 3/5

A Serious Man

Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen
Starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind & Fred Melamed

An impressive drama and return to their roots for Coen Brothers with great performances from an, almost entirely, unknown cast.

After a lacklustre decade of films featuring big name casts with only 2008’s No Country for Old Men standing out as being the equal to the brothers’ earlier, more critically acclaimed work, the Coen Brothers deliver an excellent feature film in A Serious Man which, after the star studded and comedic affair that was Burn After Reading, is a quieter, more thoughtful and personal film for the directors and features a cast of virtual unknowns. A Serious Man though is an impressive film that manages to grip throughout and evokes tones similar to the Coens’ Fargo and Barton Fink.

Set in 1960s Minnesota; Jewish physics professor Larry Gopnik (Stuhlbarg), patiently waiting to receive tenure at the university in which he works, finds his life thrown into upheaval when his wife requests a divorce so she can marry another man, when a student attempts to bribe Larry for better grades and blackmails him when Larry refuses all on the eve of family preparations for Larry’s son’s Bar Mitzvah. Larry is forced to move out of his home and into a motel, with his near-autistic brother Arthur (Kind) and looks to consult a divorce attorney whilst also seeking the advice of three Rabbis’s that he hopes can provide him with wisdom that will help explain why he, a good man, should be facing such troubles. Events then continue to occur to further frustrate Larry and prevent him from finding the answers he needs.

Almost anti-commercial in its concept, a small town drama set in a Jewish community in the 1960s, featuring no well known actors and a plot and dialogue that draws heavily on Jewish culture, A Serious Man seems the complete opposite of the Coen Brothers’ previous film, the star studded spy comedy Burn After Reading. Fortunately, this is all for the better and regardless of whether this film achieves big Box Office success, A Serious Man is far superior to almost every film the Coen Brothers have made in the past decade and the key to its success relies on how personal the project appears to be to the Coens. Based in their home town during a period and culture they lived in as children with characters based upon people they knew, A Serious Man is almost auto-biographical. The Coens’ familiarity with the period, place and people involved results in film that is mature, well written, well realised and with well developed characters that all manage to immerse the audience in the world and in the story, the story which also includes some familiar Coen traits such as small town crime/problems, family relationships and open endings leaving the audience to make their own conclusions as to the future of the characters or to the meaning behind their troubles. Weaving in references and stories from Jewish history (including an odd, yet intriguing prologue to the film and a story about a dentist getting a message from God), they not only add to the development of the characters and atmosphere of the film but also give hints as to the meaning of the film’s ending which is all handled delicately and successfully by the Coens.

Featuring mostly unknown actors, A Serious Man nevertheless impresses greatly from the performances of its cast. Stage actor Michael Stuhlbarg is excellent in the lead role of Larry Gopnick who manages to carry the film well and captures his character’s rising frustration and despair in face of his troubles effectively and sympathetically. Richard Kind (of TV’s Spin City and Scrubs), one of the few actors in the film that has some recognisability, gives an impressive performance as Larry’s brother Arthur who is an enigma throughout the film, sometimes unseen and almost rarely seen outdoors, his character is one that appears nearly autistic and while never dominating in any scene is nevertheless very memorable. Fred Melamed appears as Sy Abelman, the man whom Larry’s wife wishes to marry, whose calm, assured delivery is enjoyable as much as his character frustrates Larry and Aaron Wolff is good as the son of Larry who, like his father, is facing his own problems throughout the film.

A Serious Man is an excellent film by the Coen Brothers and one that harkens back to their earlier, more acclaimed era of filmmaking. Its lack of stars, its attention to period and cultural detail and its open ending might frustrate some audiences but long time Coen Brothers fans will find this their best film in more than a decade.

Rating: 5/5

The Informant!

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Matt Damon, Scott Bakula & Melanie Lynskey

An entertaining comedy drama that balances intrigue and humour to great effect and features a highly enjoyable performance from Matt Damon.

Soderbergh has led an eclectic career in filmmaking, helming personal, artistic projects like Sex, Lies & Videotape, intriguing political dramas like Traffic and Erin Brokovich and lighter, Hollywood friendly films like Ocean’s Eleven. Soderbergh’s latest film is a step away from the more artistic features yet isn’t totally commercial despite the humorous tone and big name star. The Informant! is an intriguing and enjoyable film in part mocking the legal/corporate conspiracy films of which even Soderbergh has contributed too in the past whilst also allowing Soderbergh to engage in his usual experimentations with the film’s look and narrative structure.

Following an FBI investigation into a blackmailing incident at his employers in 1992, Mark Whitacre (Damon) takes the opportunity to blow the whistle of his company’s involvement in a scheme to fix the price of lysine with their competitors to the FBI. With the assistance of FBI Agent Shepard (Bakula) and the encouragement of his wife Ginger (Lynskey), Whitacre agrees to wear a wire and make tape recordings of his company’s business dealings to fix the prices of lysine, globally. What soon becomes evident to Shepard and to the FBI is that Whitacre is not providing them with the whole truth, is perhaps complicit in illegal activities himself and has deluded himself into believing he is some kind of hero like in the John Grisham and Michael Crichton novels he enjoys to read. Whitacre soon takes himself and those he works with further into a complex web of lies he has made himself.

Taking what might otherwise appear to be too dry or complex a story to make engaging, corporate price fixing, Soderbergh instead leaves the actual details of the scandal in the background to focus more on the more intriguing and humorous scandal of Whitacre and his actions to expose the scandal whilst hiding his own involvement and other wrong doings. That the events depicted in the film are based around actual events (though names are changed) adds to the bewilderment and amusement to be had at just how far Whitacre’s lies extend as well as his delusional sense of self worth in the midst of the proceedings. Whitacre is such a well developed character however, superbly performed by Damon, that despite his crimes and deceit you can’t help liking him a little too and Soberbergh’s decision to have Whitacre fade out of the events occurring before him to reflect on more mundane thoughts and distractions, as narrated by Damon, gives us plenty on insight into his character that those around him don’t suspect until it is too late. The Informant!, despite being based on events in 1990s, not only parodies corporate thrillers like The Firm or Soderbergh’s own Erin Brokovich but is also cheekily filmed by Soderbergh to also parody such films from the 1970s with a breezy, 1970s style musical score for dramatic effect and soft lighting that could easily place the film in that period if not for the actual period in which the events occur.

While there are other actors in The Informant!, the film is almost entirely a one man show with Damon putting on such an engaging performance as Whitacre that other actors barely leave an impression on the story, let alone the audience. Damon puts on a superb performance that plays the character, his actions and delusions so straight and earnestly that it makes the actual ridiculousness of those actions all the more amusing. The performance is much more than just a bad haircut and moustache though as Damon seems to relish the chance to immerse himself in the tics and mannerisms of his character after several serious straight roles in films like The Bourne Identity and its sequels. Scott Bakula puts in a likeable performance too as the rather gullible Agent Shepard who, while certainly a less developed character than Whitacre, provides a nice counterpoint to Whitacre’s grandstanding behaviour.

Overall, The Informant! is a fun twist on the corporate/legal conspiracy thriller, made all the more amusing thanks to a fantastic performance from Matt Damon and the knowledge that many of the events, as unbelievable as they might seem, are based on truth! While maybe a little too convoluted at times, The Informant! is still very enjoyable.

Rating: 4/5

2012

Director: Roland Emmerich
Starring: John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor & Amanda Peet

Entertaining for its depiction of destruction on a global scale, 2012 lacks much of an actual plot and characters though Cusack puts on a likeable performance as the main lead.

Having not been satisfied by global, though mostly America-centric, destruction with his previous films like Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, director Roland Emmerich raises the level of his appetite for destruction to show the end of the world. 2012, like many disaster films in general, places less emphasis on three dimensional characters and original plotting than it does on portraying the disasters themselves and placing characters into life or death situations. The result is film that never really engages with its story but nevertheless offers thrills despite the global carnage involving virtually every kind of natural disaster already committed to film.

When geologist Adrian Helmsley (Ejiofor) is alerted in 2009 of a raise in the temperature in the Earth’s core caused by solar flares, he immediately informs the White House and other world leaders that the rise in heat will soon melt the Earth’s crust resulting in the crumbling and movement of the Earth’s crust which would cause untold devastation through Earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. Three years later in 2012, the government learns that the devastation will occur much sooner than expected as they rush to save as many people as they can on giant arks that they have been building secretly in China. Meanwhile, former writer Jackson Curtis (Cusack) in an attempt to spend time with his children who live with his ex-wife Kate (Peet) becomes aware of the impending destruction and the government’s secret arks whilst on a camping trip at Yellowstone Park and races to save his family and get them to China and safety.

Emmerich’s latest global catastrophe, while even greater in scale than ever before, is also his least original effort to date. With 2012, as impressive as some of the global devastation is, Emmerich appears to have approached the film it may be his last with this film featuring almost every natural disaster imaginable but, given that most of these have been the subjects of films before, they aren’t always that impressive here. There are volcanoes and their dust clouds (Dante’s Peak, Volcano), Earthquakes, tsunamis (Emmerich’s own The Day After Tomorrow) and even sinking ships (The Poseidon Adventure). While visually the devastation is quite impressive and will certainly entertain the audiences coming to see the effects, there are limited thrills to be had with most incidents in the film. Those that do thrill happen fairly early in the action, in particular are two sequences involving Cusack’s character trying to get his family out of a collapsing Los Angeles and then again escaping Yellowstone Park that are exciting due to their faster pace but in the latter half of the film there are only so many tsunamis and falling monuments that be witnessed to sustain audiences and an overlong addition of a Poseidon Adventure-style threat at the end of the film once the cast have reached their means of safety drags the already long film into being far too long.

Performances in 2012 also range from average to forgettable. John Cusack makes the best impression as the lead character of Curtis Jackson who while fulfilling the role of earnest leading man trying to regain the love of his family. Keeping the character likeable, Cusack makes for a decent leading man. Other actors, otherwise excellent when performing in smaller films, add a little credibility to their roles but they remain otherwise one-dimensional with actors like Chiwetel Ejiofor, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt and Danny Glover trying their best and Woody Harrelson being the only one truly entertaining as a conspiracy obsessed radio show performer who Cusack’s Curtis encounters at Yellowstone Park.

Overall, with most of the sequences of devastation having already been depicted in other disaster films and characters yet again taking a backseat in development over the effects, 2012 offers nothing that be called original and the film is far too long with a misguided decision to work a Poseidon Adventure style sequence into the finale. However, some of the sequences still manage to thrill, particularly in the first half of the film and some performances like Cusack and Harrelson’s are likeable.

Rating: 2/5

The White Ribbon

Director: Michael Haneke
Starring: Christian Friedel, Burghart Klassner & Susanne Lothar

A cold, disturbing drama that does an excellent job at building an atmosphere of tension and fear but might upset some audiences expecting answers by the end. A thought provoking thriller.

No stranger to courting controversy with his films and his recurring themes on the nature of cruelty, not only amongst the characters on screen but also within the audiences that watch them, Michael Haneke’s latest film is, perhaps, his most daring yet. Taking place in a remote German village just a year before the outbreak of WWI in 1914 and an era that would change Germany and the world, The White Ribbon is a complex and disturbing drama/thriller about a small village suffering from long developing tensions and frustrations resulting in a series of violent acts in which some, even many, of the villagers may be responsible for.

Recounting his time living in a German village over 1913 and 1914, an unnamed teacher (Friedel) is present for a series of violent acts that start with a trap that fells and injures the local doctor during a horse riding accident and then follows with the death of a farmer’s wife in a mill, the destruction of the local baron’s cabbage patch, the kidnapping and beating of two children and more. The mystery as to who is behind these acts casts wary eyes from the villagers towards each other. Are the village’s children responsible, children who band together frequently to misbehave and two of whom, children of the town pastor (Klassner), have been victims of violence at the hands of their father? Is the son of the farmer’s wife who died responsible when he was seen destroying the baron’s cabbages? The tensions amongst the townsfolk soon reveal many suspects and many reasons why such acts may even be deserved.

After the disappointing, and unnecessary, Hollywood remake of his own 1997 film Funny Games in 2005, Haneke returns to form with The White Ribbon. Confronting, once again, the nature of violence in society, Haneke’s latest film is very impressive and is ambitious in its scope and complexities. Filmed in black and white with unknown actors gives the film the feeling of a film made in the era of the events depicted though the period itself is not announced until the second half of the film allowing Haneke to build up a sense of tension and oppression within the village before casting allusions of their relevance to the country as a whole and its future until later. Haneke also, smartly, avoids giving explicit answers as to who is responsible for many of the acts committed or, in fact, whether one person is responsible at all. The open-endedness of this approach, which is common for Haneke, may frustrate some audiences but it does add to the atmosphere of the film as does Haneke’s choice to have several acts committed off camera with other events occurring on camera which place the innocence of some of the victims into question. One scene in which a young boy walks in on his father, the town doctor, with his sister is more tense and frightening than any of the violence portrayed elsewhere in the film and the treatment of the pastor’s children by the pastor himself portrays the man as an oppressive influence on the village as well as in his home.

Cast with unknowns, the performances throughout The White Ribbon are strong. Christian Friedel is the lead performer in the film as the teacher who narrates the film (though the narration is provided by an older, unseen actor). Portrayed very sympathetically as the witness to the town’s events and given the only really warmth in the film through the storyline involving his romance of a young nanny, the performance is suitably kind hearted and earnest though there are suspicions that this is merely the narrator portraying himself favourably compared to darkness revealed in the other villagers. Burghart Klassner delivers an intense, intimidating performance as the town pastor whose commitment to purification excuses, in his opinion, the punishments he enacts upon his children when he perceives them to have sinned yet he also demonstrates vulnerabilities particularly in a sub-plot surrounding a young boy’s desire to take care of an injured boy. The child actors are impressive giving their characters the sympathy that goes with children suffering whilst also effectively conveying an eerie, Village of the Damned-vibe when suspicions are aroused. Another interesting pair is the town doctor (Rainer Bock) and midwife (Susanne Lothar). With a secret affair going on between them, their relationship initially looks warm but is later revealed as chilling with the doctor’s detachment becoming abusive in on scene with is made all the more disturbing for the audience and the midwife by the emotionless deliver where the midwife’s emotions are always clear.

Overall, if you dislike films that offer bleak outlooks on life or end with questions unanswered, then The White Ribbon won’t be for you. But, if find complex meditations on society interesting then the film should be rewarding as Haneke builds the tension of this small village falling into violence and bigotry expertly and has made a film that is disturbing and thought provoking.

Rating: 5/5

Harry Brown

Director: Daniel Barber
Starring: Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer & Liam Cunningham

An enjoyable, if predictable, thriller that despite many clichés throughout the film, still entertains thanks to a strong performance from Michael Caine.

A film coming out of the current climate in the UK, particularly the levels of crime, Harry Brown could be seen as much as a revenge tale for audiences frustrated at crime and a, seemingly, ineffectual police force as it is a revenge tale for the character of Harry Brown. Whilst not offering a more balanced view of the situation faced in some city areas with the estate depicted in the film an exaggeration of conditions, it nevertheless speaks to the fears experienced by many and for them, and fans of Michael Caine, the film is entertaining despite many shortcomings in the story and its execution.

Concerned with rising crime and gang problems on his local housing estate, retired Harry Brown (Caine) is hit with several losses at once when his bedridden wife dies in the hospital before he can see her due to gangs blocking his way and then his friend Leonard (David Bradley) is found beaten to death following an attempt by Leonard to confront one of the gangs. When the police detectives investigating Leonard’s death lead by Detective Frampton (Mortimer), arrive to inform Harry that a lack of evidence has lead to no convictions amongst the gang members responsible for Leonard’s death, Harry decides to take matters into his own hands, relying on his old training from being in the Marines, to embark upon a vigilante crusade to avenge Leonard’s death and clean up the estate.

Despite possessing a very enjoyable performance from Michael Caine and the subject of the film’s storyline being interesting in it’s, if over-exaggerated, confrontation of fears over crime in contemporary Britain, Harry Brown is a very predictable film. From the inevitable first act death of his friend, to the fates surrounding many of the film’s other characters like gang members themselves and the detectives; most events in the film can be predicted long before they actually occur in the plot. While some enjoyment, if guilty, can be found in seeing criminals get their comeuppance, the inevitability of it all takes away some of the enjoyment as the film offers up no surprises. The film is also filled with cliché with the criminal elements portrayed as irredeemable (no attempts to show how they came to be this way, to stir up any empathy, is attempted) and the police force is shown to be incredibly ineffectual making the film as much a condemnation of the current government as of criminals. With little attempt at anything original, Harry Brown is enjoyable but not as much as it could have been.

Fortunately, what Harry Brown lacks in originality in plotline, it almost makes up for with the performance of Michael Caine in the starring role of Harry himself. Whilst not an especially challenging role, Caine still gives the film much gravitas with his performance as Harry. Initially showing Harry to be world weary but sympathetic to others troubles, his transformation into a man willing to commit violence and take lives when necessary is also believable making the character sympathetic despite the acts he commits. Amongst the mostly unfamiliar faces filling the roles of criminals and police officers who all have largely underwritten roles, the only other noteworthy performance in the film is Emily Mortimer as Detective Frampton. While her role is another one written more for plot purposes, that of the well meaning but ineffectual detective, Mortimer still makes her character a sympathetic one who realises her restrictions but nevertheless opposes Harry’s methods once it becomes clear what he is doing. As the film’s sole objector to Harry’s eye-for-an-eye style of justice, Mortimer does well though not enough to really dampen the enjoyment of Harry’s revenge.

Overall, while possessing an entertaining performance from Michael Caine and some guilty pleasure in his character’s crusade, Harry Brown is quite enjoyable however the plot is riddled with clichés making the story too predictable to satisfy alone. Thankfully the film stars Michael Caine then.

Rating: 3/5

Bright Star

Director: Jane Campion
Starring: Ben Whishaw, Abbie Cornish & Paul Schneider

A carefully told period drama about the brief love that grew between poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne that bears many of the hallmarks of the period romance drama yet manages to engage without becoming too stuffy or melodramatic.

The latest in a line of period dramas/romances based upon the lives of famous literary figures, Bright Star has the added pedigree of being directed by Jane Campion whose The Piano in 1993 won several major awards. The resulting film is one that bears many of the trademarks of such dramas such as attention to period detail, poetic verse and long lingering looks between its lovers but instead of coming over as melodramatic or stuffy as any a Merchant Ivory production, the direction and performances are more carefully handled, giving the romance a much more natural feel.

Staying in Hamstead Heath in 1818 by the courtesy of his friend Charles Brown (Schneider) to look after his dying brother Thomas and work on his poetry, John Keats (Whishaw) becomes attracted to Fanny Brawne (Cornish), the daughter of the landlady of their property who finds herself drawn to Keats in return. Wishing to spend time with Keats and learn more about poetry, despite earning the ire of Brown who wants Keats’ time for himself, Fanny rejects the society’s standing that a woman should only be with a man who can provide for her (Keats being a struggling poet without any income) and she and Keats fall in love. Their love however is threatened by the objections of Brown, the concerns of Fanny’s mother and ultimately ended when Keats becomes stricken with an illness that will finally take his life in 1821.

Smartly keeping the focus of the relationship between Fanny Brawne and John Keats down to the last three years of his life rather than beginning at their first encounter and/or shoehorning in stereotypes like love at first sight, Jane Campion starts Bright Star with a more natural introduction to the characters involved, one that establishes that Brawne and Keats are already, somewhat, with each other already though their romantic relationship has yet to blossom. Campion’s introductions to the main characters are not the only unconventional approach she has taken in her depiction of the character’s romance. Musical score is largely absent from the film where other literary biopics might rely on music to add drama, Campion instead allows for silences for the sounds of the character’s surroundings, such as birdsong, to fill in for a score and when a score is present it is used unobtrusively. Campion’s depictions of her characters also allows for emotion to be seen whether it be light humour, flirting or upset with the grief experienced by Brawne at the film’s finale keenly felt. Bright Star might employ impeccable attention to period detail and the occasional scenes of its couple staring lovingly at each other but it generally avoids becoming overdramatic, forcing emotion or coming over as stuffy like many a Merchant Ivory film.

Bright Star is built around three main characters and fortunately all the three roles are performed very well by the cast. Ben Whishaw gives Keats a quiet, thoughtful demeanour. Rather than overplay the character’s behaviour, having over-emote as a poet could be imagined to be, he gives a very understated performance which, while generally places his character in the context of Brawne and Brown’s relationship with him, still gives a good idea of the character’s own feelings towards them. Abbie Cornish gives the most impressive performance as Fanny Brawne, the real star of the film, with her character’s early cautious, yet flirtatious, nature believably evolving into a more intelligent and confident woman as she seeks to prove her own abilities to Keats and to Brown. Finally, Paul Schneider is very enjoyable as Charles Brown, Keats friend and jealous objector to Fanny’s advances on Keats and on their own time together. Delivering a convincing Scottish accent (Schneider is American); Schneider impresses giving Brown a convincingly jealous demeanour whilst suggesting a hidden attraction to Keats that may have fuelled such jealousy.

Overall, Bright Star is a good period drama/biopic that avoids many of the stereotypes of such genre films whilst still providing enough believable romance and drama to keep fans of such films very happy. A carefully made and enjoyable romance.

Rating: 4/5

9

Director: Shane Acker
Starring (voices of): Elijah Wood, Jennifer Connelly & John C. Reilly

Visually very impressive with some entertaining ideas and sequences, 9 is held back by a plot that feels too over familiar leaving the film more memorable for it’s visuals than it’s story.

Originally seeing life as a short animated film by Shane Acker, 9 went onto to impress film producers/directors Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov leading to Acker to expand upon his original short for this feature length version. Featuring plenty of impressive CGI animation and with Acker able to further explore his imagination and flesh out the world he created in his short film, 9 looks incredibly impressive. However, with it also becoming necessary to expand upon the storyline of his 11 minute short to run 79 minutes for the feature, 9 compares less favourably in it’s storyline with too much religious sub-text seemingly shoehorned into the plot.

In the far future, the Earth is a wasteland and the human race extinct following a massive war between man and machines. When a small robot made of gears and sackcloth named 9 (Wood) awakens in this world he goes searching for answers finding other robots like himself, given life by a recently deceased scientist, and also finds more dangerous robots out to seek their destruction including a super weapon given life accidentally by 9. Banding together with the other robots like himself with some eager to assist like 5 (Reilly) and 7 (Connelly) and others resistant to conflict like the ancient 1 (Christopher Plummer), 9 searches for a way to defeat the enemy robot and discover the truth behind the world’s destruction and his own creation.

9 will be a film best remembered for the imagination involved in the creation of its world and its inhabitants more than the storyline itself. Using CGI, the creation of this war torn future is very impressive and, rather than being a destroyed utopia such as many future-set films employ, 9’s future world bears elements of Steampunk in that this world could easily be the ruins of European cities following WWII with even newsreel style footage being used at one point to fill the characters and audience in on the events that resulted in this future coming about. Enough thought is also used in the design of the nine heroic robots in the film using the cute sackcloth look as a template but giving each robot a unique look to suit their personality while the evil robots are a mix of huge attack droids bearing similarities to the alien ships of H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds (which appears to be an influence in the film) and scarier looking constructs built out of spare parts, even skeletons, like a snake-like creature with needle-like claws and a deformed dolls head on top being particularly disturbing. However, despite the strong visuals and imagination on show, the story itself is somewhat lacking. As soon as the religious sub-text woven into the story becomes more obvious then the outcome of the storyline and the genesis of the robots become somewhat predictable with a conclusion that is so saccharine that it feels out of place with the tone of the rest of the film. The heroic robots, the nine, while interesting also conform to specific stereotypes of hero, sceptic, muscle, heroine and best friend without much in the way of character development.

Given that each of the nine robots conform to stereotypical roles, the voice cast have little to add beyond ensuring those personalities shine through. All give decent performances such as Elijah Wood in the lead role of 9, or Jennifer Connelly as 7 though none are particularly noteworthy. Veteran actors such as Christopher Plummer and Martin Landau add some gravitas to their character’s words and John C. Reilly makes 5 quite sympathetic but, much like the film’s plot, the performances are less memorable than the film’s visuals.

Visually stunning and filled with tons of imagination, 9 is a film that could develop a cult following based on its concepts alone however, as impressive as the film looks, the storyline and the personalities of the characters are considerably less well developed resulting in a fairly average Sci-Fi animation even though it is certainly a good looking one.

Rating: 3/5

Jennifer's Body

Director: Karyn Kusama
Starring: Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried & Johnny Simmons

A fun horror/comedy with a perfectly cast Megan Fox and enjoyable performance from Seyfried though, while entertaining, is not as mean or as funny as it could have been.

Following on from her Oscar-winning success writing the screenplay for the film Juno, Diablo Cody’s follow up project was always going to be under scrutiny. Cody’s follow up is Jennifer’s Body which, on the surface, appears to be well suited to the writers wit with it advertised as a high school horror in the tone of Heathers but with the supernatural thrown in to add more gore and a feminist tone with it’s lead protagonist and antagonists being women. The resulting film is one that is quite fun in places with Diablo Cody’s wit shining through at times but also disappoints slightly as it is neither as dark, witty or daring as Heathers, a film which is a clear inspiration for Jennifer’s Body.

Anita ‘Needy’ Lesnicki (Seyfried) has been best friends with Jennifer (Fox) since childhood and despite both becoming different people, Needy more academic whilst Jennifer grew to be a cheerleader, they have still remained friends. When a night out to a concert at a local bar turns into a bloodbath when the bar burns down, Jennifer leaves Needy to go with the band and when she next appears to Needy, she is covered in blood and craving meat. It soon becomes apparent to Needy that Jennifer has changed and is, perhaps, possessed as Jennifer proceeds to seduce and consume boys at their high school whilst also developing an interest in Needy’s own boyfriend Chip (Simmons). With no one willing to believe her theories, Needy takes it upon herself to stop Jennifer by any means necessary.

Jennifer’s Body has a lot of ingredients to suggest the film would be quite fun and sharp-witted. Written by Diablo Cody and directed by Karyn Kusama, director of 2001’s Girlfight, and also starring Megan Fox who is a popular actress on the rise, less due to her acting ability and more on her appearance and personality, Jennifer’s Body looks to be a horror film with a humorous and feminist edge. The film itself does have these elements as expected, but the execution is somewhat lacking with the finished film not being as smart, mean or funny as it could have been. Heathers, released in 1989 without any supernatural horror elements, was far more daring and funny in its approach to high school life and horrors. There is still much to like in Jennifer’s Body however as Cody’s script, while not as strong as her script for Juno, still fits in plenty of snappy one liners and some of the feminist sub-text is clearly evident throughout with boys portrayed merely as predators, prey, incompetent and/or ignorant for the most part due to their desires. Jennifer’s Body also features a pretty strong, and likable, heroine in Needy.

Megan Fox is well cast in the lead role of Jennifer in the film. Whilst not a role that stretches her acting ability, it is one well suited to her star persona with it capitalising on her appearance and her personality. Fox appears to enjoy herself a lot throughout the film too as the film’s central villainess, vamping it up at every opportunity. It is Amanda Seyfried that delivers the best performance in Jennifer’s Body. Making Needy appear as innocent and devoted to Jennifer and her boyfriend Chip as necessary at the start of the film, Seyfried is able to make Needy believably smart and resourceful too and when time comes for her character to get mean in return it feels like the result of a woman pushed too far which makes the film’s prologue and epilogue all the more enjoyable. Johnny Simmons is average as the doting, all-too-naïve, boyfriend of Needy while the film is enjoyably filled with actors like J.K. Simmons as the girl’s dim-witted school principal and Adam Brody (of TV’s The O.C.) enjoying a villainous role as the morally bankrupt lead singer of the band which brings about Jennifer’s possession in the first place.

Overall, Jennifer’s Body is plenty of fun with enjoyable performances from Fox, Seyfried and Brody with some good jokes courtesy of writer Diablo Cody, however the film is never as dark, funny or daring as it’s talent and plot would have you expect and compares less favourably with films that have influenced Jennifer’s Body like Heathers. Fun, if a little toothless.

Rating: 3/5

The Men Who Stare at Goats

Director: Grant Heslov
Starring: George Clooney, Ewan McGregor & Jeff Bridges

An occasionally funny comedy made more so because it’s based upon some truth but never really embraces the absurdity of its truth or be as subversive a film as it could have been.

Based on the non-fiction book by writer Jon Ronson, itself spinning out of his investigations into stories of a New Age US Army Unit for his 2001 TV documentary series Secret Rulers of the World, The Men Who Stare at Goats has material for comedy as well as making subversive statements about war and military forces particularly in the current climate. The result though, while occasionally funny, is not as funny or subversive as it could have been as the source material is somewhat watered down by too many fictional elements added to the story.

Reporter Bob Wilton (McGregor) is looking to raise his reputation as a reporter following a break up with his girlfriend. Looking to get into Iraq to gain experience and reputation as a war correspondent, Bob stumbles across Lyn Cassady (Clooney), a former Special Forces operative who is linked to a secret unit within the US Military that formed in the 1980s to develop psychic soldiers. Following Lyn into Iraq on a mission that may involve Lyn returning to active duty, Bob gets the story of how the New Age Unit that Lyn was a member of came about, how the unit fell apart and maybe how it all might be coming back.

Funny when it covers actual aims of the US Military unit that Jon Ronson investigated like the task in the film’s title where soldiers were trained to kill goats by staring at them, The Men Who Stare at Goats is less successful at humour and satire when it returns to its fictionalised story of how Ronson discovered such methods with the film recasting Ronson’s British journalist with an American version of himself in Bob Walton and pushing the buddy comedy style road trip between his character and Clooney’s. While this relationship results in some occasional humour too, it generally detracts from the ‘based on true events’ nature of the New Age Army itself with the opening statement in the film that more of the events depicted in the film are true than the audience would believe meaning audiences unfamiliar with Ronson’s book or TV documentaries may find themselves questioning the reality of the events that were true and which would be far funnier if the truth behind them were embraced. The film also makes connections between the methods explored by the New Age Army in the 1980s and interrogation techniques being used by the US Military today yet doesn’t adequately explore them much in the way that only aspects of Ronson’s investigations saw media coverage rather than the whole.

Performances in The Men Who Stare at Goats are generally quite enjoyable though none stand out for any of the actors involved. George Clooney is enjoyable as Lyn Cassady, the former New Age Army officer who is convinced he can perform the psychic feats he was trained for. Clooney resorts to his usual style of facial ticks and lampoonish behaviour that he employs when performing a comedy and while it is enjoyable there is little that is memorable. Ewan McGregor is decent but his performance is held back by his attempts at delivering his lines with an American accent which leaves his performance lacking when confronted by the larger than life antics of actors like Clooney and Bridges. Jeff Bridges delivers a likeable performance as Bill Django, the former commander of the New Age Army, who delivers a Jeff Lebowski-esque performance during the character’s prime before taking the character to his inevitable fate as a burned out shell of his former self in the present and Kevin Spacey plays his role as the meaner, jealous Larry Hooper with his usual deadpan flair.

Overall, while occasionally funny and featuring likeable performances from Clooney and Bridges, The Men Who Stare at Goats is not as funny or as satisfying as it could have been. Fictionalising some of the events of Jon Ronson’s non-fiction books means the humour to found in the actual true events depicted are watered down by the purely fictional events. Enjoyable but a little disappointing.

Rating: 3/5

An Education

Director: Lone Scherfig
Starring: Casey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard & Alfred Molina

A charming coming of age tale that manages to issues of it’s 1960’s setting’s attitude towards women and education and the age differences of its main characters whilst also infusing the film with warmth, humour and a great performance from Casey Mulligan.

Based on the true life experiences of writer Lynn Barber and her book, An Education has been adapted for the big screen by popular author Nick Hornby, whose previous experience with film has been on the receiving end of having his own work adapted for the screen. The result is a film that has a lot of genuine emotion and truths but features Hornby’s gift for snappy, witty dialogue that makes An Education a genuinely enjoyable film rather than one that is over-driven by the drama of the events depicted.

Jenny (Mulligan) is a 16 year old girl in 1962 England. Driven by her father, Jack (Molina), to succeed in school so that she might get into Oxford University and have a promising education and future ahead of her, Jenny does however wish for a more exciting life like those depicted in the French films and music she adores. When a stranger named David (Sarsgaard) arrives one day and offers to give Jenny a lift home to avoid the rain she finds herself attracted to this older man and his more carefree lifestyle of parties and trips to Paris. Even Jenny’s parents are lured in by the charming David, however as the less savoury side of David’s lifestyle peek through and the differences in their ages and desires become more relevant, Jenny faces a reality less glamorous than she expected and one that might threaten her initial goals of getting into Oxford.

While at first it may seem as though An Education’s humour and charm might undermine and soften the more serious aspects to the relationship between Jenny and David in the film and the threats to Jenny’s future, the humour and charm actually work well in different ways. Firstly, the film’s charm which is helped by Hornby’s script and Mulligan’s performance as Jenny, helps to lure the audience into David’s lifestyle almost as well as it lures in Jenny and whenever something unpleasant or suspect arises you soon find yourself won over again by the film’s charm which is again much like how David manages to keep Jenny interested until it is almost too late. Whether this occurs by accident or design is unknown, it nevertheless adds to the film’s message and atmosphere as well as also punctuating the drama with moments of warmth and laughter meaning the film almost flies by and still manages to feel important with over dramatising the film’s story. The attention to detail towards capturing the mood of the era in which the film is set as French culture grew in popularity yet just prior to real revolution with women’s rights, the film presents the era as also a period on the verge of change much like Jenny herself.

Casey Mulligan leads the performances in An Education with very impressive performance as Jenny. A relative newcomer after just few television roles, Mulligan’s performance is filled with confidence and manages to not only convey Jenny’s intelligence and drive but also her vulnerabilities in a cohesive, loveable whole as if Mulligan was a more experienced actress. The performance here marks Mulligan as a talent to watch. Peter Sarsgaard is good as David, losing his American accent for an English one that sounds like a faux-middle class accent which serves to help with his performance as a man who isn’t all what he seems and gets by in life as well as with Jenny more by his talent for talking and charming others. He portrays David as a sometimes charming and sometimes suspicious character and while sometimes his behaviour can make the audience uneasy, he manages to avoid coming across as too predatory. Alfred Molina is engaging as Jenny’s rather stuffy father which is likeable if somewhat cartoonish at times and there are several good supporting performances from Olivia Williams as Jenny’s struggling teacher, Emma Thompson in a rare mean role as Jenny’s head teacher, Dominic Cooper as David’s friend Danny and an impressive turn from Rosamund Pike as Danny’s somewhat vapid girlfriend Helen.

Overall, An Education is a very charming and enjoyable drama that avoids too much melodrama but is no less insightful or dramatic in light of all the film’s warmth. Witty and smart with a wonderful performance from Casey Mulligan, An Education is a great coming of age tale.

Rating: 4/5

Thirst

Director: Park Chan-wook
Starring: Song Kang-ho, Kim Ok-bin & Shin Ha-kyun

An interesting take on the vampire genre that involves some great moments of black humour and several interesting ideas but is unfortunately overlong which detracts from an otherwise good film.

Having mixed elements of horror into his previous revenge thrillers Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Old Boy and Lady Vengeance, Park Chan-wook now tackles horror more directly in this take on the vampire genre which not only adds his own unique slant on vampires but also reveals changing religious values in Korea. The resulting film, Thirst, is one filled with interesting ideas and themes as well as maintaining the director’s flair for black comedy but the film is unfortunately too long creating some pacing problems which detract from the better parts of the film.

When catholic priest Sang-hyun (Kang-ho) offers to participate in experiments to help find a cure for a deadly virus plaguing Korea, he finds himself having an unusual reaction after a blood transfusion that sees him make a full recovery from the disease after apparently dying from it. Sang-hyun soon discovers though that his continued health relies upon him drinking blood regularly and that he has gained abilities like that of a vampire complete with a vulnerability to sunlight. With many people also seeing him as a walking miracle following his recovery and coming to worship him, he leaves and goes to stay with an old childhood friend, Kang-woo (Ha-kyun) who suffers from illness and finds himself attracted to Kang-woo’s wife, Tae-ju (Ok-bin), who Sang-hyun also knew in childhood. Sang-hyun and Tae-ju then begin an affair which takes strange turns upon Tae-ju’s discovery of Sang-hyun’s condition and her willingness to be free from her husband no matter the cost which places Sang-hyun into difficult decisions which conflict with his religious beliefs.

Thirst is an interesting take on the vampire genre. Abandoning many of the familiar elements of vampire lore such as fangs, bats, vulnerability to holy water or crosses and really only maintaining the vulnerability to sunlight, thirst for blood and enhanced senses, Thirst instead chooses to focus on the moral questions surrounding the lifestyle of being a vampire. Having the main character be a priest, one who was devout and committed to helping others, become the vampire in the film allows Chan-wook to not only look at the moral questions surrounding the vampire’s need to take blood from the living to maintain their own survival and also the question of their own immortality but Chan-wook can also examine the rising influence of Catholicism in Korea. The themes of survival, of religion and of right and wrong make Thirst more insightful that some vampire films that aim at being straight horror with vampires as faceless bogeymen and there are elements in Thirst that directly confront the trend of vampire/human romances appearing in the genre with the Twilight films and books and television series like Buffy with the central relationship here being altogether more darker and acknowledging that such romances raise questions of psychological instabilities particularly in the handling of the character Tae-ju upon her discovery that Sang-hyun is a vampire. However, despite its strengths and some good moments of humour, the film takes a somewhat surreal turn in the middle following the death of a character and the approach to how Sang-hyun and Tae-ju deal with guilt as a result of the death. The sequence also lasts far too long dragging the length of the film out beyond two hours both effecting the pacing and detracts from the film’s finale.

Song Kang-ho, a regular performer in Park Chan-wook’s films, gives a good performance as Sang-hyun. He ably demonstrates the character’s guilt and the conflicts his survival as a vampire means for his religious beliefs and his morals. Kim Ok-bin is also entertaining as Tae-ju who gets to demonstrate her character as, initially a victim, whilst later getting to show her darker, more unstable and dangerous side and be engaging whilst doing so.

Overall, Thirst is an interesting vampire film from the director of Old Boy. While featuring some interesting twists on the vampire genre, on religious and moral questions surrounding the lifestyle of a vampire and featuring some great moments of humour, Thirst does suffer pacing problems in the middle section of the film that means the otherwise enjoyable ending suffers by the time it takes to get there following an overlong and overly-surreal middle act. Worth seeing but not as enjoyable as it could have been.

Rating: 3/5

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Director: Wes Anderson
Starring (voices of): George Clooney, Meryl Streep & Jason Schwartzman

A very charming and witty animated film adapted from the Roald Dahl classic. Remaining faithful to the tone of the book and featuring the director’s own trademark style, the film is fun for children and adults alike.

Originally slated to be adapted by Henry Selick, the director behind The Nightmare Before Christmas and, previous Roald Dahl adaptation, James and the Giant Peach, Fantastic Mr. Fox then fell into the hands of Wes Anderson, originally intending only to produce the film, when Selick chose to make the film Coraline. The results are very strong as the move from producing the adaptation to directing it allows Anderson to apply his usual eye for set design to creating an entire world for Fantastic Mr. Fox via the use of stop-motion animation whilst also allowing Anderson to call upon old friends to provide voices for the characters. Both help Anderson make Fantastic Mr. Fox a family film with real appeal to children and adults.

When he finds out he is about to become a father, Mr. Fox (Clooney) retires from his life as a chicken hunter and settles down as a newspaper reporter with his wife Mrs. Fox (Streep) and their son Ash (Schwartzman). Twelve fox years later and Mr. Fox is yearning for the thrill-seeking life his old career as a fox hunter gave him. When the opportunity comes to move into a new home on the borders of three farms run by the infamously cruel farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean (Michael Gambon), Mr. Fox embarks upon a return to his old career unbeknownst to his family until it brings the wrath of the farmers down upon him, his family and upon the other creatures living in the valley. Mr. Fox must then devise his most cunning plan yet, one that saves his family, regains his status as the ‘fantastic’ Mr. Fox and get revenge on the farmers out to get him.

Wes Anderson has stated in interviews that Fantastic Mr. Fox is a favourite novel and it shows in his adaptations. Whilst the film showcases Anderson’s usual visual cues (set design and costumes for example) and features some familiar names providing voices for the film including Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray and Willem Dafoe, Fantastic Mr. Fox still captures the feel of Dahl’s original children’s story and gives Anderson yet another dysfunctional family relationship to explore.. The characters may be voiced by Americans but the style of the film feels very British in it’s design and the adaptation still includes the themes Dahl included in his book including acknowledging that despite these animals being able to speak and wear clothes, there are still wild animals and Anderson allows their wild nature to show through regularly in between the witty dialogue and well designed and choreographed set pieces. The animation is also very impressive. Choosing to go with stop-motion animation, Anderson is able to control every aspect of set and character design and his attention to detail is often astounding including going so far as to animate the animal characters’ fur moving which only adds to the wildness Dahl intended to portray in the characters.

The voice cast is also very impressive. Whilst including great turns from Anderson film regulars Jason Schwartzman as Ash (Mr. Fox’ son), Bill Murray as Mr. Fox’s Badger Attorney, Willem Defoe as Rat (a competing chicken snatcher) and Owen Wilson, Anderson also brings in new performers in George Clooney and Meryl Streep in the lead roles of Mr. and Mrs. Fox. Clooney is excellent in his role bring his usual charm and humour to role of Mr. Fox whilst also portraying the character’s overconfidence that puts everyone he knows into jeopardy while Streep is smart and sensitive as Mr. Fox’s wife (a role that might usually have been performed by past Anderson collaborator Angelica Huston). Also enjoyable is Michael Gambon who brings the farmer Bean to cruel life and Wes Anderson’s brother Eric Chase Anderson as Mr. Fox’s nephew Kristofferson.

Overall, Fantastic Mr. Fox is a very enjoyable adaptation of the Roald Dahl novel. Whilst not remaining entirely faithful to the details of Dahl’s novel, it remains faithful to the tone and themes of the novel whilst also being very witty and the stop-motion animation and the film’s design is excellent. The film has plenty to enjoy for adults and children alike.

Rating: 4/5

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Director: Terry Gilliam
Starring: Christopher Plummer, Heath Ledger & Lily Cole

Heath Ledger’s final film finally sees release after attempts by Terry Gilliam to salvage the film following Ledger’s death. The result is a film that starts well and is full of potential but suffers in later scenes making it another flawed, near-masterpiece in Gilliam’s filmography.

Many of Terry Gilliam’s films have become as famous for the stories of the struggles to get them made as they are for the films themselves. Whether it be arguments with studios over final cuts like with Brazil or total collapses in a film’s production due to finances and mother nature such as with Gilliam’s ill-fated adaptation of Don Quixote which has been immortalised in the documentary Lost in La Mancha. Gilliam’s latest film is also him most famous production nightmare to date when it’s star, Heath Ledger, died during production leaving a third of his role unfilmed and the future of the project in doubt. With the aid of several actor friends, Gilliam managed to salvage the project and the result is The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus that has now been released. The result is a film that shows much promise but suffers too much by the loss of Ledger.

A former monk, now immortal, Doctor Parnassus (Plummer) travels the world with his travelling sideshow act, the Imaginarium, a show that allows patrons to experience a land created from their own imaginations. Having dealt with the Devil (Tom Waits) many times in the past including winning his own immortality, Parnassus is now trying desperately to win a wager that would see him lose his daughter Valentina (Cole) to the Devil when she turns 16 years of age which will occur only a few days hence. When all seems lost, hope turns up with the arrival of a stranger found hanging from a bridge named Tony (Ledger). This stranger may not be as innocent as he seems however and his nature and involvement with Parnassus and his Imaginarium may help Parnassus or doom his daughter.

The subject of much speculation as to whether the final film could survive the death of one of its leading actors, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus does feel like a film of two, quite different, halves. The first half is the most enjoyable, focusing mostly upon Parnassus and his troupe than on Ledger’s stranger, Tony, whom they encounter hanging from a bridge (an image that has added power given the death of Ledger). Building up the characters and the story with glimpses of Gilliam’s imagination which is presented in his usual dirty, gritty style, there is quite a lot to like even though the characters are prone to hysterical behaviour and occasionally cartoonish caricatures much like the characters in many Gilliam films. The development of Cole’s Valentina and of the stranger Tony are usually interesting, particularly Tony who is, at first, amnesiac but soon reveals an inner con artist and gift for charm and deception that keeps the audience guessing over whether he will doom Parnassus or redeem himself somehow, saving the day. However, the latter half of the film begins to lose focus which may, or may not, be due to the death of Ledger by this point. Recasting the role of Tony for the Imaginarium sequences (worlds of imagination within a magic mirror controlled by Parnassus) is a mixed affair and ultimately each actor, whether it be Depp, Law or Farrell, compare less favourably in their portrayals of Tony to Ledger’s with some moments, especially the character’s ultimate fate in the finale, falling flat because it isn’t Ledger in the role. The Imaginarium sequences too feel overly OTT and unfocused even for Gilliam being at sometimes impressive and at others far too random and surreal and suffering at times in their representation thanks to Gilliam’s relative inexperience with using CGI. With several notable changes in some scenes to explain Ledger’s disappearance the film feels too rushed towards the end which could be down to Gilliam’s sometimes weakness with ending a story as satisfactorily as he sets it up but likely affected by time constraints in completing the picture after Ledger’s death.

The performances in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus will likely be compared to Ledger’s given this was his last role. Ledger does deliver an interesting performance as he slowly grows comfortable with the character as the film progresses, though his attempts at delivering an accent are often muddled. The performances of Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell who filled in for Ledger in later scenes are less interesting with neither getting enough time to really grasp the character and doing their best impersonations of Ledger’s performance. It is Christopher Plummer and Lily Cole that deliver the stronger performances of the film as Parnassus and his daughter respectively. Plummer plays Parnassus with believable weariness while Cole impresses as the freedom seeking and self-sufficient Valentina who is still naïve when it comes to love.

Overall, starting quite well with good performances from Plummer and Cole and a fun and interesting performance from Ledger, the film does suffer and unravel in the second half with the scenes filmed after Ledger’s death as neither Depp, Law or Farrell really impress and the film struggles to hold itself together. Gilliam’s usual flair for impressive fantasy sequences also suffers in later scenes when he becomes reliant upon CGI too meaning The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is interesting though not loveable and will remain another curiosity in Gilliam’s filmography.

Rating: 3/5