Nativity! ***
With the big Christmas blockbuster of 2009 having already been released in cinemas, we now have a somewhat smaller effort hitting cinema screens. Unlike the rather dark A Christmas Carol, however, Nativity! is a much more cheerful piece of festive cinema. In theory this is a film that always sounded like it has the potential to be a delightful Christmas treat, as the cast is made up of a who’s who of big British comic talent and the idea at its heart certain has the promise for an enjoyable, if lightweight, family comedy. However, the presence of director Debbie Isitt, whose last film Confetti was extremely mediocre and who takes a very improvisational approach to her films, has been less encouraging. Thus, going into the film my expectations were pretty low and consequently I was very pleasantly surprised by what I saw.
Ever since he was dumped at Christmas, primary school teacher Mr Maddens (Martin Freeman) has hated all things festive. In happier days he studied drama with Jennifer (Ashley Jensen) and Gordon (Jason Watkins). Now Jennifer has a new life in Hollywood while arrogant Gordon teaches at the posh school down the road. Maddens’ heart sinks when he’s assigned to direct the school nativity play. His previous effort was viciously slated by the local drama critic (Alan Carr), while Gordon’s productions always get five stars. However, Maddens’ new classroom assistant, Mr Poppy (Mark Wootton), is beside himself with excitement and has big ideas for a Christmas spectacular. And when Maddens idly boasts to Gordon that his play has - via Jennifer - attracted the attention of Hollywood, the whole town gets caught up in showbiz madness!
Nativity! is not one of the best Christmas movies or one of the best British comedies ever made. In fact, it doesn’t even come close to being either. What it is, however, is a very enjoyable film that will fill you with festive cheer, something that this year’s other Christmas didn’t do such a good job of. I will start by saying what is bad about the film. For the price of a cinema ticket you would expect to see something quite cinematic. However, by and large the quality of the film is much more akin to that of a television special, the kind of thing that you would expect to see for free in the comfort of your home, not have to pay to see at a cinema. This isn’t to say that the film isn’t good but it does lack the feel of a proper movie. This is something that is also evident in the quality of the performances with the ensemble of big British stars (which also includes Pam Ferris and Ricky Tomlinson) being distinctly unimpressive, simply being average, and far from their best. While fairly amusing, they all fail to provide much that is really funny and this is a pretty big problem in a film that is supposed to be a comedy. However, while the adult stars fail to stand out in any way the kids are a completely different story. The children seen in the film are what really worth seeing, particularly when the film really kicks into gear with the actual performance of the play at the film’s climax, a performance that really is quite spectacular. The kids are cute and many of them show genuine talent and it is them who really steal the show. What they bring to the film is a sense of charm and warmth, something that is perhaps missing in the performances of the adult actors, and they provide a finale which really does make the film worth seeing, even through the parts where it does drag a little. So, while Nativity! is never going to be considered a Christmas classic, it is definitely a film that will leave you in a very festive mood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Monday, November 30, 2009
Glorious 39 Interviews
Romola Garai and Stephen Poliakoff talk about their new Second World War drama...
More about this movie
More about this movie
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - Law Abiding Citizen
Law Abiding Citizen ***
Revenge thrillers are pretty common nowadays, so much so that it is a genre that is somewhat lacking in originality, many such films failing to deliver to anything that hasn’t really been seen countless times before. Yet, every now and then, a film comes along with a high concept that just may have the potential to provide something truly fresh. Law Abiding Citizen is such a film. Anyone who follows the news will be extremely aware of the many injustices of the legal system, particularly in the United Kingdom. The number of serious offenders who get released from prison only to commit serious offences again is a perfect demonstration of just how broken the British justice system is. Consequently, there is a distinct appeal to a film about a man who feels failed by the justice system and seeks vengeance against that very system. It may deal with the American rather than the British justice system but the central concept is very poignant nonetheless. There is certainly a lot of potential in the concept but does the film actually live up to this potential? A somewhat negative reaction from critics suggests not but a quite impressive performance at the US box office suggests that moviegoers may not agree with the critics.
Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is a brilliant planner and inventor who lives an ordinary but happy life with his wife and daughter. Everything changes, however, on the night that two robbers invade his Philadelphia home and brutally kill his wife and daughter, and almost kill him. The killers are caught and brought to trial and Clyde thinks that he is going to get justice. But he wasn’t counting on the actions of prosecutor Assistant DA Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) who makes a deal with one of the killers that will get him a lighter sentence if he testifies against his partner. Clyde doesn't want Nick to make the deal, but Nick says it is too late and the deal is done. The other killer gets the death penalty. After 10 years, the killer who testified is released from prison, and he soon ends up dead, killed in extremely gruesome fashion. Clyde is arrested and kind of admits to Nick that he did it. This is only the beginning, however. Clyde is put in jail, and he warns Nick that, unless he fixes the broken justice system, he’s going to kill everyone involved in the case one by one. It doesn’t take long for Clyde to make good on his promise as key players are found dead in increasingly gruesome circumstances, despite the fact that Clyde is behind bars. Now Nick must find a way to stop the deadly assassin and end his unstoppable and ingenious reign of terror.
The first thing I will say about Law Abiding Citizen is that it is not a film for the squeamish or faint of heart. Within the first few minutes we are witness to the brutal murder of Clyde’s wife and daughter and this is just one of the instances of brutal violence that is on display, other such scenes being the horrific execution of one of the killers, the torture and dismemberment of the other and the gory murder of a prison inmate. With the exception of the last scene I have mentioned, director F. Gary Gray does at least have the taste to shy away from the gory detail but the violence is almost sickening regardless, and not in a way that is wholly necessary for the purposes of the story. However you take the violence, though, the film is at least strong in other areas. The plot is quite ingenious, even if at times some suspension of disbelief is required, and the core objective of the protagonist (or is it antagonist?) brings with it a message about the nature of justice that many may be able to relate to. There is far more going on beneath the surface than the average revenge thriller and the film genuinely does seem to have something to say. However, the message isn’t put across with the resonance it could have and while we can understand Clyde’s point of view and perhaps even relate to it, there is a fatal flaw in the film that results from the character’s actions. After all, it is hard to sympathize with a character who deliberately kills people we know to be entirely innocent, having seen events from their perspective. This lack of sympathy means that we are extremely conflicted about who to really root for. Clyde is supposed to be righteous in his mission yet his actions are anything but while Nick is kind of painted as the bad guy in proceedings he genuinely comes across as a good person. I suppose it could be said that the film reflects the nature of real life, with characters shades of grey rather than being completely good or completely bad but it would really have helped to have someone who we can root for. Any faults with the characters are down entirely to the way they are written, however, not the quality of the performances. Gerard Butler delivers a powerful performance as a broken man driven to desperate measures in his quest to right the wrongs of the justice system, becoming one of the very things he seems to despise in the process. This really is Butler’s film as while co-star Jamie Foxx is good, his less meaty role gives him a lot less to work with and consequently he fails to stand out in any way. The same is pretty much true of the rest of the cast as well, other notable cast members being Colm Meaney, Bruce McGill, Leslie Bibb, Regina Hall and Christian Stolte. Overall, Law Abiding Citizen is an intense and engaging thriller that is well executed and does make you think as well as entertain you but its moral ambiguity combined with its presentation of extreme violence as entertainment (rather than for any real purpose within the story) means that where it could have achieved greatness it rather settles for just being decent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Revenge thrillers are pretty common nowadays, so much so that it is a genre that is somewhat lacking in originality, many such films failing to deliver to anything that hasn’t really been seen countless times before. Yet, every now and then, a film comes along with a high concept that just may have the potential to provide something truly fresh. Law Abiding Citizen is such a film. Anyone who follows the news will be extremely aware of the many injustices of the legal system, particularly in the United Kingdom. The number of serious offenders who get released from prison only to commit serious offences again is a perfect demonstration of just how broken the British justice system is. Consequently, there is a distinct appeal to a film about a man who feels failed by the justice system and seeks vengeance against that very system. It may deal with the American rather than the British justice system but the central concept is very poignant nonetheless. There is certainly a lot of potential in the concept but does the film actually live up to this potential? A somewhat negative reaction from critics suggests not but a quite impressive performance at the US box office suggests that moviegoers may not agree with the critics.
Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler) is a brilliant planner and inventor who lives an ordinary but happy life with his wife and daughter. Everything changes, however, on the night that two robbers invade his Philadelphia home and brutally kill his wife and daughter, and almost kill him. The killers are caught and brought to trial and Clyde thinks that he is going to get justice. But he wasn’t counting on the actions of prosecutor Assistant DA Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) who makes a deal with one of the killers that will get him a lighter sentence if he testifies against his partner. Clyde doesn't want Nick to make the deal, but Nick says it is too late and the deal is done. The other killer gets the death penalty. After 10 years, the killer who testified is released from prison, and he soon ends up dead, killed in extremely gruesome fashion. Clyde is arrested and kind of admits to Nick that he did it. This is only the beginning, however. Clyde is put in jail, and he warns Nick that, unless he fixes the broken justice system, he’s going to kill everyone involved in the case one by one. It doesn’t take long for Clyde to make good on his promise as key players are found dead in increasingly gruesome circumstances, despite the fact that Clyde is behind bars. Now Nick must find a way to stop the deadly assassin and end his unstoppable and ingenious reign of terror.
The first thing I will say about Law Abiding Citizen is that it is not a film for the squeamish or faint of heart. Within the first few minutes we are witness to the brutal murder of Clyde’s wife and daughter and this is just one of the instances of brutal violence that is on display, other such scenes being the horrific execution of one of the killers, the torture and dismemberment of the other and the gory murder of a prison inmate. With the exception of the last scene I have mentioned, director F. Gary Gray does at least have the taste to shy away from the gory detail but the violence is almost sickening regardless, and not in a way that is wholly necessary for the purposes of the story. However you take the violence, though, the film is at least strong in other areas. The plot is quite ingenious, even if at times some suspension of disbelief is required, and the core objective of the protagonist (or is it antagonist?) brings with it a message about the nature of justice that many may be able to relate to. There is far more going on beneath the surface than the average revenge thriller and the film genuinely does seem to have something to say. However, the message isn’t put across with the resonance it could have and while we can understand Clyde’s point of view and perhaps even relate to it, there is a fatal flaw in the film that results from the character’s actions. After all, it is hard to sympathize with a character who deliberately kills people we know to be entirely innocent, having seen events from their perspective. This lack of sympathy means that we are extremely conflicted about who to really root for. Clyde is supposed to be righteous in his mission yet his actions are anything but while Nick is kind of painted as the bad guy in proceedings he genuinely comes across as a good person. I suppose it could be said that the film reflects the nature of real life, with characters shades of grey rather than being completely good or completely bad but it would really have helped to have someone who we can root for. Any faults with the characters are down entirely to the way they are written, however, not the quality of the performances. Gerard Butler delivers a powerful performance as a broken man driven to desperate measures in his quest to right the wrongs of the justice system, becoming one of the very things he seems to despise in the process. This really is Butler’s film as while co-star Jamie Foxx is good, his less meaty role gives him a lot less to work with and consequently he fails to stand out in any way. The same is pretty much true of the rest of the cast as well, other notable cast members being Colm Meaney, Bruce McGill, Leslie Bibb, Regina Hall and Christian Stolte. Overall, Law Abiding Citizen is an intense and engaging thriller that is well executed and does make you think as well as entertain you but its moral ambiguity combined with its presentation of extreme violence as entertainment (rather than for any real purpose within the story) means that where it could have achieved greatness it rather settles for just being decent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Saturday, November 28, 2009
New Moon - Robert Pattinson Interview
Screenrush talk to Robert Pattinson (aka Edward Cullen) about the latest Twilight movie, New Moon.
More about this movie
Friday, November 27, 2009
In The News
Anyone reading the news this week could not help but be moved by the story of Rom Houben, a 46-year-old Belgian man who had spent the last 23 years in what doctors wrongly believed to be a coma. A scan in 2006 revealed that despite his total paralysis, Houben’s brain had been completely active all along. Now with the ability to communicate using a special keyboard, Houben has recently revealed to the world his frustration in being trapped inside a body that failed to function, unable to interact or communicate with the world around him.If this tragic tale piqued your interest in locked-in syndrome, and you find yourself wondering what Rom Houben’s life must be like, perhaps you should check out Julian Schnabel’s amazing film, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. Made in 2007, the film tells the true story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, editor of French fashion magazine Elle, who at the age 43 suffered a stroke that left him paralysed. A victim of locked-in syndrome, Jean-Do’s active mind was ensconced in an inactive body, with no hope of cure.
The only part of Bauby’s body that functioned was his left eye, and it was this small mercy that became his saving grace. With the aid of a speech therapist, who designed a communication system based on reading out the alphabet, Jean-Do was able to blink yes or no answers to spell out words. In an incredible story of unbelievable patience, perseverance and hope, Jean-Do went on to spell out, letter by letter, word by word, his memoirs, which became a best selling book.
You may be forgiven for thinking that the tale of a bed-ridden paraplegic would not be the most cinematic of films, but it’s here where the director’s treatment of his material is truly original. Schnabel begins the film from Jean-Do’s point of view and for the first 13 minutes we see the world entirely from his damaged eyes. The cinematography is truly exceptional as we are presented with Bauby’s fragmented vision – flashes of out of focus images of doctors and therapists leaning over his stricken body, explaining his illness to him. We even see a remarkable point of view shot from behind Jean-Do’s eyelid as a doctor sews up his injured right eye.
It’s this amazing camerawork that makes the viewer directly experience the restrictive world of Jean-Do, and although the film eventually breaks free from the confines of his point of view, we continually return to his perspective to share his inner thoughts.
And whilst the overwhelming emotion is one of frustration at being trapped in his body, Jean-Do’s voice over functions to lighten the mood and remind us that despite everything that has happened to him, he retains his mischievous sense of humour. When being treated by the two beautiful therapists, the womaniser in him can’t help but curse his own luck at being able to look but not touch. It’s moments like these that ensure that the tone of the film never descends into one of pity. There are moments of pure sadness, such as when Jean-Do voices his realisation that he will never again be able to ruffle his fingers through his children’s hair. But he soon realises that he has two powerful tools at his disposal – memory and imagination, and whilst his body is immobile, these two tools give him the freedom to take his mind anywhere he wants to go.
The end result is an uplifting film about hope, nowhere near as depressing as the subject matter may suggest. Original, cinematic and never over sentimental, it’s a celebration of the strength of the human spirit – the kind of film that makes you want to be a better person and live a better life. Let’s just hope there’s no Hollywood remake with Tom Hanks on the horizon.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Not So Special Agents
With the release of The Informant! this week, Screenrush decided to take a look at the other spies who never fail to mess it up.
Look What I Got In My Inbox
"We are AFTER DARK FILMS the film studio and production company. We
recently learned of your website and wanted to include you in our publicity
outreach.
You may know us from our annual Horrorfest, ³8 Films To Die For,² which
plays in theaters across the United States. We are pleased to announce
Horrorfest IV, premiering in early 2010. Check out our site to learn more
about our company. "
recently learned of your website and wanted to include you in our publicity
outreach.
You may know us from our annual Horrorfest, ³8 Films To Die For,² which
plays in theaters across the United States. We are pleased to announce
Horrorfest IV, premiering in early 2010. Check out our site to learn more
about our company. "
Psychotropica News
Psychotropica (a film mentioned on here before, remember?) is now available for purchase online.
Damien Sage, its director is planning on using all profits to fund his next feature film project, which already is in the works to a degree.
Have a look....
PS - a review of the film is in the works, and we have copies to give away, so watch this space!
Damien Sage, its director is planning on using all profits to fund his next feature film project, which already is in the works to a degree.
Have a look....
PS - a review of the film is in the works, and we have copies to give away, so watch this space!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Kat Dennings And The Dangers Of Going To The Movies...
2009 has been a great year for movies, there's been a really interesting mix of fantastic cinema this year and 2010 promises even greater things. Recently there was a piece of casting news that made me go 'Yay!', but, at the same time, take a little covetous step backwards and scowl like Gollum.
Early this year I was sat in Cineworld Brighton, I'd had a very uneventful day and decided to watch a movie, any movie, I didn't care, I wasn't even sure there was anything on I really wanted to see. The pick of the uninspiring selection on offer was the Michael Cera comedy Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist, a film I had no strong feelings about one way or the other before the lights dimmed. Whilst watching this movie something very strange occured, something that made me question my sanity as a 26 year old. I found myself starting to fancy Norah, and not just in the usual manner wherein you find an actress attractive or such-like, but this was like that moment where you see someone pretty in a bar, you somehow manage to get into a conversation with them and find out you've got similar outlooks, things in common, it's perfect. Watching Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist was like a great first date, the only problem was it was all happening to Michael Cera and I was just the pitiful observer staring up at the projection. It seems even weirder now I'm writing it down...
Basically, I have a big crush on Kat Dennings, and it goes beyond this performance, she's a semi-regular blogger and has posted some wonderfully batty videos to YouTube, but still, I must repeat, she is a movie star, she is far, far away. Bugger.
But there was some strange sense of accomplishment, because whenever someone would idly ask 'What celebrity do you fancy?' or 'Which character from a movie would you like to date?' or such-like my answer would always be met with 'Who?'. She was a secret, and her upcoming roster of films promised to keep her that way... until today.
Dennings has been cast in Kenneth Branagh's big budget superhero flick Thor and it seems, terrible pun alert, the Kat may be out of the bag. Today both Empire and Ain't It Cool were professing their admiration for her and I just have to grumble as she undoubtedly becomes caught up in waves of lust and longing by hundreds of thousands of other sad, pathetic people like me who waste their time day dreaming about going on a date with someone you're used to seeing projected ten feet high.
What have I learnt this year? I've learnt that the movies are dangerous. Video nasties won't harm our minds, we won't go out on killing sprees because we saw Saw, but we will end up in a slump because Michael Cera gets to kiss Kat Dennings, because Anton Yelchin gets to kiss Kat Dennings and who knows what the mighty Thor has in store for her.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - The Twilight Saga: New Moon
The Twilight Saga: New Moon *****
With the first Twilight film proving to be a blockbuster success much greater than anyone imagined it was inevitable that the follow up novels would be quickly adapted for the big screen also. But, I doubt anyone expected them to come so quickly, with second instalment New Moon coming to the big screen this week and third instalment Eclipse coming next summer. With the production of these films likely being somewhat rushed in order to meet their target release dates, however, the question on everyone’s minds is likely whether following up the first film so swiftly bodes well for the quality for the sequels or not. After all, on plenty of occasions in the past, films that have been rushed have ultimately failed to live up to expectations, and with expectations as sky high as they are for this sequel a lot of fans could end up leaving the cinema disappointed if the film has in any way suffered as a result of the rush to meet this release date. Fortunately, the film has many things in its favour. All the principal actors from the first film have returned along with a number of big names who are joining the cast and while original director Catherine Hardwicke is no longer involved, the directing duties have been put into the capable hands of The Golden Compass director Chris Weitz who has done a very good job considering the rushed nature of the production.
Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is turning 18 and despite her insistence that no one make a big deal of her birthday, vampire best friend Alice Cullen (Ashley Greene) can’t help throwing her a party. During the party, however, things take a turn for the worse when Bella gets a paper cut and Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), the most recent vampire to join the ‘vegetarian’ Cullens, loses control and nearly kills Bella in the process. After nearly losing her and afraid of putting her into further danger, love of her life Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and his family abandon the town of Forks, Washington, in an effort to protect her from the dangers inherent in their world. As the heartbroken Bella sleepwalks through her senior year of high school, numb and alone, she discovers Edward’s image comes to her whenever she puts herself in jeopardy. Her desire to be with him at any cost leads her to take greater and greater risks. With the help of her childhood friend Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), Bella refurbishes an old motorbike to carry her on her adventures. Bella’s frozen heart is gradually thawed by her budding relationship with Jacob, a member of the mysterious Quileute tribe, who has a supernatural secret of his own. When a chance encounter brings Bella face to face with a former nemesis, only the intervention of a pack of supernaturally large wolves saves her from a grisly fate, and the encounter makes it frighteningly clear that Bella is still in grave danger. In a race against the clock, Bella learns the secret of the Quileute’s and Edward’s true motivation for leaving her. She also faces the prospect of a potentially deadly reunion with her beloved, involving an encounter with vampire ruling body The Volturi - whose members include Aro (Michael Sheen), Caius (Jamie Campbell Bower), Marcus (Christopher Heyerdahl) and Jane (Dakota Fanning) - a reunion that is a far cry from the one she'd hoped for but that just might give her what she has wanted all along - immortality alongside her love Edward.
At the screening of The Twilight Saga: New Moon I was at the auditorium was packed full (and I mean full - there was hardly a free seat to be found) of bloodthirsty teenage girls. And, from the way they were screaming throughout, it is clear that they loved every minute of it. So, suffice to say, the target audience absolutely loves the film. But what about other moviegoers? Quite surprisingly, perhaps, there may be enough to satisfy non fans as well as die hard fans of the Twilight series. It actually wouldn’t have taken a whole lot to please the teenage girls the film is so clearly aimed at - just the sight of a buff Taylor Lautner with his shirt off was enough to melt members of the core audience - but the film so much more than is really necessary for it to do so. Just like with the first film the script has much more substance than the majority of teen orientated films with the tragic love story at its core being much more complex than you might expect. This is particularly reflected in the character development, notably Bella’s descent into depression and subsequent transformation into a reckless adrenaline junkie after being left by Edward. The character’s deteriorating emotional state is portrayed quite effectively and is of course helped considerably by a strong performance from Kristen Stewart who portrays a believable sense of despair at her isolation. The believability of her performance is also key to the believability of her character’s relationships. Stewart shares convincing on screen chemistries with both Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner, something that makes us care about what actually happens. From a story perspective, Bella’s developing relationship with Jacob and eventual realization that she cannot live without Edward are both very well handled. Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner also deliver good performances but it is Lautner who really deserves kudos, having gone to great lengths to buff himself up in order to stay on in the now meatier role of Jacob. The best performances, however, come from some of the cast members with more limited screen time. Despite being on screen for all too brief a time, it is the actors portraying The Volturi who really stand out. Suitably chilling and threatening, Michael Sheen, Jamie Campbell Bower, Christopher Heyerdahl and Dakota Fanning make for perfectly evil vampires, a stark contrast to The Cullens. In particular, Michael Sheen delivers a performance that is full of charisma and Dakota Fanning is excellently creepy, creating a sense of menace with just a stare and the delivery of a line of dialogue. The film also delivers in other areas. The action is far more amped up this time around, providing far more for the male viewers dragged along by their girlfriends to enjoy, and the action sequences are bigger and more exciting than in the first film. They are aided considerably by very good visual effects that may not be the best you will see this year but certainly get the job done. In particular, the werewolves are very well realized as are their transformations from their human counterparts. Also noteworthy is that just like Twilight provided a new spin on vampires, this film does the same for werewolves, approaching them from a somewhat direction, albeit less effectively than with vampires in the first film. One of the highlights of the film is the climax which both adds some colour to proceedings by taking the action to the much more exotic locale of Italy, and provides a well executed confrontation with the sinister forces of The Volturi and establishes them as a potential villainous force that will hopefully be explored further in future sequels, something that would allow us to see more of the fantastic performances by Sheen and company. The action is the one significant improvement that this film has over its predecessor, the main contribution that director Weitz has to offer, yet overall the film doesn’t live up to the standards set by the first film. Nonetheless, this does not make it a bad film on any level. The Twilight Saga: New Moon is a thoroughly enjoyable romantic fantasy that fans should love without exception and just might attract a few new fans as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
With the first Twilight film proving to be a blockbuster success much greater than anyone imagined it was inevitable that the follow up novels would be quickly adapted for the big screen also. But, I doubt anyone expected them to come so quickly, with second instalment New Moon coming to the big screen this week and third instalment Eclipse coming next summer. With the production of these films likely being somewhat rushed in order to meet their target release dates, however, the question on everyone’s minds is likely whether following up the first film so swiftly bodes well for the quality for the sequels or not. After all, on plenty of occasions in the past, films that have been rushed have ultimately failed to live up to expectations, and with expectations as sky high as they are for this sequel a lot of fans could end up leaving the cinema disappointed if the film has in any way suffered as a result of the rush to meet this release date. Fortunately, the film has many things in its favour. All the principal actors from the first film have returned along with a number of big names who are joining the cast and while original director Catherine Hardwicke is no longer involved, the directing duties have been put into the capable hands of The Golden Compass director Chris Weitz who has done a very good job considering the rushed nature of the production.
Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is turning 18 and despite her insistence that no one make a big deal of her birthday, vampire best friend Alice Cullen (Ashley Greene) can’t help throwing her a party. During the party, however, things take a turn for the worse when Bella gets a paper cut and Jasper (Jackson Rathbone), the most recent vampire to join the ‘vegetarian’ Cullens, loses control and nearly kills Bella in the process. After nearly losing her and afraid of putting her into further danger, love of her life Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and his family abandon the town of Forks, Washington, in an effort to protect her from the dangers inherent in their world. As the heartbroken Bella sleepwalks through her senior year of high school, numb and alone, she discovers Edward’s image comes to her whenever she puts herself in jeopardy. Her desire to be with him at any cost leads her to take greater and greater risks. With the help of her childhood friend Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), Bella refurbishes an old motorbike to carry her on her adventures. Bella’s frozen heart is gradually thawed by her budding relationship with Jacob, a member of the mysterious Quileute tribe, who has a supernatural secret of his own. When a chance encounter brings Bella face to face with a former nemesis, only the intervention of a pack of supernaturally large wolves saves her from a grisly fate, and the encounter makes it frighteningly clear that Bella is still in grave danger. In a race against the clock, Bella learns the secret of the Quileute’s and Edward’s true motivation for leaving her. She also faces the prospect of a potentially deadly reunion with her beloved, involving an encounter with vampire ruling body The Volturi - whose members include Aro (Michael Sheen), Caius (Jamie Campbell Bower), Marcus (Christopher Heyerdahl) and Jane (Dakota Fanning) - a reunion that is a far cry from the one she'd hoped for but that just might give her what she has wanted all along - immortality alongside her love Edward.
At the screening of The Twilight Saga: New Moon I was at the auditorium was packed full (and I mean full - there was hardly a free seat to be found) of bloodthirsty teenage girls. And, from the way they were screaming throughout, it is clear that they loved every minute of it. So, suffice to say, the target audience absolutely loves the film. But what about other moviegoers? Quite surprisingly, perhaps, there may be enough to satisfy non fans as well as die hard fans of the Twilight series. It actually wouldn’t have taken a whole lot to please the teenage girls the film is so clearly aimed at - just the sight of a buff Taylor Lautner with his shirt off was enough to melt members of the core audience - but the film so much more than is really necessary for it to do so. Just like with the first film the script has much more substance than the majority of teen orientated films with the tragic love story at its core being much more complex than you might expect. This is particularly reflected in the character development, notably Bella’s descent into depression and subsequent transformation into a reckless adrenaline junkie after being left by Edward. The character’s deteriorating emotional state is portrayed quite effectively and is of course helped considerably by a strong performance from Kristen Stewart who portrays a believable sense of despair at her isolation. The believability of her performance is also key to the believability of her character’s relationships. Stewart shares convincing on screen chemistries with both Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner, something that makes us care about what actually happens. From a story perspective, Bella’s developing relationship with Jacob and eventual realization that she cannot live without Edward are both very well handled. Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner also deliver good performances but it is Lautner who really deserves kudos, having gone to great lengths to buff himself up in order to stay on in the now meatier role of Jacob. The best performances, however, come from some of the cast members with more limited screen time. Despite being on screen for all too brief a time, it is the actors portraying The Volturi who really stand out. Suitably chilling and threatening, Michael Sheen, Jamie Campbell Bower, Christopher Heyerdahl and Dakota Fanning make for perfectly evil vampires, a stark contrast to The Cullens. In particular, Michael Sheen delivers a performance that is full of charisma and Dakota Fanning is excellently creepy, creating a sense of menace with just a stare and the delivery of a line of dialogue. The film also delivers in other areas. The action is far more amped up this time around, providing far more for the male viewers dragged along by their girlfriends to enjoy, and the action sequences are bigger and more exciting than in the first film. They are aided considerably by very good visual effects that may not be the best you will see this year but certainly get the job done. In particular, the werewolves are very well realized as are their transformations from their human counterparts. Also noteworthy is that just like Twilight provided a new spin on vampires, this film does the same for werewolves, approaching them from a somewhat direction, albeit less effectively than with vampires in the first film. One of the highlights of the film is the climax which both adds some colour to proceedings by taking the action to the much more exotic locale of Italy, and provides a well executed confrontation with the sinister forces of The Volturi and establishes them as a potential villainous force that will hopefully be explored further in future sequels, something that would allow us to see more of the fantastic performances by Sheen and company. The action is the one significant improvement that this film has over its predecessor, the main contribution that director Weitz has to offer, yet overall the film doesn’t live up to the standards set by the first film. Nonetheless, this does not make it a bad film on any level. The Twilight Saga: New Moon is a thoroughly enjoyable romantic fantasy that fans should love without exception and just might attract a few new fans as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Friday, November 20, 2009
2012 Interviews
Screenrush talk to John Cusack, Roland Emmerich, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Thandie Newton about the making of their apocalyptic disaster movie...
More about this movie
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Neglected Classics - Attack!
In post-Vietnam Hollywood, cinema audiences have come to expect war films to tell it like it is. Films such as Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now and Black Hawk Down have examined the morality of modern warfare, giving warts-and-all accounts of the violence and chaos of military conflict. Things used to be simpler. Traditional Hollywood war films were less complex tales of heroism and valour, and the triumph of good over evil. They may have dealt with the tragedy of war, but we were never in doubt as to who the bad guys were. During wartime, Hollywood was part of the propaganda machine, making films to support the war effort, such as Sergeant York and Objective Burma! During peacetime patriotic and pro-military films like The Sands of Iwo Jima and The Longest Day helped to enhance the army’s image and boost military recruitment.
Then, in 1956, came Robert Aldrich’s World War II movie Attack! – a film that was not only anti-war, but anti-military and anti-authoritarian to boot. The film’s portrayal of the commanding classes of the US Army was so negative, that the filmmakers were refused any direct help from the Army powers that be. As Aldrich stated, “The Army saw the script and promptly laid down a policy of no co-operation, which not only meant that I couldn’t borrow troops and tanks for my picture – I couldn’t even get a look at Signal Corps combat footage.”
So why the controversy? The film tells the story of Fox Company, an infantry battalion in Europe in 1944, under the leadership of Captain Cooney, played by Eddie Albert. Cooney is not a leader of men – he is a coward and a double crosser. During the opening scene we see a Fox Company assault on a German pillbox end in failure. As the men come under counter-fire, the support and backup promised to them by Cooney never arrives. He becomes gripped by fear and anxiety, and despite the protestations from his subordinates, he leaves the men on the front line to perish under the German counter-attack. Here is a man who has no shame, who’ll watch his own men lose their lives, rather than risk his own.
One of the platoon leaders under Cooney’s command is Lieutenant Costa, played by Jack Palance. Costa’s contempt for his commanding officer is plain for all to see – it’s written all over Palance’s amazingly expressive face. In contrast to Cooney, Costa cares about the welfare of his men, and when he leads an assault, he’s the first in the line of fire, and the last one back from the battle. When Cooney is put in charge of a new mission, he promises Costa that this time backup will be there when needed. In a brilliant scene, Costa openly warns his commanding officer that if the support doesn’t appear, and Cooney chickens out again, he’ll personally see to it that Cooney never sees the States again.
It’s Cooney’s shameful cowardice and complete lack of honour that marks Attack! out from other war films. Normally US Army Captains are portrayed as infallible heroes, but Cooney’s ineptitude shocked and offended some critics at the time of the film’s release, some of whom went so far as to denounce the film as anti-American. There’s no hiding the poor image the film paints of Army leadership. Cooney and his commanding officer, Colonel Bartlett, played by Lee Marvin, are both self-serving men using war as a playground for their own personal aspirations – one is searching for an undeserved military citation, the other for a post-war career in politics.
The original theatrical trailer for the film (included on the DVD release) says it all. “This is war as you’ve never smelled it … tasted it … seen it before … where not everyone is a hero”. We’re used to our war films celebrating heroism, and it’s Cooney and Bartlett’s lack of courage and integrity that has the ability to shock us, some fifty years after the film’s original release. As the credits roll we’re left questioning if there is any place in the US Army for a man of honour. Imagine how shocking this was in 1956, for American audiences in the grip of a post-war boom.
But there are still heroes to celebrate in Aldrich’s film. Lieutenants Costa and Woodruff are the men prepared to stand up to their superior officers for the good of their company. It’s Palance’s portrayal of Costa, all burning intensity and raw emotion, which is the moral core of the film. So powerful is his performance that it makes you wonder why his career never really scaled the heights experienced by other Hollywood tough guys like Lee Marvin or Robert Mitchum.
The screenplay is full of all the barbed comments and witty banter you’d expect from a war film. Robert Strauss as Private Bernstein provides much of the humour, through his cynical one-liners, such as “when you salute Cooney you got to apologise to your arm”. For me the only real weakness in the script and performances stems from Cooney’s descent into psychosis towards the end of the film. We’re asked to believe that Cooney’s weakness is a result of his overbearing father beating him as a child, and it’s this moment of cheap psychology and Eddie Albert’s unconvincing performance that doesn’t ring true.
Joseph L. Biroc’s deep-focus cinematography is simple but exceptional throughout. Biroc employs interesting angles, framing action within windows and doorways, and using shadow and light to create a mood of mistrust amongst the officers. Long takes are employed to allow the scenes to play out, building an atmosphere of tension that drives us towards the inevitable violent conclusion.
At the time of its release the film was an unexpected success, grossing nearly $2 million, which was far above the gross United Artists expected. This was mainly due to the controversy regarding the military’s non-involvement in the production, which UA exploited in their posters and trailers. Despite this success, Attack! is now a film that’s largely unknown. Released one year before Stanley Kubrick’s celebrated anti-war film Paths of Glory, it has nowhere near the critical reputation of Kubrick’s film. Admittedly, Aldrich’s film is the far less sophisticated of the two, with a sense of the melodramatic that at times feels about as subtle as a hard slap to the face. But like a hard slap to the face, it’s shocking and powerful and is packed full of raw emotion, which for my money should guarantee its inclusion in any list of the greatest war films ever made.
Then, in 1956, came Robert Aldrich’s World War II movie Attack! – a film that was not only anti-war, but anti-military and anti-authoritarian to boot. The film’s portrayal of the commanding classes of the US Army was so negative, that the filmmakers were refused any direct help from the Army powers that be. As Aldrich stated, “The Army saw the script and promptly laid down a policy of no co-operation, which not only meant that I couldn’t borrow troops and tanks for my picture – I couldn’t even get a look at Signal Corps combat footage.”
So why the controversy? The film tells the story of Fox Company, an infantry battalion in Europe in 1944, under the leadership of Captain Cooney, played by Eddie Albert. Cooney is not a leader of men – he is a coward and a double crosser. During the opening scene we see a Fox Company assault on a German pillbox end in failure. As the men come under counter-fire, the support and backup promised to them by Cooney never arrives. He becomes gripped by fear and anxiety, and despite the protestations from his subordinates, he leaves the men on the front line to perish under the German counter-attack. Here is a man who has no shame, who’ll watch his own men lose their lives, rather than risk his own.
One of the platoon leaders under Cooney’s command is Lieutenant Costa, played by Jack Palance. Costa’s contempt for his commanding officer is plain for all to see – it’s written all over Palance’s amazingly expressive face. In contrast to Cooney, Costa cares about the welfare of his men, and when he leads an assault, he’s the first in the line of fire, and the last one back from the battle. When Cooney is put in charge of a new mission, he promises Costa that this time backup will be there when needed. In a brilliant scene, Costa openly warns his commanding officer that if the support doesn’t appear, and Cooney chickens out again, he’ll personally see to it that Cooney never sees the States again.
It’s Cooney’s shameful cowardice and complete lack of honour that marks Attack! out from other war films. Normally US Army Captains are portrayed as infallible heroes, but Cooney’s ineptitude shocked and offended some critics at the time of the film’s release, some of whom went so far as to denounce the film as anti-American. There’s no hiding the poor image the film paints of Army leadership. Cooney and his commanding officer, Colonel Bartlett, played by Lee Marvin, are both self-serving men using war as a playground for their own personal aspirations – one is searching for an undeserved military citation, the other for a post-war career in politics.
The original theatrical trailer for the film (included on the DVD release) says it all. “This is war as you’ve never smelled it … tasted it … seen it before … where not everyone is a hero”. We’re used to our war films celebrating heroism, and it’s Cooney and Bartlett’s lack of courage and integrity that has the ability to shock us, some fifty years after the film’s original release. As the credits roll we’re left questioning if there is any place in the US Army for a man of honour. Imagine how shocking this was in 1956, for American audiences in the grip of a post-war boom.
But there are still heroes to celebrate in Aldrich’s film. Lieutenants Costa and Woodruff are the men prepared to stand up to their superior officers for the good of their company. It’s Palance’s portrayal of Costa, all burning intensity and raw emotion, which is the moral core of the film. So powerful is his performance that it makes you wonder why his career never really scaled the heights experienced by other Hollywood tough guys like Lee Marvin or Robert Mitchum.
The screenplay is full of all the barbed comments and witty banter you’d expect from a war film. Robert Strauss as Private Bernstein provides much of the humour, through his cynical one-liners, such as “when you salute Cooney you got to apologise to your arm”. For me the only real weakness in the script and performances stems from Cooney’s descent into psychosis towards the end of the film. We’re asked to believe that Cooney’s weakness is a result of his overbearing father beating him as a child, and it’s this moment of cheap psychology and Eddie Albert’s unconvincing performance that doesn’t ring true.
Joseph L. Biroc’s deep-focus cinematography is simple but exceptional throughout. Biroc employs interesting angles, framing action within windows and doorways, and using shadow and light to create a mood of mistrust amongst the officers. Long takes are employed to allow the scenes to play out, building an atmosphere of tension that drives us towards the inevitable violent conclusion.
At the time of its release the film was an unexpected success, grossing nearly $2 million, which was far above the gross United Artists expected. This was mainly due to the controversy regarding the military’s non-involvement in the production, which UA exploited in their posters and trailers. Despite this success, Attack! is now a film that’s largely unknown. Released one year before Stanley Kubrick’s celebrated anti-war film Paths of Glory, it has nowhere near the critical reputation of Kubrick’s film. Admittedly, Aldrich’s film is the far less sophisticated of the two, with a sense of the melodramatic that at times feels about as subtle as a hard slap to the face. But like a hard slap to the face, it’s shocking and powerful and is packed full of raw emotion, which for my money should guarantee its inclusion in any list of the greatest war films ever made.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Old Action Pensioners & Sesame Street
Michael Caine plays an aging vigilante in Harry Brown, but which other old timers can still fight the good fight? Screenrush also take a look at our favourite famous faces who have spent time with the Muppets on Sesame Street...
Hilary Swank Interview
Screenrush talk to the star of Amelia about flying lessons, historical accuracy and a tug-of-love between Richard Gere and Ewan McGregor...
More about this movie
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - Harry Brown
Harry Brown ***½
The movie industry of the 21st century is very different to the one that existed just twenty or thirty years ago. There was a time when the big blockbusters were serious dramas and thrillers aimed at mature movie-going audiences but now the core demographic that the movie studios is younger people, consequently resulting in many releases being of the variety that only young people are really likely to enjoy and a lack of releases for a older, more discerning viewers. Every now and then, however, a film comes along with the potential to bridge the gap between these two distinctly different audiences, each with tastes completely different to the other, and Harry Brown is one such film. Dealing with issues related to today’s so-called “Broken Britain” in the form of the youth orientated gang violence that occurs on the estates of many British cities and featuring what is purported to be a sensational performance by one of Britain’s biggest and best veteran actors Michael Caine, Harry Brown really does appear to be a film that might appeal to both older and younger viewers, something that is quite rare nowadays, and one that also has the dual potential of being both an enjoyable and engaging piece of entertainment and a thought provoking and meaningful examination of what exactly has gone wrong with this country.
Harry Brown (Michael Caine) is a widower who lives an uneventful life, enjoying a pint and playing chess with his mate Leonard (David Bradley) in their local boozer in Elephant & Castle. The neighbourhood, however, has become a hotbed of drug dealing and violent crime for savage rival gangs. The local law enforcement, in the form of detectives Frampton (Emily Mortimer) and Hickock (Charlie Creed-Miles), seem to do little more than deliver bad news when a shooting or knife attack claims another young life, and Super Intendant Childs’ zero tolerance policies only seem to attract violent retaliation. When Leonard is murdered by one of the gangs, the police are powerless to prosecute. Remembering his military experience with the Marines, Harry decides to take the law into his own hands. Quietly preparing for payback, he begins a merciless hunt for the killers.
Right from the opening sequence which, shot in hand held camera style, depicts the shooting of a single mother in front of a child by a youth, it is clear that Harry Brown is going to be an unrelenting and, quite alarmingly, accurate film. With a gritty urban style director Daniel Barber portrays “Broken Britain” at its very worst and it is quite a harrowing journey of a film. Suffice to say anyone who takes offence to excessive foul language and brutal violence should steer well clear of this film, as should anyone who wants to see a film for a good time. This is most definitely not light viewing. Thanks to believable dialogue from scriptwriter Gary Young and believable performances from all the actors playing the youth roles everything we see on screen seems completely true to life and for this reason many will likely find this to be too hard going a film. Contrary to all the hype, the film is not perfect on any level. The storyline is fairly generic, bringing nothing particularly new or original to the fold and were it not for Michael Caine the film would likely have slipped under the radar largely ignored. Also, several of the police officer characters, particularly the Super Intendant, don’t seem quite right, the character I have mentioned seeming like he would be more at home in Midsomer Murders. Despite such flaws, though, the film is bolstered by a fantastic performance from Caine who is completely believable in the role and whose character will have the full sympathy of the audience, particularly anyone who has ever really suffered at the hands of youths like those depicted in the film. Michael Caine makes this film worth seeing but it is his performance that is the heart of the film and without it Harry Brown wouldn’t have much to offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
The movie industry of the 21st century is very different to the one that existed just twenty or thirty years ago. There was a time when the big blockbusters were serious dramas and thrillers aimed at mature movie-going audiences but now the core demographic that the movie studios is younger people, consequently resulting in many releases being of the variety that only young people are really likely to enjoy and a lack of releases for a older, more discerning viewers. Every now and then, however, a film comes along with the potential to bridge the gap between these two distinctly different audiences, each with tastes completely different to the other, and Harry Brown is one such film. Dealing with issues related to today’s so-called “Broken Britain” in the form of the youth orientated gang violence that occurs on the estates of many British cities and featuring what is purported to be a sensational performance by one of Britain’s biggest and best veteran actors Michael Caine, Harry Brown really does appear to be a film that might appeal to both older and younger viewers, something that is quite rare nowadays, and one that also has the dual potential of being both an enjoyable and engaging piece of entertainment and a thought provoking and meaningful examination of what exactly has gone wrong with this country.
Harry Brown (Michael Caine) is a widower who lives an uneventful life, enjoying a pint and playing chess with his mate Leonard (David Bradley) in their local boozer in Elephant & Castle. The neighbourhood, however, has become a hotbed of drug dealing and violent crime for savage rival gangs. The local law enforcement, in the form of detectives Frampton (Emily Mortimer) and Hickock (Charlie Creed-Miles), seem to do little more than deliver bad news when a shooting or knife attack claims another young life, and Super Intendant Childs’ zero tolerance policies only seem to attract violent retaliation. When Leonard is murdered by one of the gangs, the police are powerless to prosecute. Remembering his military experience with the Marines, Harry decides to take the law into his own hands. Quietly preparing for payback, he begins a merciless hunt for the killers.
Right from the opening sequence which, shot in hand held camera style, depicts the shooting of a single mother in front of a child by a youth, it is clear that Harry Brown is going to be an unrelenting and, quite alarmingly, accurate film. With a gritty urban style director Daniel Barber portrays “Broken Britain” at its very worst and it is quite a harrowing journey of a film. Suffice to say anyone who takes offence to excessive foul language and brutal violence should steer well clear of this film, as should anyone who wants to see a film for a good time. This is most definitely not light viewing. Thanks to believable dialogue from scriptwriter Gary Young and believable performances from all the actors playing the youth roles everything we see on screen seems completely true to life and for this reason many will likely find this to be too hard going a film. Contrary to all the hype, the film is not perfect on any level. The storyline is fairly generic, bringing nothing particularly new or original to the fold and were it not for Michael Caine the film would likely have slipped under the radar largely ignored. Also, several of the police officer characters, particularly the Super Intendant, don’t seem quite right, the character I have mentioned seeming like he would be more at home in Midsomer Murders. Despite such flaws, though, the film is bolstered by a fantastic performance from Caine who is completely believable in the role and whose character will have the full sympathy of the audience, particularly anyone who has ever really suffered at the hands of youths like those depicted in the film. Michael Caine makes this film worth seeing but it is his performance that is the heart of the film and without it Harry Brown wouldn’t have much to offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Film Review with Robert Mann - 2012
2012 ***½
The end of the world - It is something that no one wants to come to pass in real life yet when it comes to films moviegoers don’t seem to be able to get enough of seeing the world being brought to an end, each time in new, bigger and more epic ways. And no one shows the world ending better than Roland Emmerich. While, in general, Roland Emmerich isn’t all that great a movie director, his films frequently lacking in things such as story and believability, when it comes to showing the world being destroyed, particularly famous landmarks, he is the undisputed master. Films such as Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow have already shown off his prowess with special effects and now with 2012 he has delivered his biggest film yet. Inspired by the (alleged) Mayan prophecy that the world will end on 21st December, 2012, Emmerich has been provided the perfect opportunity to show the world being annihilated all over again, delivering a film that delivers visuals quite unlike anything you will ever have seen before.
The ominous date of 21 December 2012 is approaching and, just as the ancient Mayan civilisation predicted, the world is in peril. Scientist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has uncovered a disaster in the making, one that threatens to destroy the entire world, and along with Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) he has worked at the very highest reaches of government to develop a plan to save at least some of the population. However, President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover) is determined to prevent mass hysteria by keeping it secret, not even revealing the truth to his own daughter Laura (Thandie Newton). The only civilian with a clue about what’s happening is prophet-like radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), who broadcasts his predictions to anyone who will listen. As the earth’s plates start to shift, setting off a series of natural disasters - earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis - failed writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) begins a desperate journey of survival, along with his children Lily (Morgan Lily) and Noah (Liam James), ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and her boyfriend Gordon (Thomas McCarthy). With the world literally being ripped to pieces, the question is how will six billion people survive the end of the world?
2012 is officially one of the most expensive movies ever made. For the estimated $260 million production budget (rumours suggest it may even be as high as $325 million) you would expect something pretty special. So, do you get this? Yes and no. This being a Roland Emmerich film you should know better than to expect a good - or even logical - story, and in this way the film entirely lives up to expectations. For the most part, the film has very little resembling plot, mostly sticking to the generic disaster movie story template, and what little plot that does exist only really does so to provide a loose link between the film’s many effects sequences. Of course, it is these that people will really see the film for and by and large these sequences do deliver. Emmerich has really upped the ante over his previous film, no longer just content to destroy parts of the world, this time destroying the whole thing. While most film directors would settle to have earthquakes, volcanoes OR tsunamis as the focus of a disaster movie, Emmerich throws in the lot, creating his most epic blockbuster yet in the process. The visual effects are truly earth shattering - pardon the pun - and while the interaction between the actors and the computer generated environments isn’t entirely seamless, the effects are nonetheless impressive with scenes of devastation taking place in Los Angeles (one character states that the end of the world will begin in Hollywood - a nod to apocalyptic film Southland Tales perhaps?), Yellowstone National Park, Washington D.C. - Emmerich destroying the White House for the second time in his directing career, Las Vegas, Hawaii, The Vatican, Rio De Janeiro, India and Tibet and even a cruise ship (Poseidon anyone?). While the devastation is undoubtedly impressive (and really must be seen in a cinema to get the full impact), however, some of the scenes don’t quite make the necessary impact, lacking the sense of terror that really should come with such disasters and lightened a bit too much by humorous lines of dialogue. This doesn’t mean that the sequences aren’t entertaining but they certainly aren’t as hard hitting as they could, and should, be. In the last hour, though, as the film reaches its Noah’s Ark style climax, the film does improve considerably, becoming both more thrilling and more interesting, as well as delivering some of the most impressive sequences of the film. Alas, though, this late improvement in quality does not change the fact that, while the visuals are impressive, the film is sorely lacking in some areas. The potential intrigue of the Mayan Prophecy aspect is completely ignored, the Prophecy only being referenced in passing, and not having any notable role in any of the film’s events. Also, much of the plot and back story is done away in the first fifteen minutes and considering the potential it is a complete waste. Showing events from 2009-2011, the obligatory - nonsensical yet plausible sounding - scientific explanation - solar flares causing the Earth’s core to superheat - is done away with quickly, and we are only really given a brief insight into the development of the plan to save humanity - the construction of giant arks that will carry world leaders, the super wealthy and those people identified as necessary for survival, along with the world’s most valuable cultural and artistic relics and artefacts. As for other aspects of the film, the actors all do a decent job, but none of them really stand out as they are not given much to work with, the dialogue being merely adequate, and characters being given minimal development. In addition to those names aforementioned, other cast members in notable roles include Zlatko Buric, Beatrice Rosen, Jonann Urb, John Billingsley, Chin Han, Osric Chau, Blu Mankuma, George Segal, Stephen McHattie and Jimi Mistry. Overall, 2012 is an enjoyable effects extravaganza that does have some great scenes but as a whole it is missing that special something that would make it a truly a memorable film and consequently it fails to live up to Emmerich’s past disaster movies. Nonetheless, if you enjoy popcorn movies that entertain while not asking you to think too much you will find it to be far from a disaster and will definitely find it worthwhile to see it at the cinema.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
The end of the world - It is something that no one wants to come to pass in real life yet when it comes to films moviegoers don’t seem to be able to get enough of seeing the world being brought to an end, each time in new, bigger and more epic ways. And no one shows the world ending better than Roland Emmerich. While, in general, Roland Emmerich isn’t all that great a movie director, his films frequently lacking in things such as story and believability, when it comes to showing the world being destroyed, particularly famous landmarks, he is the undisputed master. Films such as Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow have already shown off his prowess with special effects and now with 2012 he has delivered his biggest film yet. Inspired by the (alleged) Mayan prophecy that the world will end on 21st December, 2012, Emmerich has been provided the perfect opportunity to show the world being annihilated all over again, delivering a film that delivers visuals quite unlike anything you will ever have seen before.
The ominous date of 21 December 2012 is approaching and, just as the ancient Mayan civilisation predicted, the world is in peril. Scientist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has uncovered a disaster in the making, one that threatens to destroy the entire world, and along with Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt) he has worked at the very highest reaches of government to develop a plan to save at least some of the population. However, President Thomas Wilson (Danny Glover) is determined to prevent mass hysteria by keeping it secret, not even revealing the truth to his own daughter Laura (Thandie Newton). The only civilian with a clue about what’s happening is prophet-like radio host Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), who broadcasts his predictions to anyone who will listen. As the earth’s plates start to shift, setting off a series of natural disasters - earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis - failed writer Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) begins a desperate journey of survival, along with his children Lily (Morgan Lily) and Noah (Liam James), ex-wife Kate (Amanda Peet) and her boyfriend Gordon (Thomas McCarthy). With the world literally being ripped to pieces, the question is how will six billion people survive the end of the world?
2012 is officially one of the most expensive movies ever made. For the estimated $260 million production budget (rumours suggest it may even be as high as $325 million) you would expect something pretty special. So, do you get this? Yes and no. This being a Roland Emmerich film you should know better than to expect a good - or even logical - story, and in this way the film entirely lives up to expectations. For the most part, the film has very little resembling plot, mostly sticking to the generic disaster movie story template, and what little plot that does exist only really does so to provide a loose link between the film’s many effects sequences. Of course, it is these that people will really see the film for and by and large these sequences do deliver. Emmerich has really upped the ante over his previous film, no longer just content to destroy parts of the world, this time destroying the whole thing. While most film directors would settle to have earthquakes, volcanoes OR tsunamis as the focus of a disaster movie, Emmerich throws in the lot, creating his most epic blockbuster yet in the process. The visual effects are truly earth shattering - pardon the pun - and while the interaction between the actors and the computer generated environments isn’t entirely seamless, the effects are nonetheless impressive with scenes of devastation taking place in Los Angeles (one character states that the end of the world will begin in Hollywood - a nod to apocalyptic film Southland Tales perhaps?), Yellowstone National Park, Washington D.C. - Emmerich destroying the White House for the second time in his directing career, Las Vegas, Hawaii, The Vatican, Rio De Janeiro, India and Tibet and even a cruise ship (Poseidon anyone?). While the devastation is undoubtedly impressive (and really must be seen in a cinema to get the full impact), however, some of the scenes don’t quite make the necessary impact, lacking the sense of terror that really should come with such disasters and lightened a bit too much by humorous lines of dialogue. This doesn’t mean that the sequences aren’t entertaining but they certainly aren’t as hard hitting as they could, and should, be. In the last hour, though, as the film reaches its Noah’s Ark style climax, the film does improve considerably, becoming both more thrilling and more interesting, as well as delivering some of the most impressive sequences of the film. Alas, though, this late improvement in quality does not change the fact that, while the visuals are impressive, the film is sorely lacking in some areas. The potential intrigue of the Mayan Prophecy aspect is completely ignored, the Prophecy only being referenced in passing, and not having any notable role in any of the film’s events. Also, much of the plot and back story is done away in the first fifteen minutes and considering the potential it is a complete waste. Showing events from 2009-2011, the obligatory - nonsensical yet plausible sounding - scientific explanation - solar flares causing the Earth’s core to superheat - is done away with quickly, and we are only really given a brief insight into the development of the plan to save humanity - the construction of giant arks that will carry world leaders, the super wealthy and those people identified as necessary for survival, along with the world’s most valuable cultural and artistic relics and artefacts. As for other aspects of the film, the actors all do a decent job, but none of them really stand out as they are not given much to work with, the dialogue being merely adequate, and characters being given minimal development. In addition to those names aforementioned, other cast members in notable roles include Zlatko Buric, Beatrice Rosen, Jonann Urb, John Billingsley, Chin Han, Osric Chau, Blu Mankuma, George Segal, Stephen McHattie and Jimi Mistry. Overall, 2012 is an enjoyable effects extravaganza that does have some great scenes but as a whole it is missing that special something that would make it a truly a memorable film and consequently it fails to live up to Emmerich’s past disaster movies. Nonetheless, if you enjoy popcorn movies that entertain while not asking you to think too much you will find it to be far from a disaster and will definitely find it worthwhile to see it at the cinema.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
A Christmas Carol Interviews
Jim Carrey, Colin Firth and Robert Zemeckis talk to Screenrush about bringing Dickens' seasonal classic back to life.
More about this movie
More about this movie
Monday, November 9, 2009
Bright Star Interviews
Jane Campion, Abbie Cornish and Ben Whishaw talk to Screenrush about poetry in motion.
More about this movie
More about this movie
The Documentaries That Changed The World
With The Cove bringing the issue of dolphin hunting to a worldwide audience and eliciting sweeping reform in the unethical practice, Screenrush remembers the other docs that changed the way we think...
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - The Men Who Stare At Goats
The Men Who Stare At Goats ****
If you’ve seen the trailer for The Men Who Stare At Goats you will likely have noticed that it is allegedly “inspired by the top secret true story”, “a story so unbelievable is has to be true”. Given the crazy sounding concept for the film, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this is a load of nonsense concocted by the film’s distributor, but amazingly these allegations are actually true, at least in part. Based on the 2004 book of the same name by journalist Jon Ronson, the story draws its inspirations from Ronson’s investigations into a division of the US government that was exploring New Age concepts and the potential military applications of the paranormal, notably psychic abilities. Of course, with a title as bizarre sounding as The Men Who Stare At Goats (the title referring to attempts to kill goats by staring at them) you would expect a film that shouldn’t be taken too seriously and this is most definitely what we are getting. Obviously, the real life inspirations would have been quite serious but given the ludicrous sounding nature of the concept, humour was probably really the only way to go with regard to telling the story. The only question is does the film deserve a place among the ranks of great satirical films or will you finding yourself wishing you really were just staring at goats?
Reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is looking for a big story when he encounters Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a shadowy figure who claims to be part of an experimental US military unit. According to Cassady, the New Earth Army, is a legion of ‘Warrior Monks’ with psychic powers. They can read an enemy’s thoughts, pass through solid walls, and even kill a goat just by staring at it. But the programme’s founder, Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), has gone missing and Cassady’s mission is to find him. Bob impulsively decides to tag along, and they track Django to a clandestine training camp run by renegade psychic Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey). Now the reporter is trapped in the middle of a grudge match between the forces of Django’s New Earth Army and Hooper’s personal militia of super soldiers.
Anyone who sees The Men Who Stare At Goats expecting an insightful and thought provoking journalistic piece is likely to be disappointed. This is because the film lacks the sharp satirical edge of other journalism inspired films, refusing to take itself seriously on any level, being played almost entirely for laughs. If, however, what you expect is a zany offbeat comedy you will be very satisfied. The film’s zany sense of humour revolves heavily around the comic situations that the “Jedi Warrior” characters find themselves in as a result of their ‘special powers’ - or should I say lack of powers, as they don’t really do much - and many of these situations are absolutely hilarious. The success of the humour is largely dependent on the performances of the extremely game cast with Jeff Bridges being the highlight as New Age hippy Bill Django, an equally hilarious performance from Kevin Spacey and George Clooney a perfect fit for the offbeat role of Lyn Cassady. If there is a weak link to be found it is Ewan McGregor. It’s not that he is bad exactly but rather that he is too greatly out shadowed by his much funnier co-stars. The story is somewhat lacking in places, resulting in the film failing to succeed in its (few but present) more serious elements, but so much of the film is focused on humour, and the humour is so successful that it is easy to forgive this. So, The Men Who Stare At Goats is a great bit of escapism that, if not taken too seriously, is thoroughly enjoyable, but anyone who wants to see a more serious film will be disappointed. Either way, it is a lot more entertaining than actually staring at goats. And it is certainly amusing to know that “More of this is true than you may believe”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
If you’ve seen the trailer for The Men Who Stare At Goats you will likely have noticed that it is allegedly “inspired by the top secret true story”, “a story so unbelievable is has to be true”. Given the crazy sounding concept for the film, you’d be forgiven for thinking that this is a load of nonsense concocted by the film’s distributor, but amazingly these allegations are actually true, at least in part. Based on the 2004 book of the same name by journalist Jon Ronson, the story draws its inspirations from Ronson’s investigations into a division of the US government that was exploring New Age concepts and the potential military applications of the paranormal, notably psychic abilities. Of course, with a title as bizarre sounding as The Men Who Stare At Goats (the title referring to attempts to kill goats by staring at them) you would expect a film that shouldn’t be taken too seriously and this is most definitely what we are getting. Obviously, the real life inspirations would have been quite serious but given the ludicrous sounding nature of the concept, humour was probably really the only way to go with regard to telling the story. The only question is does the film deserve a place among the ranks of great satirical films or will you finding yourself wishing you really were just staring at goats?
Reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) is looking for a big story when he encounters Lyn Cassady (George Clooney), a shadowy figure who claims to be part of an experimental US military unit. According to Cassady, the New Earth Army, is a legion of ‘Warrior Monks’ with psychic powers. They can read an enemy’s thoughts, pass through solid walls, and even kill a goat just by staring at it. But the programme’s founder, Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), has gone missing and Cassady’s mission is to find him. Bob impulsively decides to tag along, and they track Django to a clandestine training camp run by renegade psychic Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey). Now the reporter is trapped in the middle of a grudge match between the forces of Django’s New Earth Army and Hooper’s personal militia of super soldiers.
Anyone who sees The Men Who Stare At Goats expecting an insightful and thought provoking journalistic piece is likely to be disappointed. This is because the film lacks the sharp satirical edge of other journalism inspired films, refusing to take itself seriously on any level, being played almost entirely for laughs. If, however, what you expect is a zany offbeat comedy you will be very satisfied. The film’s zany sense of humour revolves heavily around the comic situations that the “Jedi Warrior” characters find themselves in as a result of their ‘special powers’ - or should I say lack of powers, as they don’t really do much - and many of these situations are absolutely hilarious. The success of the humour is largely dependent on the performances of the extremely game cast with Jeff Bridges being the highlight as New Age hippy Bill Django, an equally hilarious performance from Kevin Spacey and George Clooney a perfect fit for the offbeat role of Lyn Cassady. If there is a weak link to be found it is Ewan McGregor. It’s not that he is bad exactly but rather that he is too greatly out shadowed by his much funnier co-stars. The story is somewhat lacking in places, resulting in the film failing to succeed in its (few but present) more serious elements, but so much of the film is focused on humour, and the humour is so successful that it is easy to forgive this. So, The Men Who Stare At Goats is a great bit of escapism that, if not taken too seriously, is thoroughly enjoyable, but anyone who wants to see a more serious film will be disappointed. Either way, it is a lot more entertaining than actually staring at goats. And it is certainly amusing to know that “More of this is true than you may believe”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Film Review with Robert Mann - A Christmas Carol
A Christmas Carol 3D ****
A Christmas Carol 2D ***½
I know what you’re probably thinking. Isn’t the first week of November a bit early to release a Christmas movie? I suppose it probably is but that hasn’t stopped the practice of releasing these films at this time in the states for many years (although this is partly due to the level of emphasis that Americans put on their late November holiday Thanksgiving over Christmas), even though Christmas flicks have always been released later here in the UK. Until now, anyway, with the release of this year’s big family Christmas blockbuster A Christmas Carol. Given that this is the umpteenth adaptation of Charles Dickens’ classic novel, the story having already being adapted in almost every way imaginable, from The Muppets to Disney, from period drama to modern re-imagining, it is understandable that there will probably be a degree of fatigue with regard to the film’s inspiration - after all, is there really anything that can be done with the material that hasn’t already? Probably not, at least in terms of story as it appears that there will be little new or different in this area, the film appearing to be one of the most faithful adaptations yet. What this new adaptation is bringing to the table though is the manner in which it has been filmed. With director Robert Zemeckis at the helm, A Christmas Carol has been filmed using the same motion capture animation techniques that the director previously utilized to bring both The Polar Express and Beowulf to the screen, a technique that is still developing, consequently resulting in somewhat mixed receptions to those aforementioned films. However, trailers thus far have been extremely promising and it looks as though the technique may have advanced considerably since Zemeckis last brought it to the big screen, and thus A Christmas Carol actually has something that really makes it stand out from the ever growing crowd of Charles Dickens adaptations.
It’s Christmas Eve, and mean old miser Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is in an even worse mood than usual, barking orders at his hapless employee Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman) and rudely rejecting an invitation to Christmas dinner from his nephew Fred (Colin Firth). But Scrooge is about to get a lesson he’ll never forget when, during the course of the night, he’s visited by three fearsome apparitions - the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come (all Jim Carrey). One by one, the ghosts take Scrooge on a soul-searching journey back to his past and into the future to show him what might happen if he doesn’t change his wicked ways. With Christmas Day just hours away, will Scrooge be able to put his past behind him before it’s too late?
From a technical standpoint, there is much about A Christmas Carol that can be applauded. The motion capture animation is the most realistic yet with both characters and environments being almost life-like, and since The Polar Express and Beowulf considerable improvements have been made in the rendering of eye movements, something which allows emotions to be conveyed much more believably by the virtual characters. This, of course, is also aided by the performances though, with the principal performers all doing a very good job with their roles. The ever versatile Jim Carrey is fantastic in his multiple roles, giving each of the ghosts their own distinct personality and also portraying different accents for each role with a great degree of success. As Scrooge, he starts out immensely despisable - just the way the character should be - and makes us really believe in his redemption over the course of the film. Carrey is also backed up brilliantly by Gary Oldman (who also voices Marley and Tiny Tim) who, in the role of Bob Cratchit, is a truly likable and sympathetic screen presence, as well as a supporting cast that includes performances from Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn and Fionnula Flanagan. The characters also convince because of authentic sounding dialogue, which is just one of the ways in which writer/director Robert Zemeckis’ script adapts Dickens’ novel for the screen literally. The only notable deviations from the source material seem to be several rollercoaster style sequences which have been included to make use of the 3D effects. The 3D is quite spectacular but Zemeckis doesn’t overdo it and it is actually some of the more subtle examples that really dazzle. In particular, in scenes where it is snowing, it actually seems as if it is really snowing in the auditorium. This is just one example of how the 3D heightens the realism of the beautiful animation that is on show. However, for all the film’s strengths, it is still far from perfect. From a story perspective the film has literally nothing to offer that hasn’t been seen before, all the effort clearly having been put into the visuals, and as a piece of family entertainment the film is also somewhat lacking. Younger viewers may find much of the film to be too slow paced and wordy, there is an absence of humour, and a lot of the content may to be too dark and scary for children, the ghosts being a creepy and haunting screen presence. These things don’t make this adaptation of A Christmas Carol a bad film but if you’re looking for a fun filled Christmas flick that will fill your kids with festive cheer this may not be it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
A Christmas Carol 2D ***½
I know what you’re probably thinking. Isn’t the first week of November a bit early to release a Christmas movie? I suppose it probably is but that hasn’t stopped the practice of releasing these films at this time in the states for many years (although this is partly due to the level of emphasis that Americans put on their late November holiday Thanksgiving over Christmas), even though Christmas flicks have always been released later here in the UK. Until now, anyway, with the release of this year’s big family Christmas blockbuster A Christmas Carol. Given that this is the umpteenth adaptation of Charles Dickens’ classic novel, the story having already being adapted in almost every way imaginable, from The Muppets to Disney, from period drama to modern re-imagining, it is understandable that there will probably be a degree of fatigue with regard to the film’s inspiration - after all, is there really anything that can be done with the material that hasn’t already? Probably not, at least in terms of story as it appears that there will be little new or different in this area, the film appearing to be one of the most faithful adaptations yet. What this new adaptation is bringing to the table though is the manner in which it has been filmed. With director Robert Zemeckis at the helm, A Christmas Carol has been filmed using the same motion capture animation techniques that the director previously utilized to bring both The Polar Express and Beowulf to the screen, a technique that is still developing, consequently resulting in somewhat mixed receptions to those aforementioned films. However, trailers thus far have been extremely promising and it looks as though the technique may have advanced considerably since Zemeckis last brought it to the big screen, and thus A Christmas Carol actually has something that really makes it stand out from the ever growing crowd of Charles Dickens adaptations.
It’s Christmas Eve, and mean old miser Ebenezer Scrooge (Jim Carrey) is in an even worse mood than usual, barking orders at his hapless employee Bob Cratchit (Gary Oldman) and rudely rejecting an invitation to Christmas dinner from his nephew Fred (Colin Firth). But Scrooge is about to get a lesson he’ll never forget when, during the course of the night, he’s visited by three fearsome apparitions - the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet to Come (all Jim Carrey). One by one, the ghosts take Scrooge on a soul-searching journey back to his past and into the future to show him what might happen if he doesn’t change his wicked ways. With Christmas Day just hours away, will Scrooge be able to put his past behind him before it’s too late?
From a technical standpoint, there is much about A Christmas Carol that can be applauded. The motion capture animation is the most realistic yet with both characters and environments being almost life-like, and since The Polar Express and Beowulf considerable improvements have been made in the rendering of eye movements, something which allows emotions to be conveyed much more believably by the virtual characters. This, of course, is also aided by the performances though, with the principal performers all doing a very good job with their roles. The ever versatile Jim Carrey is fantastic in his multiple roles, giving each of the ghosts their own distinct personality and also portraying different accents for each role with a great degree of success. As Scrooge, he starts out immensely despisable - just the way the character should be - and makes us really believe in his redemption over the course of the film. Carrey is also backed up brilliantly by Gary Oldman (who also voices Marley and Tiny Tim) who, in the role of Bob Cratchit, is a truly likable and sympathetic screen presence, as well as a supporting cast that includes performances from Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn and Fionnula Flanagan. The characters also convince because of authentic sounding dialogue, which is just one of the ways in which writer/director Robert Zemeckis’ script adapts Dickens’ novel for the screen literally. The only notable deviations from the source material seem to be several rollercoaster style sequences which have been included to make use of the 3D effects. The 3D is quite spectacular but Zemeckis doesn’t overdo it and it is actually some of the more subtle examples that really dazzle. In particular, in scenes where it is snowing, it actually seems as if it is really snowing in the auditorium. This is just one example of how the 3D heightens the realism of the beautiful animation that is on show. However, for all the film’s strengths, it is still far from perfect. From a story perspective the film has literally nothing to offer that hasn’t been seen before, all the effort clearly having been put into the visuals, and as a piece of family entertainment the film is also somewhat lacking. Younger viewers may find much of the film to be too slow paced and wordy, there is an absence of humour, and a lot of the content may to be too dark and scary for children, the ghosts being a creepy and haunting screen presence. These things don’t make this adaptation of A Christmas Carol a bad film but if you’re looking for a fun filled Christmas flick that will fill your kids with festive cheer this may not be it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Grant Heslov Interview
Screenrush talk to the director of The Men Who Stare At Goats about psychic warfare and bossing George Clooney around...
More about this movie
More about this movie
Indie-Family Way: Wes Anderson
The release of The Fantastic Mr Fox marks indie director Wes Anderson's move from quirky adult-focused fare to mainstream kiddie-friendly animation. He's kept his unique style, but this time it's for the whole family...
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Film Review with Robert Mann - The Fourth Kind
The Fourth Kind ****
The second of this week’s horror releases, after the heavily hyped Jennifer’s Body, The Fourth Kind is a scare flick that may very likely find itself (undeservedly) ignored by moviegoers. Nonetheless, it is perhaps the more interesting of the two. Driven more by the promise of an intriguing concept and genuine scares than big stars or post-modern humour, this is a film that is (allegedly) based on true events and case studies (although recent revelations suggest that it is just like The Blair Witch Project - all lies, Dr Abigail Tyler apparently being a completely fabricated character, most of the disappearances that have occurred in Nome being linked with alcohol and/or hazardous conditions, and the case studies being fictitious, consequently meaning that the archive footage is likely fake) and is presented partially in the style of a documentary. It certainly looks like it might have what it takes to be quite a memorable horror film, but does it really have the impact it needs to truly stand out?
In 1972, a scale of measurement was established for alien encounters. When a UFO is sighted, it is called an encounter of the first kind. When evidence is collected, it is known as an encounter of the second kind. When contact is made with extraterrestrials, it is the third kind. The next level, abduction, is the fourth kind. While cynics bemoan a lack of evidence, the unfortunate folk of the isolated town of Nome, Alaska, have proof piling up around them. Following a disproportionate number of disappearances in the town, psychologist Dr Abigail Tyler (Milla Jovovich) begins recording interviews with her traumatized patients. These sessions uncover a disturbing number of similarities in her patients’ stories - all suggesting alien abduction. With the help of previously unseen archive footage, we’re taken on an unsettling journey to find out if an encounter of the fourth kind is not only possibly but has already happened.
Ignore the fact that The Fourth Kind is supposed to be based on true case studies and supposedly features reach archive footage (with dramatised sequences built around it) as claiming it to be real is little more than a hook or gimmick - deception if you will - to attract moviegoers to see the film. It is a gimmick that proves wholly unnecessary too, as there are more than enough reasons to see the film without the suggestion that what we are shown is real. Director Olatunde Osunsanmi has crafted what is quite possibly one of the scariest films seen in some time and he has done so using extremely simple filmmaking techniques as opposed to more elaborate ones. The film has the look, feel and sound of a real documentary (complete with reconstructions) and regardless of whether it is real or fake the archive footage seems authentic and provides genuine chills. Even if the film is a hoax, realism is still key to its success and Osunsanmi ensures that the film never fails to convince, even when dealing with far out science fiction concepts (although the sci-fi content itself is minimal), with not only the film techniques used but also a very well written script serving to make something that is genuinely believable. The realism is also heightened by fantastic performances from the entire cast, which also includes Will Patton and Elias Koteas. Milla Jovovich, in particular, is excellent, effectively conveying the fragile emotional state of her character and ensuring that we believe her character’s story or at least we believe that she believes it. So, overall, The Fourth Kind is a film with plenty of things to recommend it. If it were real that would just make it even more terrifying but whatever the case it is easily one of the most terrifying and most intriguing horror movies of 2009 and definitely worth seeing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
The second of this week’s horror releases, after the heavily hyped Jennifer’s Body, The Fourth Kind is a scare flick that may very likely find itself (undeservedly) ignored by moviegoers. Nonetheless, it is perhaps the more interesting of the two. Driven more by the promise of an intriguing concept and genuine scares than big stars or post-modern humour, this is a film that is (allegedly) based on true events and case studies (although recent revelations suggest that it is just like The Blair Witch Project - all lies, Dr Abigail Tyler apparently being a completely fabricated character, most of the disappearances that have occurred in Nome being linked with alcohol and/or hazardous conditions, and the case studies being fictitious, consequently meaning that the archive footage is likely fake) and is presented partially in the style of a documentary. It certainly looks like it might have what it takes to be quite a memorable horror film, but does it really have the impact it needs to truly stand out?
In 1972, a scale of measurement was established for alien encounters. When a UFO is sighted, it is called an encounter of the first kind. When evidence is collected, it is known as an encounter of the second kind. When contact is made with extraterrestrials, it is the third kind. The next level, abduction, is the fourth kind. While cynics bemoan a lack of evidence, the unfortunate folk of the isolated town of Nome, Alaska, have proof piling up around them. Following a disproportionate number of disappearances in the town, psychologist Dr Abigail Tyler (Milla Jovovich) begins recording interviews with her traumatized patients. These sessions uncover a disturbing number of similarities in her patients’ stories - all suggesting alien abduction. With the help of previously unseen archive footage, we’re taken on an unsettling journey to find out if an encounter of the fourth kind is not only possibly but has already happened.
Ignore the fact that The Fourth Kind is supposed to be based on true case studies and supposedly features reach archive footage (with dramatised sequences built around it) as claiming it to be real is little more than a hook or gimmick - deception if you will - to attract moviegoers to see the film. It is a gimmick that proves wholly unnecessary too, as there are more than enough reasons to see the film without the suggestion that what we are shown is real. Director Olatunde Osunsanmi has crafted what is quite possibly one of the scariest films seen in some time and he has done so using extremely simple filmmaking techniques as opposed to more elaborate ones. The film has the look, feel and sound of a real documentary (complete with reconstructions) and regardless of whether it is real or fake the archive footage seems authentic and provides genuine chills. Even if the film is a hoax, realism is still key to its success and Osunsanmi ensures that the film never fails to convince, even when dealing with far out science fiction concepts (although the sci-fi content itself is minimal), with not only the film techniques used but also a very well written script serving to make something that is genuinely believable. The realism is also heightened by fantastic performances from the entire cast, which also includes Will Patton and Elias Koteas. Milla Jovovich, in particular, is excellent, effectively conveying the fragile emotional state of her character and ensuring that we believe her character’s story or at least we believe that she believes it. So, overall, The Fourth Kind is a film with plenty of things to recommend it. If it were real that would just make it even more terrifying but whatever the case it is easily one of the most terrifying and most intriguing horror movies of 2009 and definitely worth seeing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Film Review with Robert Mann - Jennifer's Body
Jennifer’s Body *
Here we have what is probably one of the most hyped up horror movies of 2009. Yet it isn’t so much due to it being scary, but rather that it stars the super-hot (at least to some people) Megan Fox as a popular high school girl who becomes possessed by a devil and begins eating boys - sexual innuendos clearly big on the film’s agenda. Jennifer’s Body is a film that, at least in principle, has potential. Megan Fox is supposedly one of the big names in a new generation of movie stars (although the poor box office performance of this film in the states suggests otherwise), as is co-star Amanda Seyfried, the film is written by Oscar winning Juno scriptwriter Diablo Cody and with direction also coming in the female form - that of Karyn Kusama - this is a film where women are truly in charge - the writer, the director and both leads being female - suggesting that the film may have as much to offer female viewers as it does to the male viewers whom the casting of Megan Fox suggests the film is aimed at. Also, the film has been made with a very tongue in cheek approach, firmly falling into the horror comedy subgenre, a genre that is often tough to crack at the box office but often delivers some truly memorable films. Sadly, however, for all its potential, Jennifer’s Body fails to join the ranks of great horror comedies.
Jennifer Check (Megan Fox) is the sexy, popular captain of the high school cheerleading squad. All of the girls want to be friends with her, and all of the boys want to have sex with her. Jennifer's friend since childhood, Anita “Needy” Lesnicky (Amanda Seyfried), is a nerdy, substantially less popular, “plain jane” student. After Jennifer ends up as the sacrifice in a Satanic ritual she becomes possessed by a demonic spirit and she is transformed into a flesh-eating femme fatale whose snack of choice is boys. While the fellas are powerless to resist her charms Jennifer finds and unlikely adversary in Needy. The usually-timid Needy doesn’t take too kindly to Jennifer setting her sights on her boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) and will do anything in her power to stop the foxy fiend. But has wimpy Needy, a girl who can’t even finish gym, got what it takes to defeat her demonic ex-best friend?
With Diablo Cody as writer you’d be forgiven for expecting something special from the writing in Jennifer’s Body. Sadly, however, there is nothing special about any aspect of this film. The script lacks the intelligence and wit that was present in Juno and despite Cody’s apparent understanding of the teen psyche - something which was clearly visible in Juno and is occasionally present here - most of the characters portrayed seem rather typically stereotypical. Also, Cody’s attempts at postmodernism through pop culture references and possibly even homage’s to - or rip-offs of, to use another term - other (much better) horror films generally go in one of two directions, either being too over the heads of the target audience to really make an impact or too obvious with pretty much the same result. As well as attempting and failing at postmodernism here, Cody also fails to deliver any gags that are particularly funny - although this is a matter of perspective, the teenagers in the screening I was at finding a lot of it very funny - with much of the humour revolving around sexual situations and innuendos and generally anything related to Jennifer’s Body. In addition to failing to deliver laughs, the film also fails to be particularly scary, something that wouldn’t be too much of a problem if the tongue in cheek, not to be taken too seriously approach actually made for a film that was in any way funny or smart, but that is a massive failing considering the film doesn’t even achieve that much. Another failing is in the way the story unfolds with it being rather difficult to actually care about what happens for much of the time and consequently the film ends up being a bit of a drag, although this may be partially due to poor editing and direction. Whatever, though, it appears that Diablo Cody is probably a one hit wonder and she certainly won’t be winning any Oscars for her work here. The film has one aspect, however, that does redeem it slightly. The casting works. Megan Fox, while being very stereotypical in her portrayal of Jennifer, nonetheless makes for a believable popular girl character and her transformation from man eating high school girl to literally man eating demon possessed high school girl isn’t entirely without entertainment value. But, it is Amanda Seyfried who really stands out, successfully breaking out of the stereotype of the nerdy type character in her transformation from wimpy bystander to kick-ass heroine. There is also an amusing appearance by J.K. Simmons as a hook handed school teacher. Overall, Jennifer’s Body is a film that has little to recommend it, in spite of some decent efforts among the cast. Sure, there is a particular group of people who may consider it to be the best film ever made - not hard to figure out who they are - but anyone who actually enjoys GOOD horror films should avoid this film at all costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Here we have what is probably one of the most hyped up horror movies of 2009. Yet it isn’t so much due to it being scary, but rather that it stars the super-hot (at least to some people) Megan Fox as a popular high school girl who becomes possessed by a devil and begins eating boys - sexual innuendos clearly big on the film’s agenda. Jennifer’s Body is a film that, at least in principle, has potential. Megan Fox is supposedly one of the big names in a new generation of movie stars (although the poor box office performance of this film in the states suggests otherwise), as is co-star Amanda Seyfried, the film is written by Oscar winning Juno scriptwriter Diablo Cody and with direction also coming in the female form - that of Karyn Kusama - this is a film where women are truly in charge - the writer, the director and both leads being female - suggesting that the film may have as much to offer female viewers as it does to the male viewers whom the casting of Megan Fox suggests the film is aimed at. Also, the film has been made with a very tongue in cheek approach, firmly falling into the horror comedy subgenre, a genre that is often tough to crack at the box office but often delivers some truly memorable films. Sadly, however, for all its potential, Jennifer’s Body fails to join the ranks of great horror comedies.
Jennifer Check (Megan Fox) is the sexy, popular captain of the high school cheerleading squad. All of the girls want to be friends with her, and all of the boys want to have sex with her. Jennifer's friend since childhood, Anita “Needy” Lesnicky (Amanda Seyfried), is a nerdy, substantially less popular, “plain jane” student. After Jennifer ends up as the sacrifice in a Satanic ritual she becomes possessed by a demonic spirit and she is transformed into a flesh-eating femme fatale whose snack of choice is boys. While the fellas are powerless to resist her charms Jennifer finds and unlikely adversary in Needy. The usually-timid Needy doesn’t take too kindly to Jennifer setting her sights on her boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) and will do anything in her power to stop the foxy fiend. But has wimpy Needy, a girl who can’t even finish gym, got what it takes to defeat her demonic ex-best friend?
With Diablo Cody as writer you’d be forgiven for expecting something special from the writing in Jennifer’s Body. Sadly, however, there is nothing special about any aspect of this film. The script lacks the intelligence and wit that was present in Juno and despite Cody’s apparent understanding of the teen psyche - something which was clearly visible in Juno and is occasionally present here - most of the characters portrayed seem rather typically stereotypical. Also, Cody’s attempts at postmodernism through pop culture references and possibly even homage’s to - or rip-offs of, to use another term - other (much better) horror films generally go in one of two directions, either being too over the heads of the target audience to really make an impact or too obvious with pretty much the same result. As well as attempting and failing at postmodernism here, Cody also fails to deliver any gags that are particularly funny - although this is a matter of perspective, the teenagers in the screening I was at finding a lot of it very funny - with much of the humour revolving around sexual situations and innuendos and generally anything related to Jennifer’s Body. In addition to failing to deliver laughs, the film also fails to be particularly scary, something that wouldn’t be too much of a problem if the tongue in cheek, not to be taken too seriously approach actually made for a film that was in any way funny or smart, but that is a massive failing considering the film doesn’t even achieve that much. Another failing is in the way the story unfolds with it being rather difficult to actually care about what happens for much of the time and consequently the film ends up being a bit of a drag, although this may be partially due to poor editing and direction. Whatever, though, it appears that Diablo Cody is probably a one hit wonder and she certainly won’t be winning any Oscars for her work here. The film has one aspect, however, that does redeem it slightly. The casting works. Megan Fox, while being very stereotypical in her portrayal of Jennifer, nonetheless makes for a believable popular girl character and her transformation from man eating high school girl to literally man eating demon possessed high school girl isn’t entirely without entertainment value. But, it is Amanda Seyfried who really stands out, successfully breaking out of the stereotype of the nerdy type character in her transformation from wimpy bystander to kick-ass heroine. There is also an amusing appearance by J.K. Simmons as a hook handed school teacher. Overall, Jennifer’s Body is a film that has little to recommend it, in spite of some decent efforts among the cast. Sure, there is a particular group of people who may consider it to be the best film ever made - not hard to figure out who they are - but anyone who actually enjoys GOOD horror films should avoid this film at all costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)
Paper Heart Interview
Charlyne Yi and Nicholas Jasenovec talk to Screenrush about looking for love in all the wrong places for their new quasi documentary...
More about this movie
More about this movie
The Year Of The Fox
Screenrush had an idea and ran with it.
Just look at all the foxes that have had a successful 2009...
Peter Serafinowicz: God Amongst Impressionists
Here's the rather excellent Peter Serafinowicz sharing some of his 'favourite' movie lines with us. If you don't laugh, you probably have no soul. Seriously.
Prince Of Persia Gets Bruckheimer'd [sic]
Behold, dear readers, the shiny new Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time trailer. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal as the titular Prince, PoP (as it shall now be known) looks to potentially be the first genuinely successful video game adaptation in cinema history. Disney have certainly given it a Pirates Of The Caribbean flavour, which, let's face it, can at least promise some good old-fashioned popcorn fun. Supporting Gyllenhaal, who incidentally seems to be channeling Bear Grylls in his accent, are thesps Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina, and beauty Gemma Arterton.
Check it out:
Friday, November 6, 2009
Carey Mulligan Interview
Screenrush speak to the star of An Education about age-gap relationships, Sixties makeovers and wearing a school uniform...
More about this movie
More about this movie
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Reign Of Death
Thank you to Pete for the heads up.
Reign Of Death, is a sci-fi noir film starring Noel Clarke, written and directed by Matthew Savage.
Here's the trailer, and here's the facebook page.
We'll be keeping an eye out for this....
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Psychotropica
We hope to grab some time with Damien Sage, a young filmmaker from the US. He has just completed first first feature, Psychotropica.
He told me "...we made the movie on a budget so low we like to say "no money was harmed during the making of this film". But, we're still quite proud of it none the less. And, thankfully, it has been well received critically so far, despite the complete strangeness and cheapness of the project!"
Here's the awesome crazy trailer -
It's very much inspired by his love of over the top 70's and 80's film, Italian cinema, in particular. It has incest, killer children, copious amounts of violence and nudity, as well as being generally like the acid trip imprint of a disturbed mind's worst dream caught on film. Sounds like our cup of tea. Review will be up ASAP.
He told me "...we made the movie on a budget so low we like to say "no money was harmed during the making of this film". But, we're still quite proud of it none the less. And, thankfully, it has been well received critically so far, despite the complete strangeness and cheapness of the project!"
Here's the awesome crazy trailer -
It's very much inspired by his love of over the top 70's and 80's film, Italian cinema, in particular. It has incest, killer children, copious amounts of violence and nudity, as well as being generally like the acid trip imprint of a disturbed mind's worst dream caught on film. Sounds like our cup of tea. Review will be up ASAP.
Sledge Talks To Gary King
I managed to grab some time with Gary King, a fantastic prospect you need to keep an eye out for...
So how did you become Gary King - Filmmaker?
I've always loved films growing up, but just never knew one could make a living doing it...which actually could still be the case. I actually had a corporate 9-5 job and made a good living until a wake-up call (layoffs) made me reassess what I always loved and wanted to do -- make films. With the loving support of my wife I began the journey about 7 years ago. And here I am, 3 feature films later and a few more coming down the pipeline.
When did you love for films start?
My parents exposed me to every film under the sun while I was growing up. I have fond memories of heading to the video store on the weekend to pick 4 films to see. I'd sometimes fight with my brother on which films were most appropriate for the weekend -- almost like we were programming our mini-film festival each week. I truly appreciate the fact that my mom and dad would show me films that I would have never had found on my own at that young age (such as Charade, Rear Window, The Courtjester). I think it really gave me a foundation of knowing where films had been and what they had done.
Any films you have seen that have left a lasting impression with you?
Too many to count. I really think it depends on the genre -- I've got at least a few films for each category. But if I had to choose a few (in no particular order): LA CONFIDENTIAL, OUT OF SIGHT, MEMENTO, AMELIE, BOOGIE NIGHTS, SHORT CUTS, ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (original), STOLEN KISSES, WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN, ON THE TOWN, ANNIE HALL, DRESSED TO KILL, BRINGING UP BABY, CHUNGKING EXPRESS, THE LIMEY, FANDANGO, ALL THE REAL GIRLS, DO THE RIGHT THING, LOST IN TRANSLATION, RATCATCHER......
I think you've opened a can of worms.
Tell me about Dismal. And how was shooting?
DISMAL was a director-for-hire gig produced by FEARMAKERS. They are an up-and-coming production company with a taste for the macabre and a cool lineup of upcoming feature films. It was a fun time and a great learning experience to work for someone else. The film is about swamp cannibals that hunt down college co-eds who are camping in the woods for an extra credit assignment.
We shot on location in Blakely, Georgia where the town fully embraced our filmmaking crew and actors. The schedule and weather was a bit grueling, but we pulled through.
DISMAL actually has acquired a nice following which is pretty cool. It has recently been acquired by Showtime as well as TimeWarner and Comcast for VOD. The DVD should be released in the near future as well.
What are you hoping for when the film's released?
I tried to make the best film possible with the resources given to me. The fact that the film was shot very low-budget is apparent in some scenes, but overall I just hope that it finds an audience that can appreciate the film for what it is. It doesn't try to do too much to re-invent the genre. It just aims for people to enjoy a indie horror film with some mayhem and murder in the backwoods.
Horrors - Are they easy to make? Why do many indie and short filmmakers opt for an horror?
I've learned that horror films are not easy to make -- let me rephrase that: "good" horror films are not easy to make.
There are so many factors, as in any film, that can contribute to the success of a good film. Be it the script, the actors, the production values, the directing, etc. I think the horror genre though caters to certain built-in audience. Having done DISMAL and taking it to a horror convention it was apparent that fans are eager to embrace new films and want to love them. I've learned that they are one of the most open and supportive groups of fans. Because of this, I believe the market is always one of the most viable. They're hungry and eager to eat up new films.
Now your next feature is New York Lately. How long did it take to realise, from the idea of a film to the finished product ? Talk me through it.
NEW YORK LATELY (NYL) was actually my first feature film. I shot it in December 2007 and while in post-production I was hired to direct DISMAL in the summer of 2008. NYL was an amazing experience because the people involved (both in front of and behind the camera) were extremely supportive of what I was trying to accomplish.
I wrote the script in various forms over the past few years, but wrote the shooting script during the summer/fall of 2007. Being new to New York, I wanted to meet and work with as many people as possible so I expanded the character piece (originally 2 main characters) to create an ensemble drama. We were in post for about 8 months and had a private premiere screening for the cast/crew in October 2008.
Our official world premiere was at the Sedona International Film Festival where we sold out both our screenings. And now it has been in festival circuit all across the US. I've been blessed to visit most of them to present the film to new audiences which is very important to me. I love connecting with people to help build awareness about my film work.
What do you hope that people get out of the film?
When audiences watch NYL, everyone comes away with something different which is exactly what I want. Some people really are impacted by the storylines while others find no relation to any of the characters. However, I feel that in everyone's lives we -- at one point or another -- conceal certain aspects of us in order to protect ourselves from others. We act in certain ways with people to avoid fear, embarrassment, or whatever it is.
The beautiful part about NYL is we are given moments to peek through a hole just big enough to witness people in a raw naked state. Each character in NYL shares moments where we are let in "behind their curtain" so that we as an audience are privileged to know them intimately. We can choose to judge them or not -- but the movie is about seeing people live their lives one way, and then discovering what's underneath.
Are you ever temped to move into something different? The difference from Dismal to New York Lately is apparent.
Yes. I love all types of films from all around the world. I don't want to pigeon-hole myself into one genre as I believe that each story is unique and has its own setting -- or world. The stories I love come from all over the place and I would never want to be cornered in to only one way of telling it just to fit a genre.
Whose work do you enjoy, and why?
I love filmmakers that can handle different genres well -- and can move comfortably between them depending on the story. Directors like Billy Wilder, Howard, Hawks, Danny Boyle, Steven Soderbergh to name a few can move seamlessly from film to film that are drastic in subject and style. These filmmakers all have a special section on my DVD shelf. It's inspiring to see their body of work is not tied down to one thing. I hope to do the same in my approach to filmmaking.
What are your future projects?
I've got several projects I'm really excited about. The first is my next feature film WHAT'S UP LOVELY. It's a drama about a girl who loses her job and spends the night wandering the streets of New York City encountering strange events and people. It's in post-production now with hopefully an early 2010 release to festivals. There's quite a bit of buzz on it from film sites so I'm excited to finish it. People can learn more about it here.
I've also been hired to direct a zombie/martial arts comedy which I'll be a little hush hush about until it gets closer to release. I will be shooting that in just a few weeks. The script is hilarious so I think it'll be a fun film.
Anything we should watch, read, see, listen to?!
On Twitter (@grking) I make film recommendations all the time -- especially supporting good indies. As you've seen, when you ask me a question like this I can go on and on -- people can feel free to connect with me there and I'd be happy to talk about films and everything under the sun.
My film blog "An Indie Life" also talks about the films and directors that inspire me as well as giving updates on all my film projects.
www.grking.com
Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you. I appreciate BRWC's support.
Thank you Gary!
So how did you become Gary King - Filmmaker?
I've always loved films growing up, but just never knew one could make a living doing it...which actually could still be the case. I actually had a corporate 9-5 job and made a good living until a wake-up call (layoffs) made me reassess what I always loved and wanted to do -- make films. With the loving support of my wife I began the journey about 7 years ago. And here I am, 3 feature films later and a few more coming down the pipeline.
When did you love for films start?
My parents exposed me to every film under the sun while I was growing up. I have fond memories of heading to the video store on the weekend to pick 4 films to see. I'd sometimes fight with my brother on which films were most appropriate for the weekend -- almost like we were programming our mini-film festival each week. I truly appreciate the fact that my mom and dad would show me films that I would have never had found on my own at that young age (such as Charade, Rear Window, The Courtjester). I think it really gave me a foundation of knowing where films had been and what they had done.
Any films you have seen that have left a lasting impression with you?
Too many to count. I really think it depends on the genre -- I've got at least a few films for each category. But if I had to choose a few (in no particular order): LA CONFIDENTIAL, OUT OF SIGHT, MEMENTO, AMELIE, BOOGIE NIGHTS, SHORT CUTS, ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (original), STOLEN KISSES, WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN, ON THE TOWN, ANNIE HALL, DRESSED TO KILL, BRINGING UP BABY, CHUNGKING EXPRESS, THE LIMEY, FANDANGO, ALL THE REAL GIRLS, DO THE RIGHT THING, LOST IN TRANSLATION, RATCATCHER......
I think you've opened a can of worms.
Tell me about Dismal. And how was shooting?
DISMAL was a director-for-hire gig produced by FEARMAKERS. They are an up-and-coming production company with a taste for the macabre and a cool lineup of upcoming feature films. It was a fun time and a great learning experience to work for someone else. The film is about swamp cannibals that hunt down college co-eds who are camping in the woods for an extra credit assignment.
We shot on location in Blakely, Georgia where the town fully embraced our filmmaking crew and actors. The schedule and weather was a bit grueling, but we pulled through.
DISMAL actually has acquired a nice following which is pretty cool. It has recently been acquired by Showtime as well as TimeWarner and Comcast for VOD. The DVD should be released in the near future as well.
What are you hoping for when the film's released?
Horrors - Are they easy to make? Why do many indie and short filmmakers opt for an horror?
There are so many factors, as in any film, that can contribute to the success of a good film. Be it the script, the actors, the production values, the directing, etc. I think the horror genre though caters to certain built-in audience. Having done DISMAL and taking it to a horror convention it was apparent that fans are eager to embrace new films and want to love them. I've learned that they are one of the most open and supportive groups of fans. Because of this, I believe the market is always one of the most viable. They're hungry and eager to eat up new films.
Now your next feature is New York Lately. How long did it take to realise, from the idea of a film to the finished product ? Talk me through it.
I wrote the script in various forms over the past few years, but wrote the shooting script during the summer/fall of 2007. Being new to New York, I wanted to meet and work with as many people as possible so I expanded the character piece (originally 2 main characters) to create an ensemble drama. We were in post for about 8 months and had a private premiere screening for the cast/crew in October 2008.
Our official world premiere was at the Sedona International Film Festival where we sold out both our screenings. And now it has been in festival circuit all across the US. I've been blessed to visit most of them to present the film to new audiences which is very important to me. I love connecting with people to help build awareness about my film work.
What do you hope that people get out of the film?
The beautiful part about NYL is we are given moments to peek through a hole just big enough to witness people in a raw naked state. Each character in NYL shares moments where we are let in "behind their curtain" so that we as an audience are privileged to know them intimately. We can choose to judge them or not -- but the movie is about seeing people live their lives one way, and then discovering what's underneath.
Are you ever temped to move into something different? The difference from Dismal to New York Lately is apparent.
Whose work do you enjoy, and why?
What are your future projects?
I've also been hired to direct a zombie/martial arts comedy which I'll be a little hush hush about until it gets closer to release. I will be shooting that in just a few weeks. The script is hilarious so I think it'll be a fun film.
Anything we should watch, read, see, listen to?!
My film blog "An Indie Life" also talks about the films and directors that inspire me as well as giving updates on all my film projects.
www.grking.com
Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you. I appreciate BRWC's support.
Thank you Gary!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)