Dioptre Magazine

Top Five Films about Bad Jobs

2009-08-09T17:04:00.002+01:00

September is going to see the release of Edinburgh Film Festival favourite Adventureland, a film about the trials and tribulations of having to hold down a terrible job for little pay. In honour of this latest entrant in the ‘films about bad jobs’ hall of fame, here are the top five worst jobs in movie land. (In no particular order)

1. Waiting (2006) A film about working in a family restaurant. Starring Ryan Reynolds, Anna Faris and Justin Long, Waiting follows the staff of ‘Shenaniganz’ as they try to get through a busy weekend shift. Along with serving the customers, they also play games involving gratuitous nudity, do terrible things to the food of people being less than nice and generally hate the manager as much as they can. Aside from being stupidly funny, Reynolds is the highlight as Monty a morally bankrupt waster with more charm than sense. Waiting is also surprisingly representative of what it is actually like to work in the food service industry. Not fun and often disgusting.
2. Office Space (1999) Written and directed by Mike Judge the creator of King of Hill, this film is about working as a small fish in a really big pond. Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston) decides to blow off work as a cubicle guy in a company called ‘Initech’ on the same day as people are getting sacked. When his work friends get fired they group together to stick it to the man, by planting a computer virus that’ll embezzle millions of dollars from the company. The first feature length film from Judge, Office Space is a great example of how soul destroying it is to work in an office and how easy it is to rip them off.
3. Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) Not so much funny as heartbreaking, Glengarry Glen Ross follows a group of salesmen as they try to secure the best leads in the company. Based on a play by David Mamet and starring Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Ed Harris, Kevin Spacey and Alan Arkin, Glengarry Glen Ross is an acting masterclass. Lemmon shines as the former top seller Shelley ‘the machine’ Levine who needs to close just one more time to keep his head above water. Extreme competition, paranoia and all consuming jealousy, the job of real estate salesman is one no- one will want after watching this. Terrifying.
4. The Simpsons (1989- present day) Not really a film, though there was The Simpsons Movie (2007), Homer’s daily life as a nuclear safety technician in the Nuclear power plant is an essay in dead end jobs. Woefully under qualified for the job he is constantly asleep or eating doughnuts. Not only this but his boss can never remember his name and he is frequently referred to as ‘that boob from sector 7 G’ or a variant of the same. If he’s not putting the town of Springfield at risk of a nuclear meltdown then it’s obviously his day off. It’s not all Homer’s fault though as the power plant itself is in a horrifying state of disrepair. Don’t work in nuclear power, you’ll probably die.
5. Adventureland (2009) The new kid on the block. Set in the eighties Adventureland follows a group of misfits and losers who work at the local theme park. Rides is the coolest place to work even though the kids on games are the James Deans of theme parks, this is a hierarchy worthy of Mean Girls (2004). Featuring an obscene amount drink driving, Adventureland is also about not dipping your pen in the company ink and just getting on with it. It’s better to visit the park than work at it, don’t apply for a job at Alton Towers.

And one of the coolest jobs in movie history:
1. Empire Records (1995) No less misfitty than the kids in Adventureland, the staff at ‘Empire Records’ love their jobs so much that they’re willing to take on the man to save it. Though that wouldn’t be necessary if Lucas hadn’t stolen the rent money to go to Atlantic City. If you don’t work there you wish you did Featuring a killer soundtrack and the coolest kids in town Empire Records has the job everyone dreams of having. Happy hunting.

Cinematic Television

2009-07-25T23:47:00.002+01:00

When Technicolor first came into being in 1922, film industry experts said it would never work. No- one wanted the super- realistic, hyper saturated colours on their cinema screen. Boy were they wrong. Technicolor was cinema’s greatest achievement. Recently the idea of ‘Cinematic Television’ has been bandied about, and once again the experts have said that it’ll never work. Could they be wrong again?
Thanks to HBO television and the shows they produce such as Band of Brothers, Angels in America, The Soprano’s and Deadwood, the lowly ‘Telly Box’ has risen in status. No longer only for the masses, now it’s also considered as worthwhile by the cultural elite. Garnering critical acclaim, those in the know have proclaimed that television is entering its Golden Age. Even teachers regularly show television programmes in relation to the study of literature. Television adaptations of classic novels are thought to encourage a deeper understanding of classic texts. Not only this but they are thought to better appeal to the student of today because they help visualise the costumes and customs of Austen’s’ Regency England, or Mark Twain’s Mississippi. But why is it only now that people are starting to consider television as cinema?
Television has, for a long time, been getting the ‘upscaling’ treatment. That is trying to get it to appeal to a more intellectual viewer. This has been done by improving the story telling techniques, and the visual production of programmes. You only have to take a glance at a HBO production to see how this has been done. However, even easier than that television has received its upgrade simply by setting itself up in relation to cinema, so positive comparisons can subsequently be made. For example, True Blood the new series from the creator of Six Feet Under has been hailed as better than most vampire films hitting the cinema.
On the other hand, television can be seen as becoming more cinematic for purely technological reasons. Television has long been being shot in widescreen, yet shown in standard. It is thought that directors like to shoot in widescreen because it is closer to shooting for the cinema screen. Also programmes are shot in one and shown in the other because it helps make the transfer to DVD easier, another factor in the television as cinema argument. One of life’s little ironies is that films were originally shot in widescreen so that they could be distinguished from television shows. It can also be argued that television programmes were shot in widescreen in order to better fit widescreen television sets. Which were once a status item and are now the norm. ER was one of the first television shows to be broadcast in widescreen in 2000, which goes to show how long television has been transforming into cinema. Though ER seems to be something of an unfair example as it has almost always been equated with quality ‘cinematic’ television, mostly due to its use of long shots and static camera techniques. Thus lending ER, a more movie like feel. This being the case some shows that also adopt this technique often struggle to find a large audience even though the critics go crazy for them.
As it’s probably already been mentioned cinematic level television is almost always the realm of HBO. However, production companies like Showtime, which produces the popular series Dexter is also throwing its hat into the ring. What these channels, and production companies, do to create ‘quality’ television goes far beyond the use of single camera shooting techniques and ‘letterboxing’. What they do is create programmes with seemingly no boundaries. HBO and Showtime shows often feature a previously unheard of level of nudity, violence and language, the first episode of True Blood was especially explicit. Thus going some way to explaining why watching something like The Soprano’s or True Blood feels more like watching a film than a television programme. It could also be argued that television has every, if not more, right to occupy the same intellectual and artistic space as cinema as the classic novel, the beacon of taste and intellect, was once serialised. Great novels like Oliver Twist were published weekly in newspapers, in which case parallels with television can be made. One can also argue that a television series has more room for things like character development, story arc and exposition. Television has more time and space to play with its own formats and formulas. Something a feature film does not have. Yet the word ‘cinematic’ implies; not only quality, but also a certain kind of visual grace coupled with good storytelling. It can also be argued that novels moved away from serialisation and are now published as a whole. Much like the cinema. One should also point out that most cinematic television are actually adaptations. Whereas feature films are often wholly original endeavours.
And so 2009 saw the Edinburgh Film Festival show episodes from two new HBO series, In Treatment and True Blood, in the cinema. Surely making the final case for television as cinema? According to the programme blurbs series like True Blood and HBO “…are a perfect example of the kind of quality television that now offers cinema a serious challenge”, and In Treatment is “… a pioneering example of contemporary television at its best”. In fact the whole reason why they were included on the programming for a film festival was because it is believed that the current cultural climate of wanting to see everything now makes the distinction between T.V and Cinema very difficult to define. It has started to become commonplace that television programmes such as Martina Hyde’s The Take are advertised as trailers before feature films in the cinema. So does this inclusion win the argument for cinematic television? Apparently not according to the panel discussions held after the screenings.
It is important to note that those making this ‘quality’ programming are, more often than not, writers. And when it comes to creating television the writer is subsequently king. Cinematic television has come into being simply because the opportunities for good writers in films are shrinking. Television provides a good space for writers to flex their creative muscles. It should be stressed that with this flexing comes a pressure to create similar shows. Hollywood exerts no such pressure, Hollywood only cares that you make money. TV land operates on a ‘if it ain’t broke’ policy. One should also make clear that HBO in the States is a pay channel; it is not free to the public, which elevates the channel to the level of cinema. If one wants to watch the latest movie release one has to pay for the privilege, the same goes for ‘quality’ programming. On this point it can also be argued that the existence of TV Licences means that BBC is also a pay channel. However, this is a tenuous point; most British ‘quality’ programming is produced by Channel Four, which is not under the jurisdiction of the TV Licence.
A point made at the panel discussion was that daring television could also be cheap television. One has to wonder if daring television has suddenly come to mean ‘reality’ television, as that is the only television format which is relatively cheap to produce. Most ‘quality’ television actually has quite a large budget. Take Battlestar Galactica or The Wire as cases in point. Both have been voted as two of the best television programmes ever made and both have frequently been hailed as better than anything that cinema has to offer. It can also be safely posited that the large ensemble casts, special effects and shooting style can’t have come cheap. Especially since the success of these programmes relies heavily on the star players they get to collaborate. HBO projects have featured Emma Thompson, Meryl Streep and Al Pacino but have also been worked on by heavyweights such as Mike Nichols and Steven Spielberg. Not inexpensive by anyone’s interpretation of the word.
Is television cinematic then? Not really. Whilst it has raised its game in terms of story, development and execution, the sheer scope of it clearly places it in the television bracket. If cinema had sixty hours, and a run of several weeks it could probably do what television is doing only better. What television does have going for it though is, strangely, the recession. The cinema is just too damned expensive these days and there’s a whole host of brilliant things to watch on TV for a fraction of the price. It’s more communal as well, you can watch TV with your family, you can argue the finer points of the programme you’re watching whilst you’re it. You certainly can’t do that in the cinema, not without incurring some serious hissing and booing.
So television’s not cinema, so what? It’s still pretty damned good.

By R.M

Black Dynamite

2009-07-16T00:56:00.001+01:00

Blaxploitation movies were always good fun. Featuring soundtracks of pure soul and funk, the first films to do so, they exuded a kind of cool that has been increasingly hard to emulate. But not anymore. Who’s the coolest cat to ever walk the street? It used to be Shaft, now it’s Black Dynamite. And he’s tearing up the ghetto in his very own sexy, hilarious and camp feature film.
It would be wrong to simply term this film a spoof, or pastiche of the classic 70s films. It is clear that the writers, Micheal Jai White and Scott Sanders (also the director) grew up watching Pam Grier kick some jive-turkey ass. The original films were usually set in the ghetto, and dealt with pimps, hitmen and drug dealers. Black Dynamite has all three in spades. The eponymous hero Black Dynamite (Micheal Jai White) goes on a crusade for revenge when he finds out his brother was murdered by ‘The Man’, an evil organisation that, along with murdering, gets orphans addicted to heroin and saturates the ghetto with a secret weapon aimed at hitting the black community where it hurts. And oh what a crusade he goes on. A master of Kung Fu, Black Dynamite dispatches Ninjas without breaking a sweat, though woe betide the man who “interrupts his Kung Fu!” As the owner of “12 inches of cold, hard steel” (quote thanks to the trailer) he shoots before he asks questions. And as the baddest cat around he can’t go ten minutes without feeling the need to pleasure some ladies. His quest to take down the man is probably the most fun anyone can have watching a film. And what’s really refreshing is that nothing and no- one is too precious to be made fun of. Even though he’s clearly the coolest man in the movie, when he enters a room a chorus screams: “Dynamite! Dynamite!”, Black Dynamite consistently forgets which country he was tortured in when he suffers flashbacks, and is awkwardly left stuttering when two little girls claim that their mother’s told them their daddy’s name was Black Dynamite: “Err hush up little girls. Lot of cats got that name.”
An enormous success at Sundance, Black Dynamite was also named as one of the Best of the Fest at the Edinburgh Film Festival. You’ll know why before you get to the end of the opening credits. Whilst Black Dynamite encapsulates all that was great about blaxploitation, it also features all that was shoddy about it too. Don’t be surprised when you catch a cheeky glimpse of a boom mike in the middle of a scene, or when an actress’ single teardrop seems to swap cheeks willy nilly. This is all part of this sharp satire that not only shapes an authentic picture of the genre but also helps show the creator’s appreciation of it. An appreciation that is infectious.

By R.M

What's the future for science fiction?

2009-07-15T21:26:00.003+01:00

Science fiction, like comic books, has long been the realm of freaks and geeks the world over. But comic books became cool. Thanks to the super hero movie and the comic book adaptation movie, everyone and their mum have started to read comic books. It broke into the mainstream. Science fiction, on the other hand, has never quite made that jump. It would be wrong to say that it hasn’t penetrated the mainstream, because it has. Films like Danny Boyle’s Sunshine have broken into the wider audience market. But science fiction is still thought of as being only for the nerds, or if you’re not a nerd, something of a guilty pleasure. Why? It could be something to do with the fact that the concepts grappled with in science fiction films are only familiar concepts to people who study science. In order to make them non- scientist friendly these concepts have to be dumbed down. And what comes out of that are films like I Robot, a criminally dull film that did nothing to explain or advertise Asimov’s Rules of Robotics as valid theories of inquiry. Though it did advertise everything else.
It is important to realise that the science fiction film now occupies the same intellectual space as the Gothic novel. Invented in 1764 by Horace Walpole with his novel The Castle of Otranto the Gothic novel, held up a mirror to society and exposed its fears. The genre was born at a time when harsh laws were held in place, not by diplomacy, but by torture and superstition was king. A prime example is Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, a novel which stood as a treatise on the dangers of medical advances. To further compound the idea that the gothic novel and science fiction are almost one and the same is the fact that Frankenstein was adapted in 1931 starring Vincent Price. Science fiction has long done the same. Philip K Dick’s Do Android’s Dream of Electric Sheep first embraced the idea of ‘the ghost in the machine’. Set in a post apocalyptic world, this novel hypothesises the dangers of nuclear armament and, more importantly, what it is to be human. Now anyone who knows their science fiction knows that this was the basis for Blade Runner, long thought to be one of the greatest films ever made. Also one of the most confusing and mentally impenetrable films ever made. So difficult that Ridley Scott made five different versions. Science fiction has long been the arena for exploring the perilous and sinister nature of the quest for knowledge. Prophetic in nature, science fiction films often present a dystopian and grim view of the future which echoes society’s anxieties about advances in technology and how to control its results. It seems to be the fate of the science fiction film that it will either be so faithful to the concepts it embodies that it will be unfathomable to the general public or it will be so simplified that those actually interested in the science of science fiction will be left feeling betrayed.
However, science fiction is also thought to be an American endeavour. Despite having its basis in English Gothic Romance exemplified by Mary Shelley, or the European Utopian Novel exemplified by Jules Verne, science fiction has long been concerned with the American ideal of endless growth. But U.K science fiction is finally fighting back. In an interview with Alistair Reynolds, a leading science fiction writer, the Guardian highlights that British writers such as Reynolds have felt the need to compete with the U.S. Where the U.K differs from the U.S is in the reach of their science fiction. A problem with American science fiction is that it tends to eschew the hard sell, or in layman terms features mostly unsupported science. U.K writers, on the other hand, have long been writing about “far future set, space- operatic, hard sci- fi.” This has also long been the tradition in British made science fiction films. Take Danny Boyle’s Sunshine for instance. Whilst its merits have caused some arguments, the science itself is fairly sound. Compared to the American made remake Solaris is neither entertaining nor scientifically accurate. And now with Duncan Jones’ Moon, being released this year and Christopher Nolan’s Inception being released next year, the British fight back has begun in earnest.
According to official box office statistics 2002 was the most successful year for science fiction in over a decade. The films released in this year included Star Wars Episode Two: Attack of the Clones, Minority Report, Solaris, Simone and Equilibrium to name but a few. Of course, the majority were American productions. It should also be pointed out that only 23 science fiction films were released in 2002, some of which cannot even be termed science fiction. Of these films two were mainstream hits and the rest were critically deemed flops. For example, Equilibrium starring Emily Watson and Christian Bale was loosely based on 1984 and Brave New World. The theme of the film was behaviour modification, the idea that society would be better if emotion could be eradicated. Equilibrium once again tackled the idea of the loss of personal individuality like in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). Behaviour modification could also be said to be the theme of Minority Report where the threat of prosecution for future crimes kept everyone thinking happy thoughts. But where the latter was a success, the former was a failure. Why? Because Equilibrium in trying to stay faithful to its genre came out very dry. A film full of levelly toned people and not a hint of a smile does not make for riveting viewing. Minority Report, on the other hand, eschewed the hard genre work and focussed instead on turning out a credible action thriller with just a hint of science fiction. In science fiction it is the hint that has always been key.
So what of this year? Is science fiction still only hinting at its science fiction status? In a word, No. 2009 has already seen the release of Star Trek, the J.J. Abrams re- envisioning of the classic T.V and film series, Terminator Salvation and Duncan Jones’ debut feature Moon. Still to come is Surrogates starring Bruce Willis, directed by Jonathon Mostow the man who gave us Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. And, perhaps most excitingly of all, James Cameron’s Avatar. Of these films only a few can really be called science fiction. Star Trek, for example, is a classic example of ‘soft’ science fiction, one which refuses to recognise the more important theories that govern scientific study into space. Theories such as the Fermi Paradox which highlights the contradiction between the high likelihood of other life in space and the complete lack of evidence we have for it. Films like Star Trek show human beings interacting with alien civilisations all the time. However, Duncan Jones’ Moon in not only au fait with the more complex scientific principles but highlights and exemplifies them in such a way that the audience is left not feeling overwhelmed but fascinated with its principles.
Moon tells the story of Sam (Sam Rockwell) who after three years mining Helium 3, with only his friendly ships computer GERTY (eerily voiced by Kevin Spacey) for company, is looking forward to coming to the end of his contract and returning home. But when he gets to the final stretch strange things start happening and Sam comes to realise that he may never return home. Without giving too much away Jones incorporates three major scientific principles or areas of inquiry into the film, and all are well- informed. Scientists have long been developing ideas to tackle mining Helium 3 as a way of ending Earth’s energy crisis, gives us a terrifying view of ever increasing corporate strongholds, and the rest of the science is no stranger to the science fiction genre either. It is easy to see that Jones has got an assured handle on the tenets of the genre. Moon has strong elements of Kubrick’s 2001 especially in the characterisation of GERTY. But instead of coming across as a hash of other people’s big ideas, Jones uses well- established ideas and schools of thought to explore the dark side of human alienation. It would be a mistake to say that GERTY’s only influence is Hal, after all the title of Jones’ Masters thesis was: ‘How to kill your computer friend: An investigation of the mind/ body problem and how it relates to the hypothetical creation of a thinking machine.”
Is science finally cool? I think it’s going to be. About time too.

By R.M

Public Enemies

2009-07-11T18:46:00.003+01:00

No one should doubt Michael Mann’s ability as a storyteller. However Public Enemies as a stand-alone piece of cinema is lacking. It saddens me to write this, as Mann is a director I deeply admire, but I felt like he didn’t really work as hard on this film as he could have done.

Johnny Depp should excel in this kind of role. Daringly this representation of a crook is of a dangerous and brave one; Depp is so charismatic that this nasty edge is genuinely very frightening and would lend a complexity to the character. Sadly this is where the depth stops and Dillinger’s only development is to proclaim to future-girlfriend, Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) he likes fast cars, whiskey, baseball, movies and you. It’s a nice moment and we get the relationship on the back of it; but really not enough depth went into making Dillinger someone we can truly believe in. There’s just not enough going on for the character in this film. His love of bank robbing is never explored nor any angle really taken on it at all. I was very disappointed to see Johnny Depp so blandly handled.

Both Christian Bale and Marion Cotillard suffer the opposite fate. Both their characters are excellently constructed and yet they never really get much screen time despite both delivering fantastic performances. In addition Stephen Lang and Billy Crudup who have even smaller parts are also superb and steal all the scenes either appear in.

It seemed like the film on paper and the one on screen are really two separate entities. On paper ,the pace would have been faster and more orientated around Dillinger. Yet Mann in his expansive fashion takes a look at everyone and moves the action all over the place. It seems a very strange series of complaints – that the lead is too good an actor for the part and the supports are not on screen enough; but it hurts the film severely.

The major flaw in this film, one I thought I might be alone in disliking, was the choice of shoot with a Sony F23 digital camera. Basically shooting on digital rather than onto traditional stock visually compromises this film. Digital film does not have the latitude that film stock provides in low light conditions – especially in moving shots. With this kind of classic story a classic approach would have suited much better.

Mann is a pioneer of this technology and put it to exceptionally good use in his last two films – Collateral and Miami Vice. There the digital “noise” fitted in well with the dirty urban environments. But it’s so incorrect an aesthetic for Public Enemies that the screen appears out of focus. There are some wonderful moments that are blurry to the point where the viewer cannot focus on the image. This is my one largest complaint and reason I would say: see something else. To pay for a ticket and be unable to actually view the film is unreasonable. For FACT and the studios it represents to claim pirate products are poor imitations of the real thing is absolutely right. Yet if high end films continue to be made with a technology that is not yet ready to be capture action in this way then, in my opinion there is no difference between the quality of a pirated DVD and a studio film.

There are moments of brilliance in Public Enemies. The opening is fast and sucked me straight in, the performances are all good and the filmmaking is mostly very fitting. It’s such a shame that the entire production is ruined by a decision to film on a camera that looks so terrible when projected.

By D.F.I

Star Trek

2009-07-11T18:40:00.002+01:00

J.J. Abrams has the golden touch. Embracing deep characterisation with an emphasis on the visual storytelling he seems to be quickly becoming the Alan Moore of film. Star Trek is the sort of cinema that ALL summer blockbusters aspire to be. Sexy, fast and potent in delivery it is simultaneously funny and gripping!

Star Trek’s aesthetic execution, right down to the visual effects, is one of the key components to the film’s success. Often we are privy to million-light-year-away planets exploding, spaceships teleporting from one corner of the screen to another and occasional frantic, European-style camera work from American cinematographer Dan Mindel during action. Every single shot oozes such intricate story-centred thought you could watch this as a slideshow and still get what’s going on. Even simple talking head shots are more dynamically filmed than in the average film.

The script has been given attention in same way as the cinematography. Transformers scribes Orci and Kurtzman reload the flagging series with real flare. All the characters seem to be particularly well developed in this instalment. From Chris Pine’s initially self-doubting bad boy Kirk to Eric Bana’s brief stint as insane Romulan villain Nero, the characters grow rapidly into ever more complicated predicaments.

Surprisingly it is Spock (Zachary Quito) that develops most and he is certainly the character that is easiest to empathise with, to the point perhaps where Kirk could have taken a back seat earlier on. Quinto, of Heroes fame, is a daring choice for the role but one that immediately pays off, as he plays the part with a reserved intensity that is at once charismatic and impenetrable. Abrams’ direction is spot on and Quinto performs with relish. Of particular note was Winona Rider as Spock’s mum. A performance so powerful and delivered in only a few moments, it is a perfect example of how tightly written the script really is.

This story is fantastic and while seem initially silly, plays out with such a sincerity that it never even entered my mind that it was ridiculous. My toes curled in delight when two goodies beam aboard an enemy craft to the scream of: “Starfleet officers on the bridge!” The pair proceed to carve up everything in their sights with their phasers set to kill! Geekdom was never this cool! The visual effects provide plot-centred spectacle and the slew of perfectly cast actors all benefit from the lovingly crafted script. This is a production where everything has come together beautifully. I highly recommend Star Trek. Just try to watch it on a screen bigger than the one on your mobile!

By D.F.I

Splinter

2009-07-11T18:39:00.000+01:00

Story is everything. The straight-to-DVD Splinter impressed me because the filmmakers share this view. Be under no illusions – it is easy to make a film. It’s hard to make a good one.

Splinter’s good - a simple survival horror film, shot near Oklahoma City in 2008. It’s British director Toby Wilkins first feature. In brief: two bank robbers accost a young couple and the four become quickly trapped in a petrol station and attacked by an aggressively self-replicating super-virus.

The small cast (there are six parts) in a single location works brilliantly. Due to the hour and twenty minute runtime, I never felt the film slow down. I was gripped and since the film was so short I never felt any of the characters choices become contrived. Due to the speed of the plot unravelling there was no time to second-guess their actions; a problem with many modern films running over two hours.

The characters were well written. Shea Whingham’s Dennis is an emasculated whelp begging to be put through Fight Club and defiantly not prepared to deal with an dangerous flesh-eating virus, despite a Biology PHD. His girlfriend Polly (Jill Wagner) is likewise a subversion of the characters we usually see in these kinds of films. She is a capable, clever woman (often unrepresented in modern Hollywood cinema) who never breaks down miserably under the ensuing spatter. Lastly the bank robbers flesh out the second half of the cast and are finely performed if slightly snobbishly approached by the USC film school educated writer Ian Shorr. All the actors deliver strong, clear performances.

It’s refreshing to be presented with a story that is not based on a computer game or a remake of another film or a sequel. This lends the filmmaker an invaluable advantage – we’ve utterly no idea what will happen. It’s an approach that makes for exciting viewing. Wilkins’ direction excels when focussed on the power plays and status changes experienced by his characters as they hole up in the petrol station. With a background in effects he is also unafraid of showing the thrashing spine-encrusted monsters infected by the virus - a nice change from the odd slimy close-ups conventional since Alien.

The film was clearly made on a very small budget and the emphasis on the single location and frugal approach to practical effects do betray this. However that’s a small complaint and the film is so unashamed in its speed and directness in unfolding it’s one I happily forgive.

by D.F.I

Moon

2009-07-02T17:48:00.007+01:00

Moon is good. Very good. Interesting, funny, thought- provoking and very intelligent, this is a return to the glory days of Science Fiction. Populated for the most part by one man, one voice and no real special effects to speak of, Moon could have very easily been very boring. It wasn’t.
Sam (Sam Rockwell) is coming to the end of a three year stint on the moon harvesting Helium 3 which could spell the end of Earth’s energy crisis. Helped only by his faithful ship computer GERTY (eerily voiced by Kevin Spacey) because communication with Earth has long been impossible, Sam is very lonely. He wants to go home. But when it comes time, will he be allowed to, and who will replace him?
The director Duncan Jones has done an amazing job of making Moon look like a feature length version of The Twilight Zone, the dense greys and the stark whites create a 70’s look that serves the film well. There’s nothing flashy here, just pure character driven story. Sam Rockwell really delivers as the only real character in the film. Engaging and heartbreaking, he keeps the story steady when it could have just as easily gone off track. And the science is well handled, not too obtuse to alienate the audience and not too basic to make it seem fake. But the best looking part of the film is the moon itself. It is not the lily white orb we see from the Earth, it’s gritty and glittery and grim. It’s fantastic.
This is not your average sci fi extravaganza, this is not one for the geeks alone. This is not Star Trek. This is so much more. Like the moon itself, Moon will provoke a lot of debate. Prepare to fight your corner.

By R.M

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

2009-06-29T23:21:00.001+01:00

From less oil on the body of Megan Fox to less “Special” Forces soldiers running about. Fans of Transformers will no doubt feel short changed on all fronts. What’s missing is the cheesy charm and in its place is a more child friendly toy advert, shrink-wrapped in an impenetrable series of events that attempt some semblance of a story.

Revenge of the Fallen deviates from the benefits of a simple plot and embraces a dozen different threads, which never tie up. With this lack of an easy-to-follow story the film starts and stops throughout. The whirlwind pace so necessary for this kind of blockbuster is gone. While critics of the first Transformers claimed the MacGuffin-fuelled plot was ridiculous (Find the cube. Protect the cube. Destroy the cube.) It worked well to move the story along and showcase the special effects. It would have been wise to replicate that formula for the sequel.

The two things I really enjoyed were, firstly, the Transformers. Admittedly they are more important to this film’s progression and they interact with the human characters far more effectively, something the filmmakers should be commended for. The effects are still stunning, certainly the best element in the film.

I also enjoyed seeing Shia LaBeouf’s Sam go to university with his parents. The scene manages to recapture some of the charming stupidity of the original and for a moment, as Mrs. Whitwickey (the superb Julie White) eats a space cake I thought the film itself was about to transform. Sadly it gave way to an “old” teleporting (and thus plot-hole creating) Decepticon defector – Jetfire – who will no doubt be adored by eight to ten year olds.

The factor that would have helped the film (other than a better script) was sound related. Transformers was nominated for two Oscar’s in both Achievement in Sound and Sound Effects Editing. It sounds real – a hard thing to achieve when half the characters are Autonomous Robotic Organisms from Cybertron. The credibility leant to the visual effects by the sound team, coupled with the super-charged atmosphere of the soundscape really had me glued to the screen. Nice to see studios making artistic efforts with commercial cinema. Revenge of the Fallen lacks this scope inherent in the original’s sound mix.

The film could have also ended with a much more punchy climax as Sam attempts to save the world, again. Instead we mess around with un-established talk of destroying the sun and so on. Drivel.

Revenge of the Fallen is a fun ride but doesn’t deliver in the same way Transformers did.

By D.F.I

Anything for her

2009-06-08T20:19:00.003+01:00

Anything for Her opens on a black screen and the sounds of distorted breathing and anguished cries. When a picture finally appears we are greeted with the face of Julien (Vincent Lindon) staring into the backseat of his car looking dismayed. We have no idea who this horror-struck man is, let alone what has just happened. It is a long time before we are caught up. It is this sense of the unknown that helps Fred Cavaye keep us hooked into a story that is somewhat clichéd and plodding.
Ever since the success of Tell No One (2006) the French have been dabbling in the realm of the suspense thriller. Anything for Her is their latest offering to the genre. The story concerns Lisa (Diane Kruger), a woman wrongly accused and incarcerated for murder, and her husband who hatches an elaborate plot to bust her outta the clink. What is quickly established through the scenes depicting Julien planning the break out is that he is clearly way out of his depth. A softly spoken French teacher and a sensitive father to the couple’s young son, this is not a man you would imagine has the stomach to “dispatch bystanders.” An early meeting with an escaped criminal delineates what is needed to capture freedom, and retain it. This supplies the throbbing pulse of the film. We watch intently as Julien grows ever more haggard and determined, silently wondering if he will ever have the guts to carry out his plan.
The story itself, however, is the least believable aspect of Anything for Her. An ordinary husband going to criminal lengths to free his wife, still radiant despite being in prison for years, just doesn’t ring true. Another aspect of the plot which just doesn’t make sense is not only the ridiculous ineptitude of the police force, a spot of blood on the back of Lisa’s coat is enough to convict her despite the fact that the victim took a blow to the face from the front. But also its incredulous efficiency, a bit of a headlight is found, sent to the lab, identified as belonging to Julien’s car and Julien’s plot found out in less than three hours. Never has police activity been so on the money. Despite all this the chemistry between Kruger and Lindon has us wanting Julien to pull it all off. We care for them as a couple and want them to get away with it. Achieving that in a film so riddled with plot holes is an accomplishment in itself.
By revealing the truth of Lisa’s supposed crime so early on in the film, Cavaye rids himself of an obvious point of tension but not only this he leaves himself without an ending that would lend itself better to a satisfying conclusion. As it is there is something deeply unsatisfying about Anything for Her.

By R.M

Terminator Salvation

2009-06-08T19:30:00.006+01:00

And so the world’s most eagerly awaited sequel has finally hit the screens. But was it really worth the wait? One thing that has to be remembered about the Terminator franchise is that it is endlessly complicated. People go forward and back in time as though they have their own personal DeLorians. Terminators start off as human murdering, bike and jacket stealing uber robots and come back as protectors. The fourth instalment of the tale of the ghost in the machine (Skynet) and those trying to bring it down (the resistance/ John Conner) is no less complicated. However, it does hold well with the original time line, so hard core fans will not be left agitated and screaming death to McG. (Though it has been remarked that the T 800 is seen being built 9 years too early. But I wouldn’t know anything about that and I’ve seen all of the Terminator films.)
Visually he’s done an amazing job. It cannot be stressed enough how amazing the robots, or machines, are. When chasing pesky humans or just generally milling around, they whirl and move as though they were props in the latest urban ballet. This fluidity of movement does not mean that they are pansies though. They make a lot of noise. The landscape ripples with the force of their existence and ears need to be covered when they’re on the warpath.
So what of the story? It’s pretty good. Skynet develops its very own fly in the ointment in the form of Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) a death row inmate who donates his body to medical science before being executed. Without giving too much away, what Marcus goes through when trying to come to grips with why he is alive years after he’s been executed and what his new purpose is; can be read as a treatise on the nature of humanity. On the other hand, as with all films there has to be a downside and what Terminator: Salvation lacks is a clear engagement with a lead character. Much of the story splits its time between John Connor’s (Christian Bale) eternal quest to take out Skynet and Marcus’ quest to find himself. As a result it is unsure who is the main focus of the story. Christian Bale as John Conner also seems to be a bit miscast, more Batman takes on the robots than anything else.
Even with the negatives Terminator Salvation is a good film. Enough action film to keep fans of blow ‘em ups happy and just enough science fiction to keep the computer nerds discussing the possibility of machines taking over the world for years to come. Even better this isn’t just one for the boys, the presence of Christian Bale and new hot boy Sam Worthington are enough to keep any girl more than occupied for two hours. Man versus machine has never been as fun, or as goddamned handsome.

By R.M

Roman Holiday Review

2009-05-26T22:47:00.003+01:00

Roman Holiday (1953) saw Audrey Hepburn pick up an Oscar for her first leading role as Princess Ann, a young cloistered Royal who falls in love with an American journalist (Gregory Peck) when on a visit to Rome. The wide-eyed charm and ingenuous acting style first took roots in this charming romantic comedy which sees her hold her own against the more experienced Peck. Audrey’s success in Roman Holiday also marked the end of a Hollywood dominated by buxom beauties such as Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren. Billy Wilder, who she worked with on Sabrina (1954) said that “she may single-handedly make bosoms a thing of the past”.
One would expect a romance set in Rome and starring Hepburn and Peck would be laden with over the top sentimentality but Roman Holiday is a film built on understatement. There isn’t one moment of gushing hyperbole; no whispered ‘I Love You’s’ or screaming declarations. Peck’s cynicism is the perfect foil for Hepburn’s wide- eyed innocence. Her amazement and joy at seeing things that Peck sees everyday will warm the coldest of hearts, a standout scene is the moment they visit La Bocca della Verita.
It also has an ending so perfect that it rivals the closing stages of Casablanca. This is not classic Hollywood romance but almost a certain kind of realism. Love can be many things but it can also be fleeting, resonant and heartbreaking. This is the ending of Roman Holiday. There is nothing better than lovers who cannot be together and here is where director Wyler gets it right, the final scene which sees Peck slowly walking out of the great hall and away from Hepburn is flawless. The little smile, the way he never looks back, this was a love affair he will never forget. And neither will we.