Obscure Movie Thoughts From An Obscure Movie Fan

The 25 Best Performances of 2011, Part 2

2012-01-01T22:42:00.001-08:00

Yip...

10) Rainn Wilson, Super

Super was an interesting film in many ways, the kind of bold genre revisionism that people like me really, really like, but the kind of film that at the same time its hard to get a lot of people to see. Regardless, this movie was great, and probably the best thing in the midst of that greatness was the fantastic performance director James Gunn gets out of American Office star Rainn Wilson. He's funny, but he's also terrifying and tragic and it really is one of the stand out performances of the year.

9) Kristen Wiig, Bridesmaids

Prior to this film, I wasn't the hugest fan of Kristen Wiig. What I've seen of her SNL stuff I haven't particularly liked, and her various supporting roles in movies haven't been exactly to my taste either, but I thought she and this movie just killed, perhaps for the main reason that she toned herself down and played a real, credible human being and consequently was much funnier and engaging for it. A great performance by any definition.

8) Christian Bale, The Fighter

The Fighter certainly fits Hollywood's new definition for what a great, award winning movie should be, that is a story we've seen a million times over put together well and starring big name actors, but I'd say amongst the cliches are some terrific performances, as there usually are, but none more so than Christian Bale whose junkie ex-boxer won him a deserved Oscar.

7) Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit

While I think True Grit represents a sort of the moment where the Cone Brothers lost a bit of their agency, it's a terrifically realized and directed movie. And Hailee Steinfeld's central performance is nothing short of a revelation, not only holding her own against the likes of Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon and Josh Brolin, but arguably eclipsing them.

6) Kirsten Dunst, Melancholia

The thing about Von Trier is, I'm not really going to dispute the accusations of misogyny, because I don't really think you can. Not entirely anyway, but at the same time it's sort of equally indisputable that he gets career best, astonishing work from every actress who works with him, and there's certainly no exception with Kirsten Dunst, an actress who's never really done much to distinguish herself talent wise in a 15 year movie career. She's not even the best performance in the movie, but it is still pretty incredible what he gets out of her here.

5) Brad Pitt, Tree Of Life

Being a film student, it's sort of inevitable that I know the kind of people who thought this was some flawless masterpiece for the ages, and while it's probably the most ambitious film to be released at a cinema in my lifetime, that doesn't mean there's not some super obnoxious and intolerable pretentiousness going on here. It probably makes up about 50% of the film, and the other 50% is magnificent, enlightening and spellbinding. Such is the trade. But Brad Pitt's performance as the disciplinarian patriarch at the head of the family the story follows is pretty incredible, and should win him that well deserved Oscar.

4) Natalie Portman, Black Swan

I like to say that this is a great movie made out of a sort of awful script, Darren Aronofsky finding an operatic grace amongst the silliness and hack. Portman factors into that too, taking a character who is mostly symbolic in her purpose and journey and making her really hit home. Perhaps its a very actorly performance, and it's more about the craft than say making you invest in her journey, but regardless, what Portman does here is pretty extraordinary.

3) Michelle Williams, Blue Valentine

Blue Valentine, I imagine, could well be the kind of film that falls apart on repeat viewings. The kind that without that all-consuming emotional sweep that overwhelms you the first time, maybe begins to look a little overwrought, but having only seen it once it remains an incredible film in my mind. And Williams, who plays the every-person to Gosling's two-part caricature, is the so much more subtle, so much more haunting side of the film. When Oscar nominated Williams and not Gosling, there's been few decisions of their's I've ever agreed with more.

2) Charlotte Gainsbourg, Melancholia

Gainsbourg seems to have thrown her lot in with Von Trier at this point, and if one is just looking at hard evidence, its not all that hard to see why. Again she's utterly mesmerizing in this film, and though the more reserved character opposite Dunst, there's something about Gainsbourg, in the way she can do so much more with less that is incredibly impactful.

1) James Franco, 127 Hours

Before Franco tanked at the Oscars and began to come off like a huge douche every time he opened his mouth, he did this, a film about a man trapped under a rock, in which he gave probably the best performance anyone's given in the last couple of years. It's the kind of performance that functions in both the big and small, and altogether he made this film a must see, when it quite easily could have been slightly tedious.

The 25 Best Performances in 2011, Part 1

2011-12-30T18:20:00.000-08:00

Now to the movies, let us commence...

25) Matthew McConaughey, The Lincoln Lawyer

The thing about doing lists like this is, it would be quite easy to just slot three or four performances from The King's Speech or Black Swan and walk away. But making a bad film into a good purely on the back of your performance deserves just as much recognition, and rarely seems to get it. McConaughey may be pretty much a punch line at this point, but when he finds it within himself to give a shit, he probably has the most natural movie star charisma around and watching him find a groove again after years of increasingly odious romantic comedies was very, very entertaining.

24) Joseph Gordon Levitt, 50/50

The latest step in JGL's path to world domination was more evidence that he's probably the closest we have to this generation's James Stewart, someone who can just exude likeability in any role, in any situation yet not make it feel false or overly sentimental. I think 50/50 was a movie that could have easily fallen apart without such a steadfast presence at its centre, but this was very much a coming of age role for JGL.

23) Andy Serkis, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

Serkis' second performance as CGI primate was yet more evidence that he's one of the most talented actors who's face we never get see. Apes was one of those pleasant surprise movies that come along once and again, where everything about it says it should suck and somehow it doesn't. And I think a lot of that was Serkis, who takes his 'Birth of man' arc and runs with it. How about we let this guy act without the mo-cap suit now, huh?

22) William Fichtner, Drive Angry

Drive Angry had a rough-house charm and ingenuity about it that would make so many B movies so much more enjoyable. And it's not even an off the hinge Nicolas Cage performance that saves the day here, and if anything Cage takes second fiddle to character actor William Fichtner's moment in the sun, his 'Accountant' a villain out of a better movie, full of charm and awesome, lending smarts and a sense of humour to a film that probably didn't deserve either. It's just a shame Fichtner wasted this performance on a film that the human race doesn't and arguably shouldn't have the capacity to take seriously.

21) John Boyega, Attack The Block

Attack The Block was so much better for not being the super-ironic, condescending piss-take it almost had to be, and instead invested real care and emotion into the characterization of the hoodies who were fighting the aliens. None more so than Moses, played with a calm, commanding authority by Boyega. A performance of the type that makes one a star instantaneously, it reminded of Kurt Russell in The Thing or Vin Diesel in Pitch Black. Horror films can work a treat with a beacon of charisma at their centre, and Boyega really did provide that here.

20) Tilda Swinton, We Need To Talk About Kevin

We Need To Talk About Kevin is a story that has academia written all over it, and when you take it in you can almost imagine the scent of the creative writing classroom in which it came into being. Having said that, I enjoyed this film in spite of its faults, and Swinton is perfectly designed for a movie about existential maternal dread.

19) Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom

People really liked them some Animal Kingdom, and I don't really begrudge them that. It's a good movie, it's just to me it was a lot of people accused Drive of being. A film with not really that much to say, and used shaky camera-work for us to not notice all the gang-family cliches. One thing I can get on board with though, is the terrifically rendered performance by Jacki Weaver as the family matriarch.

18) Nicole Kidman, Rabbit Hole

Movies about dead kids tend not to be the best, maybe they exploit the weight of the tragedy as a back door way to resonance, or maybe they get caught up too much in their thematic bluster, but Rabbit Hole to m, felt like a specific, detailed and honest version of the story, and Kidman gives one of her better performance of recent years here, reminding people who've perhaps forgotten just how good she can be.

17) Michael Shannon, Take Shelter

Shannon is in the midst of one of those Kevin Spacey alike transitions from character actor to movie star. Someone whose acting is so good, it elevates him to A list status. It's rare these to see a Michael Shannon film and have him be anything but the best part of it, and in this quiet, thoughtful film he's fantastic as an every-man seeing visions of the end of the world.

16) Elena Anaya, The Skin I Live In

I think Anaya had to do most of the heavy lifting in this film, with lead Antonio Banderas' showier, less defined role not having anywhere near the same level of impact. It's a difficult role that required a smart, dignified performance and Anaya provides it in spades. The heart of the movie.

15) Geoffrey Rush, The King's Speech

2011 award season saw me sort of declare war on The King's Speech, because for all it's competence and expediency, the over-praise it received went to show how our definition for what a masterpiece is has changed, gone are the days when it meant something that redefined, something that challenged. Now it's just giving us what we expect in the way we expect it, and however well one may execute that, to me there's so much less value in it. Regardless. No-one's going to argue with the strength of the performances, and Geoffrey Rush's speech lends this film whatever non-formulaic soul it possesses.

14) Gary Oldman, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

This fantastically put together movie was probably was about as good as it could have been considering the material, and Oldman, playing somewhat against type, convinces as the intelligence community's greatest detective, and his under-playing of the material gives the film it's gravitas.

13) Viola Davis, The Help

I didn't like The Help all that much, over-simplification of a complex issue and all that, but Viola Davis was undeniably excellent, and I won't have any resentment when she wins the best supporting actress oscar in february. It's deserved, it's just one wishes that the rest of the film was up to that level of quality.

12) Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids

This is one of the comedic performances that just sort of jumps off the screen. It's super broad, but McCarthy sort rises above what she's given throughout, so when she gets the one scene toward the film where her character gets to be an actual human being, it just kills. Quite possibly the funniest performance of the year.

11) Brendan Gleeson, The Guard

Another one of those, the movie isn't great but the performance is type deals. The Guard was sort of an ineffectual, incoherent mess, but by casting Gleeson in the lead role they pulled themselves out of a pretty deep hole. Gleeson's performance in this reminds of Humphrey Bogart in that the effortless cool and intelligence Gleeson displays improves the experience tenfold, so even if the movie isn't the best, the performance locks so much of its shit down, it almost doesn't matter.

The 10 Best TV Shows of 2011

2011-12-30T16:12:00.000-08:00

Next up to the wall....

10) Raising Hope

This show is certainly not perfect, but like creator Greg Garcia's previous show My Name Is Earl, there's a charm and genuine feeling about the show, not to mention that it manages to be funny in numerously creative and unexpected ways. Garcia is also pretty great at creating a comedic universe, and being much, much smarter than a first impression might have you believe. That and a winning cast that includes Garret Dillahunt, Martha Plimpton and Shannon Woodward, I enjoy watching this show to an absurd degree.

9) Happy Endings

This one started out OK but not great, which had a lot of people writing it off instantly, but even in its worst episodes, this show always made me laugh. And in its second season, one where it's really found its stride it's become a joy to watch. There's no real desire here to do anything other than make you laugh, but at the moment it's really working for me. I imagine it will become awful quite quickly, due the utterly wafer thin storytelling, but for now I'm enjoying the grace period just fine.

8) Treme

I don't think there's anyone left watching Treme who isn't in love with it, as the ratings will attest to, because I've seen a number of articles of people who gave the show a long time and it never worked for them. I saw the term 'Homework TV' float around, and I sort of see their point. Treme is quite possibly the least accessible show on TV, focusing on a specific place not everyone relates to and a culture that not everyone cares about. To me though, its a wonderful character study of a city, just like The Wire was, but the tones are as different as they could conceivably be. And to me, that's not all that bad of a thing.

7) Parks And Recreation

Probably higher on most lists, it has been still a terrific year for Parks And Rec. Something about it doesn't quite let it work for me as well it does for other people. Maybe the overly twee tone, maybe because while every episode is good, every episode can be quite similar. But the cast of this show is just off the reservation, containing two maybe three all time comedic performances, and the fantastic episode 'Fancy Party' was as good as anything on TV all year.

6) Homeland

Although it sort of flubbed the ending, not drastically but noticeably, Homeland was an intelligent, meditative TV. A psychological thriller of the utmost complexity, and what one would call 'proper grown up TV'. Clare Danes, an actress that has been good before but probably has a strike rate of 60 to 40 the way of negative, is just excellent here, giving what the world can collectively agree is career best work. Damian Lewis and Mandy Patinkin match her, and the show itself does well not to take the easy way out. Or at least not most of the time. I enjoyed this.

5) Archer

I briefly considered putting at Archer at number 1, just because of how far it came along in 2011, and it managed to achieve at least 3 episodes of out and out comedy genius. The episode in which a cancer/chemo stricken Archer stalks the streets seeking vengeance is quite probably my favourite episode of any show all year, such is the extent of how fucking well that half hour worked. Truthfully though, there maybe haven't been as many stand-out episodes of Archer as some of the shows higher on my list, but please for the love of god watch this show, particularly if you're in your twenties.

4) Justified

Justified stands out in the world of dark serialized dramas I think. Instead of being the pitch-black, anti-hero always wins type of thing, in which our protagonist does despicable shit and everything works out for him, Justified feels almost a throwback to the morality of old westerns, only infused with the psychological complexity of modern drama. That and the calibre of the performances on this show were immense, Margo Martindale, Walton Goggins and Olyphant himself all just being ridiculously awesome all the time.

3) Louie

Louie broke all the rules of what TV is supposed to do. When you expect it to be comedic its dramatic, and vice versa, and there's just such a gravitas to so much of it, perhaps because this is the most undiluted a personal vision has ever been on TV, and for that it's defiantly unique. A don't think every episode is a masterpiece like some, and occasionally one might have the capacity to flop completely. But it's just such, rich, rewarding TV to a fault.

2) Breaking Bad

The best drama on TV follows up one of the all time great seasons of TV with one that's just a smidgen worse, which means its still fucking brilliant and anyone stuck on that first point to such an extent to a point that they can't take in the second point is just an idiot. In particular, the fleshing out of Gus as a primo antagonist worked an absolute treat, and I think if it had stuck the landing just a little bit more than it did it would have unquestionably be my number one. Still, I feel privileged I get to watch this show.

1) Community

This is a heart over head choice maybe, but fuck it. The ambition of this show just resonates with me, and in a second season which provided a shockingly high number of all-time classic type episodes, this show is proof that comedy can be cynical without sacrificing its soul, sarcastic without being bitter and breath-takingly ambitious without losing the core of what it is. I love this show, and can deal with a dud every now and again if the mean number of episodes are this fucking spectacular.

The Top 25 TV performances of 2011, Part 2

2011-12-23T12:22:00.000-08:00

The continuation, again a reminder that I'm only allowing two actors per show.

10) Sean Bean, Game Of Thrones

I think many people write Bean off, perhaps because they looked at his IMDB page and went whoa, but he came through for this series big time, and while I had reservations about his performance at the start he became my favourite thing about it by the end.

9) Nick Offerman, Parks And Recreation

I think I would find this character irritating if played by anyone else, but Offerman is so militantly deadpan, so uncompromisingly toned down, that it makes his essentially ridiculous character work so much better. High comedy played straight is often the best kind of comedy.

8) Walton Goggins, Justified

Goggins finally got an Emmy nomination this year, something long overdue after his consistently excellent work on The Shield. Regardless, he was a powerhouse in season 2 and while his storyline sort of wandered all over the place and was often disconnected to the main narrative, Goggins made it compelling by sheer will power.

7) Louie CK, Louie

Louie CK often goes on about how terrible his acting is, and for a while there, even in the first season of this show, I would have agreed. But I think by making his show functionally a Drama with occasional comedic elements this year, he rose to that mandate, and was excellent throughout.

6) Toni Collette, United States of Tara

This show sort of died a quiet death, but Collette did her best work on the show this year, not just playing the barrage of usual characters, but this year adding a male teenage serial killer to the mix. Instead of going to Drama school, just watch Collette's performance on this show. It'll cover everything.

5) Claire Danes, Homeland

Danes probably alternates 50/50 between good performances and bad, but I don't think there would be much against the statement that this is the best she's ever been. Just a great first year of this show.

4) Bryan Cranston Breaking Bad

It was devastating to have to choose between Cranston and Aaron Paul for this spot, but I made the stupid two actors per show rule and that's my problem. But I think Cranston's work this year was exceptional, most notably in the episode 'Crawl Space', and you can't pass over that shit. I feel like hell.

3) Danny Pudi, Community

Before y'all go about saying that this role is one note, Pudi is often asked to play so many different sides to Abed that it's a much harder role to pull off than it would first appear. And then there was the whole Cougar Town monologue, which is just too superlative for words.

2) Margo Martindale, Justified

Justified's first season was more good than brilliant, a couple of stand out episodes aside. But in many ways I think it was the addition of Martindale that really made everything click into place this season, and her performance sort of ironed over all the problems inherent in this show and just made it brilliant TV.

1) Giancarlo Esposito, Breaking Bad

But I could only give it to Esposito. A performance of such precision and craft, that Esposito underplaying everything for a year paid back in spades in this fourth year, where Gus Fring was expanded into a larger than life character, the development of which was certainly my favourite thing about the year 2011 on TV. Just fucking epic.

The 25 Best TV Performances of 2011, Part 1

2011-12-23T12:20:00.000-08:00

So here's how this goes down. In this list, there will be no more than two actors per show. That is all. Onward, to celebrate the year in TV acting.

25) Jane Levy, Suburgatory

Surburgatory is a comedy that's sort of flirting with being something I would really enjoy, but is still figuring itself out too much to really look past, but one thing that's been terrific from the start is the terrifically sardonic, Veronica Mars like performance from Levy.

24) Eden Sher, The Middle

A show that's eternally overlooked, perhaps because it's doing OK what a lot of other shows do great, but both the performance and characterization of Sue Heck has always been the best thing it's had going for it.

23) Jason Segel, How I Met Your Mother

Segel had looked a bit dead-eyed in recent years on HIMYM, but the writers gave something to act with this year, and while the show was not universally beloved this year, Marshall's arc dealing with his dead father was pretty great, enhanced by Segel's performance.

22) Damon Wayans Jr., Happy Endings

Happy Endings is maybe the show I most enjoy watching, and it's got a strong ensemble. But I think Wayans Jr has popped from the beginning, in arguably the least developed role.

21) Garret Dillahunt, Raising Hope

Dillahunt, no doubt most famous for his work in dark, serious dramas is possibly doing the best work of his career in this under-rated gem of a show, and it's probably one of the funniest performances on TV. You'll never watch The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford in the same way.

20) H. Jon Benjamin, Archer

This is sort of a cheat, but see how much I don't care. Benjamin gives a voice-over performance that's remarkably layered, always smart and just endlessly hilarious.

19) Hugh Laurie, House

Look, this may be a terrible show these days. But Laurie's performance is still terrific, and has carried this show alone from day one. He doesn't even phone it in like Michael C Hall does on Dexter these days.

18) Luke Wilson, Enlightened

Wilson never really made it as a leading man in the movies, but I think he's doing something he's never done before in this little curio of a show, and it's really intriguing me.

17) Busy Phillips, Cougar Town

I think people are just about getting over the stigma of watching a show called 'Cougar Town', a show with maybe the most relaxed, fun ensemble on TV and Phillips, who just feels so utterly at home in this kind of thing, just destroys it.

16) Wendell Pierce, Treme

Treme has lost a little favour this year, going from a show mostly watched by artsy, hipster/critic types to a show only watched by artsy, hipster/critic types. Still that;s me all day, and I enjoy this shit immensely. Pierce, who just exudes charm to a ridiculous degree, is the best part performance in a sea of great performances

15) Chris Pratt, Parks And Recreation

Pratt has been my favourite thing about this series from day one, even if my brain tells me that Nick Offerman is the better performance, Pratt's goofy enthusiasm came to a peak in this year's 'Fancy Party' a maginificent episode by all accounts and sort of this guys moment.

14) Michael Pitt, Boardwalk Empire

For all one could say about the familiarity of some of the ground covered on Boardwalk Empire, there's no disputing Pitt's work here, and I think he's blitzed a cast of some of the greatest American actors alive to become a standout performance compared to anything

13) Mandy Patinkin, Homeland

It feels brutal to leave Damian Lewis off this list, but after hamming it up for years on Criminal Minds, Patinkin spins the reverse and gives a soulful, quiet performance. And it's certainly my favourite thing he's done in a long time. Heart of this show.

12) Peter Dinklage, Game Of Thrones

The only reason this isn't higher is because Dinklage's english accent continues to not quite be there 100%, but regardless, in a show that could be described as misery porn, Dinklage brings humour and level-headedness to a show that can be the teeniest bit leaden at times.

11) Chevy Chase, Community

In it's masterful second year, Community turned Chase into a full-on villain, essentially, and while it left the show with some structural problems, Chase was always incredible, in a manor that's perhaps under-appreciated in comparison to some of the show's younger, cooler cast members. Just for the dungeons and dragons episode alone.

Catch-Up Review Session Part 3: Final Chapter

2011-12-06T13:48:00.001-08:00

One final burst of mini reviews to get us to our awards season home. Doing This.

MONEYBALL

The set-up: Like The Social Network? well replace coding with Baseball stats and you've got the same movie.

The reality: Yeah not quite, TSN was more of a character study than a film about a coding, whereas this film is legitimately about baseball stats. For real.

MVP: Brad Pitt. The charismatic, dependable centre a film like this needs.

Ideal Viewer: Someone who puts at least 10 hours a week into his fantasy football team, and makes o apologies.

Summation: I'm the right kind of guy for a movie about sports stats. That shit intrigues me, I'm not sure why and it probably speaks to some deep failing in my growth as a person. But I was the guy who cared just how many goals and assists Andrei Kanchelskis got in a season,. So even with it transferred to Baseball, it hits my sweet spot. But even if you're not a freak like me, the central performances of Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are compelling enough and the dialogue Sorkiny enough for you to to at least enjoy the veneer of class the film plays out with.

Rating: 6/10

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN

The Set-up: You know how you're nobody and fucking a super famous hot bitch would be awesome. Well this guy actually did it, so go fuck yourself and your life.

The Reality: This film should be called 'I saw Marilyn Monroe's boobs and you didn't'.

MVP: Michelle Williams. An impression in lieu of a performance, but it's a remarkably adept and skillful one. An Oscar nomination to come shortly.

Ideal Viewer: Someone who watches and Immensely enjoys Downton Abbey.

Summation: My disdain for the formula of biopics should be well known around these parts, and I think My Week With Marilyn sort of typifies what can be wrong with the genre. There's a laziness inherent within too many biopics, where they seem to think that the work is already half-done, and that the gravitas that their subject matter brings to the table means they can slack off on actually being a good film, and My Week With Marilyn is that in spades. A terrific performance by Williams maybe isn't enough to save this from deathly genericism.

Rating: 5/10

50/50

The Set-Up: What if an Apatowian man-child got cancer, and everyone forgot that Funny People existed, wouldn't that be a cool, new concept?

The Reality: A film that's deceptively heartfelt and powerful, and at its best when it's being sincere.

MVP: Joseph Gordon Levitt. I think a standout performance for JGL, and you sort of feel it's one of the performances that elevates the whole film with it's goodness.

Ideal Viewer: An ex-stoner who now works as a salesman.

Summation: I don't think 50/50 is a perfect movie, and in fact I think there's sort of a lot that doesn't work about it, mostly involving the presence of Seth Rogen and other formulaic Apatowian crutches, But the simplicity and effectiveness of the central conceit is sort of a breath of fresh air, and JGL's performance is good and he and to a lesser extent Anna Kendrick make the film go beyond something merely worth watching into something I'd actively recommend.

Rating: 7/10

TAKE SHELTER

The Set-Up: Hey you, you miss movies based on Stephen King books? Well this isn't one of those, but it's as close as your sorry as is gonna get.

The Reality: Supernatural shit happens to everyday schlub par excellence.

MVP: Michael Shannon. In the midst of one of those Kevin Spacey alike, character actor becomes movie star transitions. Fucking terrific in this movie.

Ideal Viewer: Someone who thinks that The Stand is one of the best books written in the 20th century.

Summation: This a pretty text-book example of how effective smart lo-fi film-making can be. A compelling character study, driven by the excellent central performance by Shannon. Those who think making movies about the supernatural are inherently trashy would do well to see this, and take in how fucking classy and smart this is. Why can't there be films like this all the time. No, you get New Year's Eve all the time.

Rating: 7/10

THE BIG YEAR

The Set-up: Movie about Birdwatching guys. Make your cocaine plans accordingly.

The Reality: So there's this race to see who can spot the most birds in a single given year. Gangsta shit.

MVP: Owen Wilson. I really liked what was done here, both with his performance and with the character.

Ideal Viewer: A person who likes sports movies of any kind. Quite literally.

Summation: Cards on the table, I related to this movie more than probably was advisory. No, I've never been Bird-Watching, but the sense of completism, the competitive drive and commitment to just one ideal, well as someone who sees over 400 new movies a year and writes about every single one of them. There was a parallel here. The movie itself is sort of by the numbers feel good quirk, but it's got a strong cast and Wilson, Steve Martin and Jack Black each bring something effective to the table. Nothing wrong with a harmless, sweet movie once in a while.

Rating: 6/10

THE THING

The Set-up: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084787/

The Reality: Look guys, we like money. Back off our ass.

MVP: Joel Edgerton. But it's a small victory.

Ideal Viewer: Someone who really doesn't give a shit about movies, and just wants to see some bros get absorbed by monsters.

Summation: I'm not one of those people who is pre-disposed to hate the very idea of remakes before seeing them. I went in with an open mind, but it's kind of a duffer script that really isn't very well thought through, and the movie fails to create a real sense of jeopardy. But even with that on board, I think this film goes along way towards being redeemed with a strong central performance, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead is such an ineffectual presence that it sucks the tension right out of the room. The scene where she is re-creating that tour-de-force scene in the original with the blood-testing is almost laughable in how little charisma she has. Control the room Mary, for fuck's sake. I think Ms Winstead's functional blandness is as responsible for this film's lack of identity as the script. The female Sam Worthington.

Rating: 4/10

HUGO

The Set-Up: Martin Scorcese? A kids film? Shiiiiiit.

The Reality: The story of a orphan boy who forms a bond with an automaton and a mysterious elderly man.

MVP: Ben Kingsley. Dude phones in performances fairly frequently these days but this was a good one.

Ideal Viewer: A 70 year old film enthusiast/film critic.

Summation: Look I liked this movie. It was fantastically shot and put together and is certainly high in the running for one of the most beautiful films of 2011, and I liked that it seemed sweet and earnest in it's 'Oliver meets the history of movies' hybrid. But the script is sort of a rambling mess, and not everything coheres all that well. Having said that, there's enough moments here that are legitimately magical enough that one is willing to forgive the roughness around the edges and just take in a soulful film for kids. And weren't Chloe Moretz attempts at an English accent just adorable?

Rating: 7/10

REVIEW: Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1

2011-12-03T15:48:00.000-08:00

There's a scene in True Blood where Vampire Pam says " Fuck Sookie. Fuck her and her magic fairy vagina". Until I get an equivalent in the Twilight universe, there'll be no doing.

I was going to bring out the bells and whistles on this one. I spent much of the six months leading up to the release of the latest Twilight movie assessing the various different ways and gimmicks with which I could be a cunt to this movie. There were plans and there were schemes. But when it comes to do it, when I'm sat in front of my laptop at whatever-the-fuck in the morning preparing to actually write this bitch. I have no vitriol to spew. No energy left to hate the way it certainly should be hated. Y'all have plenty of places to find that. This is incompetent story-telling on almost every level, the writing is deftly cowardly and deafeningly stupid, a story about sex that's terrified to speak it's name and there's a scene where someone admits to someone else they love that they killed people, and is met with an answer that can be distilled to 'Yeah whatever, how's my hair?. Ergh.

The frustrating thing about Twilight is that there's probably a great, fucked up movie about twisted lust and love here beneath all this Christian repression, and every time the movies edge closer to it, or even to something else interesting, say the Jasper Flashback in Eclipse or the terrific Victoria chase sequence in New Moon, it retreats, running back to what it's 'supposed' to be. I think the treatment of Jacob sort of quantifies what's wrong with this series. For the character to work, to exist as anything more than the shit on Bella's heel, he needs to be allowed to tell her to go fuck herself, he needs to be empowered in some way shape or form within their dynamic. I think it would have made much more sense to make Jacob the villain in this finale to the series, to react to her rejection with something other than subservient grace, if only to make everything that came before worth something more than simple stalling.

But that's the scratch. The series one and only concern is giving Bella everything she wants and more, and anyone who disagrees or gets in the way is a bad person. So says Stephanie Meyer. The thing is, at its best interpretation, Bella's behavior is that of a remarkably self-absorbed person, ignorant to the feelings of others and viewing everyone in terms of how they can make her happy and fuck everything else. At it's best interpretation. And if it makes me a bad man feminist or whatever I can take it, but I've never known a supposedly sympathetic character be so utterly reprehensible in her behavior. It borders on the sociopathic. But thankfully Bella is deity Meyer's chosen daughter, so there is no consequence to her cuntishness and poor Jacob, well he has to thank his stars to be rejected by such an amazing person. Edward meanwhile, continues to be a whole lot of nothing. The male version of the girlfriend role that exists to oppose but ultimately be repeatedly pushed over by their significant other.

Ultimately though, I wouldn't care about the marginalization of 2/3 of the leads if Bella herself was a compelling character, but she's achingly boring until the universe is willing to acknowledge what a terrible person she is, and since that will never happen, Twilight becomes Eat Pray Love with vampires. The whole thing works only under the assumption that you think that the protagonist is awesome beyond reproach, and thus when they use the world and other people as their own personal pic N' mix stall, taking what they want and throwing away what they don't. We're supposed to be behind them. But if you're going to ask that of me, you better be fucking entertaining. Yet alas, Twilight continues to be a handful of fuck all, and boring as is humanly possible. See you at part 2.

Rating: 3/10

REVIEW: Justice

2011-12-02T15:04:00.000-08:00

Dear IRS,

You don't know me, and nor should you. My taxes are someone else's problem. I would just like to make a plea for you guys to split the money Nicolas Cage owes you between say, 100,000 poverty stricken individuals in America's poorest cities and just call it even. Because this once great actor, this man who could legitimately claim to be one of the best screen actors of the 90's and early 00's, has out of his debt to you become a joke, and many people's number one shout when asked who the worst actor alive is. To me, this is an unacceptable state of affairs, and I'm sure the good peoples of the underclass would be happy to take on his burden, if it meant that Cage didn't have to keep making 5 to 7 shitty films a year to keep from sharing a cell with Wesley Snipes. An actor's good name is surely more important then such trivial things such as wealth and taxes, which come and go, whilst The Wicker Man will last forever.

If not for him, then for me. I'm a person who has to keep saying that Nicolas Cage has given more than one of the best performances I have ever seen in my life, and I keep getting laughed at. Have you seen Leaving Las Vegas I'll say, have you seen Adaptation I'll say. Not the bees, they'll say. Because of your insistence, Marlon Brando is being turned into Chuck Norris, Gerard Depardieu into Rob Schneider. If life is temporary and the forms of this world die,what could be more important then art. It is our one escape from the specter of death, the IV Drip of time. A place where the extra-ordinary can be common place and the miraculous attainable. The potential for Cage to do great things is stratospheric. Even with all the Knowing's and Justice's, I know that if he didn't have to take the highest paycheck at every turn he could turn in one of the greatest performances in the history of cinema tomorrow. IRS, can't you find it in your hearts to just let the odd unpaid Castle residency tax slide. I mean who really cares about one stray castle in the grander scheme of things right?

I know it's your job and your just holding up your end of the social contract, but I want you to watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP1-oquwoL8

and honestly tell me this man shouldn't be above the law, and able to do what he wants when he wants. Some human beings just emit too much awesome to be judged by our standards and to follow our rules, and Cage is one of these people. He'll pay us back in performances and in crazy. That's a better deal then the people would get out of the banks. So please, lets come together to rise above the small stuff and release Nic Cage from his shackles of not wanting people shouting 'PISSED BLOOD' at him through his cell walls and allow him to be the incredible entertainer that the world will be eternally grateful for. After all, What's a little money when you can say FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKK.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Wuthering Heights

2011-12-02T14:14:00.000-08:00

Is Wuthering a name, a place, or a metaphor. Either way, spell check is telling it to go bite.

Before seeing this film, I had a conversation with a film loving friend about the nature of classical adaptations. He said that they were his favorite kind of film, and I told him I didn't understand how his brain worked and to promptly get the fuck out before I called the 5.0. To me viewing these films as the highest mark of your cinematic calendar is to take a frighteningly pessimistic view of what fiction can do, let alone cinema. It works on the fundamental belief that the best literature has already been written, the best stories being already told. And the most exciting thing to look forward to is the re-branding and re-imagining of these stories? Then really, what is anyone doing here.

Maybe I have a bias against these things, I don't know. Or maybe the 17th adaptation of Wuthering Heights has nothing more to say than the 16th, and what we're dealing with here is essentially properties people recognize. Like Superman or The Smurfs, Wuthering Heights rings a bell in our minds that means they don't have to convince us to try something new. None of this refers to this films, or any film like it's quality. It's not that they're bad movies, it's that they're the same movies. And Wuthering Heights, if it wants it, has a path to critical acclaim that completely passes ambition or risk and that bores me. Here, I actually think Andrea Arnold, who made the excellent Fish Tank, is playing with a lot of pretty bold stylistic choices, from going all Public Enemies in shooting a period film in digital, to making Heathcliff Black, something that Arnold does with out drawing too much attention to it (Although certainly some) and manages to amp up the sexually repressed despair nicely enough.

The performances are hit and miss, James Howson's Heathcliff works a treat, but while Effy from Skins as Cathy may have been a nice idea in theory, it doesn't really pan out and I think Kaya Scodelario impacts the quality of the film more than a bit. I didn't hate this, and it's probably about as a bold an adaptation of a classic work I've seen in quite some time. I just hope Arnold got this out of her system and goes back to making original films after this, even if they are harder to sell.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: The Rum Diary

2011-11-24T12:08:00.000-08:00

What is seen can not be unseen.

I'm not quite sure how The Rum Diary ended up as tame as it did. It's formed from the brain of Hunter S. Thompson, one of the most unique voices of the 20th century, directed by Bruce Robinson, he behind the most cult of cult films, Withnail and I, and it stars Johnny Depp, never more alive then when in Thompson's material. Yet what we got in the end was an intermittently amusing, dully shot and all too undistinctive film that just isn't all what it should have been. To be clear Rum Diary is still a good movie, and contains a couple of great supporting performances. But the next Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas it's not.

Having said that, it hardly seems fair to compare such is that films excellence, and taken on it's own terms a lot works within The Rum Diary. Naturally there's some great dialogue, and the film never works better then it simply parrots the prose of Thompson, and there's at least one performance that will go down as one of my favorite comedic performances of the year, from our boy Giovanni Ribisi. Ribisi, who has been on the fringes of being the number one 'That guy' for a long time now, the face everyone recognizes but no-one can identify. He sort of gets his moment here, playing the Swedish Nazi reporter Moburg, who when not listening to Hitler's speeches on vinyl, is wasted out of his mind. Actors like Michael Rispoli and Richard Jenkins lend dependable support, but Frankly what doesn't really work here is the leads.

Depp just doesn't show up in the way you hoped he would, giving that same unenthused performance we seem to be seeing on a much more regular basis these days. I think he's great actor, but perhaps too many easy roles with Tim Burton has pacified the mad run he was on in the early 00's. Similarly, Aaron Eckhart's antagonist doesn't really cut any ice either, not really getting beyond a corporate douche stereotype. I don't think Robinson does enough with his Puerto Rican scenery either, and the film falls flat many more times then it should. Still, even if you're only a passive fan of Thompson's, there's enough of his talent on display to make this worthwhile.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: Arthur Christmas

2011-11-23T11:06:00.000-08:00

Semper fi, motherfucker.

Right, a little edifier to start. This movie will be over-rated, probably drastically so. Animated movies often have to do less to be called a landmark, and this movie's combination of mostly genuine sentiment, wonder and the fact that it's not a soulless Shrek-alike pop-culture clone will encourage people to be overly kind and get caught up in its sweep. This isn't really anything special, but it certainly is refreshing, thanks to a healthy dose of cleverness, dry humour and earnestness. It's not a perfect mix, and sometimes these qualities get in each other's way, but it's a good time.

Now a revisionist take on Christmas is pretty common ground for kids movies, and the obvious reference point here is Nightmare Before Christmas, even with all of that films dark and gothic sensibilities far removed, both are interested in the practicalities of putting Christmas together, and in answering some of the burning questions regarding the feasibility of the whole Santa Claus mythology, and doing so to amusing effect. in fact the most enjoyable sequence be far sees the military operation it essentially takes to deliver all the millions of presents that need to be delivered. Best in show here is certainly Ashley Jensen's hyper-competent Gift-wrapping Elf, who doesn't really need to be in the movie at all. I'd say that the most problematic aspect of the film is Arthur Christmas himself, a doe-eyed Christmas fanatic who's perhaps too simplistic to be an engaging lead.

Reliable folks like Jim Broadbent, Bill Nighy, Hugh Laurie and James McAvoy turn up and do good voice work and the film is mostly a joy to look at, and while not quite as good as I hoped it would be, is a serviceable sugar-rush of a kids movie that will give your kids an undemanding good time and also not completely rot their brain and turn them into dead-eyed children of the corn in the way, say the way Alvin and The Chipmunks: Chipwrecked would. The script is sort of a mess, but it's a good time.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: The Awakening

2011-11-23T09:32:00.000-08:00

The Fuck did I do?

People always think I'm joking when I say horror is my favorite genre, I think because of the lower than normal tolerance for enjoying 'bad' movies. It's not necessarily that I'm the guy who only likes the very best and tells everything else to go fuck itself, I've enjoyed some OK movies very much on their own terms, I think it's more that I don't enjoy 'badness' in and of itself, and I think that's mostly how the world views the horror genre, perhaps fairly given how 90% of its output is abysmal, but having said that the most electrifying movie experiences I've ever had tend to be watching a horror film where everything works, they're rare but when they come along there's nothing else like them.

Somewhat anti-climatically, The Awakening isn't that. But it is an enjoyable, mostly well-executed example of a solid Ghost story that has all the right pieces in their place. It won't blow your mind or anything, but it will take you on an effectively creepy ride without feeling too derisive or enslaved to cheap scares and shocks. It helps that it's built on a solid foundation of two great performances from Dominic West, but primarily Rebecca Hall, who is maybe one great role away from being the next Kate Winslet. Every performance she gives seems to improve on the last, and she played her early 20th century Dana Scully role well here, taking a potentially infuriating character and giving her enough dimension to not solely function as the plot-driven centre piece of the film. West too, who has a far from 100% strike rate at the movies of late, impressed me too.

I suppose my problems then mostly aim toward the script, which while impressive in it's attempts to form some genuine three dimensional characters, also fell into that twist upon twist upon twist thing modern horror films are wont to do, not to mention it pretty much gave in to the nonsensical in the final act and relying on previously unmentioned amnesia is always the sign of bad writing. But I enjoyed the first hour and the performances enough that I think I can forgive a mostly botched ending. The goal here is to scare people, not surprise them and if you sacrifice atmosphere and tone for the sake of a surprise then all you do is betray your own movie, and it was sad to see that happen here.

In every review of every British film I ever write I always seem to say that whatever it's faults, it's pleasing to see something with some ambition, and while this is essentially our version of a reigned in studio horror film, it's the kind of mainstream thing we don't nearly enough of, so to here this kind of thing in my accent is gratifying and for all it's cliches, is contextually refreshing. Such is the state of things.

Rating: 6/10

Catch- Up Review Session Part 2

2011-11-17T11:41:00.001-08:00

Abandon all hope ye who enter here etc...

ADVENTURES OF TINTIN: THE SECRET OF THE UNICORN

Tagline: Isn't 3D animation just grand and sparkly

Plot: Some artifact, some adventure, some ginger.

Best Thing About The Movie: Well, everything looked pretty crisp and colorfully realized. The occasional action scene is pretty the technically impressive.

Worst Thing About The Movie: I don't think Mo-cap technology is quite there yet, particularly with human characters, who persist in being creepy as fuck. They've taken poor old cartoon institution Tintin and made him look like the sickest fucking murderer you ever did see. Tintin and the adventures of the dismembered corpse.

Best In Show: Andy Serkis

In Summation: Tintin is truly a movie for no-one. Too violent and adult centre for young kids, to cotton candy clean for adults or even older teenagers. Stuck in a vacuum of perfectly polished, perfectly stylized visuals that just plays utterly lifeless, utterly synthetic universe. Everything in Tintin is just too planned, too by the book and everything just feels fake as a consequence. I kept feeling like I was supposed to be having a better time then I was. Plus the script is kind of stupid, so there. Rating: 4/10

THE HELP

Tagline: White people, rewritin' history daily.

Plot: Black women empower themselves, courtesy of a fearless white woman who cares not what society expects of her. This is of course exactly who you would have been in the situation, right fellow white people?

Best Thing About The Movie: I appreciate it's intention and I do think this film is a fairly sincere attempt to decry past crimes. A couple of interesting characterizations and terrific performances

Worst Thing About The Movie: Isn't everyone going to see themselves as Emma Stone and not as everyone else. Movie accidentally allows each and every white person to be absolved of their sins.

Best In Show: Viola Davis

In Summation: Look I didn't hate this movie. It's well meaning and the performances are mostly terrific, in particular Viola Davis, whose Oscar nomination and possible win is deserved and inevitable. But it's not a helpful discussion of racism. It's too simplistic, not exploring the issue with any kind of complexity or honesty. And instead serving to be a cleansing where all white people can be on the side of the righteous in regards to their own crime because isn't that Bryce Dallas Howard a bitch. Still, not necessarily a bad movie. Rating: 6/10

ANONYMOUS

Tagline: Genius from the middle class? Clearly a conspiracy.

Plot: Gosh, this whole Shakespeare being a povo sure does render my Oxford degree meaningless doesn't it?

Best Thing About The Movie: OK, this being Roland Emmerich there are some sumptuous visuals, and the film does make for the occasional solid twist.

Worst Thing About The Movie: Everyone's acting. You can stop exploding stuff Roland, but you still can't really direct actors for shit. A lot of stiff performances from talented people on display here.

Best In Show: Rafe Spall

In Summation: Offensive in it's very conception. If one can stomach the outrage, it's not necessarily terrible, and I liked a couple of the twists nearer the end. Also Rafe Spall's performance as the laughably demonized Shakespeare ends up being the least dour part of the movie. Ultimately it felt like a fiction film made by someone who always is talking down to what makes fiction important. Shakespeare isn't a genius for his political allegories or his referencing, but for the majesty of his imagination. Something that class and privilege can't give you. Rating 5/10

IDES OF MARCH

Tagline: Clooney. Gosling. Eye candy for women of all ages.

Plot: Something about a what now?

Best Thing About The Movie: A lot of big name actors earning their paycheques in this movie. Great performances pretty much across the board.

Worst Thing About Movie: This is what's wrong with political movies. They always end up so utterly toothless and afraid of saying anything that they become Ides Of March. Which I guess is a thriller. And depressingly fucking boring.

Best in Show: Philip Seymour Hoffman.

In Summation: Incredibly frustrating. I want nothing more than for there to be political movies. Talking about and examining issues in fiction is something an entire generation has been deprived of, but this isn't it. It's gloomy and unimpressive, and despite great work from a mostly great cast. I liked Hoffman and Giamatti in particular, it's just an empty, pointless movie. Politics corrupts? STOP SPEAKING IN PLATITUDES ASSHOLES AND ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING. Rating: 5/10

IN TIME:

Tagline: Amanda Seyfried is now my title picture. Because that happened.

Plot: Imagine a future where the currency was not money, but time. Sounds awesome right?

Best Thing About The Movie: The concept.

Worst Thing About The Movie: The execution.

Best In Show: Cillian Murphy

In Summation: I think conceptually speaking, Andrew Niccol is perhaps the most incisive, impressive and occasionally prophetic science fiction film-maker of our times. He;s just not really a very good writer. Or at least one that hits and misses. Gattaca did this kind of thing right, but In Time is too much of a pseudo-blockbuster to really do what it wants to do. Some of the ideas still impress and intrigue, but mostly this is a pretty horrible misfire for Niccol, even if it is his most successful movie date. Rating: 4/10

MACHINE GUN PREACHER

Tagline: Guns, God and Righteousness etc..

Plot: Gerard Butler kills black people. Reductive, but technically true.

Best Thing About The Movie: Some earnest shit, but it didn't feel false necessarily. Good performances.

Worst Thing About The Movie: I think there's a serious case to be made that the recent Rambo reboot is a subtler reboot than this. Fans of nuance will not be pleased.

Best In Show: Gerard Butler

In Summation: I liked Butler in this movie. I think there's a charisma and power about Butler that is pretty consistent, almost as consistent as the terrible movies he chooses to star in. Maybe an interesting character part supporting role, or a villain would be a good move. The movie around him? Well it's a well-meaning movie, but if the Oscar Movie was a genre, which I'm increasingly inclined to think it has, this would be the B movie version of it. Righteous outrage all present and correct. Eloquent way of expressing it? Not so much. 5/10

TOWER HEIST

Tagline: Brett Ratner, voice of the American Suppressed.

Plot: So some guy who's not but really is Bernie Madoff steals everyone's money, REGULAR GUYS, decide to steal it back.

Best Thing About The Movie: It's a good cast, with the likes of Casey Affleck, Matthew Broderick and Michael Pena backing up big guns Stiller and Murphy, is enjoyable in places.

Worst Thing About The Movie: It's sort of a lazy script, as you'd expect with Ratner. The heist itself is lame, and there's not nearly enough Eddie Murphy.

Best In Show: Eddie Murphy

In Summation: Oh Ratner. How you confound me so. The thing about Ratner is, no-one can really call him bad, as every film he makes seems to hit the 5/6 out of ten range, but what's so odious is something tells me that this isn't an accident because he's motivated by what sells not what works, so as a storyteller he's just feeding the audience what he thinks they want, trying not to be daring or forceful as to alienate anybody. And it just means all of his films become anonymous, disposable pieces of mediocrity. Tower Heist was working with something here, entertainment sure, but formed out of righteous indignation. But Ratner who prizes the material as an artist and as a man above all things, is just the wrong man for the job, and consequently it all comes out in a muddle. Rating: 5/10

STRAW DOGS

Tagline: The most iconic Rape movie in the history of cinema...IS BACK.

Plot: Yada Yada Farmhouse, yada yada Eric from True Blood.

Best Thing About The Movie: A functional, mostly efficient thriller, A couple of tense sequences.

Worst Thing About The Movie: Doesn't really get/feel Comfortable with the intellectual material, so the movie is all over the shop as far as what it's saying, and ends up trying to say that a woman would be more disappointed if her rapist was killed by her husband, then vice versa. Maybe think this shit through.

In Summation: Straw Dogs is caught between a rock and a hard place really. It's remaking a film that's such an unabashed expression of the male ID, but doing it for commerce. So it wants to reflect the 'Brand Name' so to speak, which essentially all comes together to mean it's uncomfortable with it's own existence. I liked a couple of the performances, James Marsden and Alexander Skarsgaard bounced of each other well. But you just feel that this is a film that no-one involved wants to be making. Rating: 5/10

IMMORTALS

Tagline: 300, except this time there are Gods. Ah yeah.

Plot: Mickey Rourke is coming to kill everyone, Theseus and Stephen Dorff apparently don't much appreciate this. Freida Pinto can see the future.

Best Thing About The Movie: If you have a really low investment rate in actual story, the visuals are on occasion spectacular, in that entirely synthetic CGI way.

Worst Thing About The Movie: Right so apparently there's thing called acting, where people pretend to be people in a believable way. This movie, this movie does not care about this principle. Accents range from American to English to Indian, and it's Tarsem Singh saying clear as day, 'I don't care about the human side of my movies' his fans wouldn't like it, but he and Zack Snyder are a pair made in heaven.

Best In Show: Stephen Dorff (I guess)

In Summation: This is a film where you keep thinking 'why is that in the movie', or 'why is he in the movie' or 'Why are their gods in this film when they don;t matter a jot to the story' It's just a terrible script across the board really, and I think the question is how highly you rate visuals in your movie going experience. If they're the reason you love movies, then you'll probably enjoy this in spite of eveything. If like me you're a writing and acting guy, this stuff was pretty intolerable. Rating: 4/10

TRESPASS

Tagline: Two Oscar winners slumming it for a paycheck

Plot: Guys want Money that's in the house, but Cage and Kidman don't want to give it to them

Best Thing About The Boy: Oh boy. Erm, I didn't see a reflection of the camera at any point during this movie.

Worst Thing About The Movie: A complete failure on almost every level, yet in a way that's somehow forgettable and unremarkable. One of those movies where it's like yep, I've wasted my life.

Best In Show: My liquefying brain.

In Summation: Nic Cage needs to pay the IRS, I get that but what's Kidman doing here? And of course they give the role of the wildcard psycho to Cam Gigandet, also known as the greatest actor alive. Legitimately one of the worst performances of the year. This movie is just, there are no words for it's inadequacy. Joel Schumacher's name was not a surprise. Rating: 2/10

Catch- Up Review Session Part 1

2011-10-26T07:10:00.000-07:00

Again an unfortunate couple of weeks of being too busy to write reviews, but here comes the inaugural catch-up session. Let's do this.

DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK

Tagline: Kids, when you turn off light, shit's gonna try and eat you. Way of the world.

Plot: Move into an old house where people got murdered? Yeah nothing's gonna happen to your children.

Best thing about the movie: Small monsters can be as creepy as big monsters.

Worst thing about the movie: Timeless in a bad way, people making 1950's mistakes to 2010 problems.

Best In Show: Bailee Madison

In Summation: I didn't hate this movie, and it felt like a serviceable run through of all those cliches we've come to know and love but, you know, for kids. 5/10

MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

Tagline: Imagine if you could meet all your heroes from generations past and have them tell all say you're awesome.

Plot: Dude travels back in time to 20's paris, to meet all his heroes. As you do.

Best thing about the movie: Yet another Woody Allen movie paid for and bought by a European tourist board.

Worst Thing About The Movie: For a movie about Paris, shockingly low amount of Parisians in this movie.

In Summation: The whimsy sort of powers through being irritating to being charming, and Owen Wilson is a good lead, but this is essentially a wankfest right? Woody Allen's most egotistical movie to date, secretly about how he was too good for movies and his talents should have been spent on novels, AKA, real writing. But whatever, nice to look at. 6/10

TYRANNOSAUR

Tagline: No-one is having fun at this movie.

Plot: Domestic abuse. the PSA.

Best Thing About The Movie: People who hate dogs, you've come to the right place.

Worst Thing About The Movie: Nowhere near enough musical numbers.

Best In Show: Peter Mullan

In Summation: Films about serious issues like domestic abuse are important, its important to force into people's brains how unacceptable it is. Yet one also has to view these things as films, as stories, and Tyrannosaur, despite all the great performances here, had no nuance to its characters, no subtlety to it's story-telling and almost no understanding or care for the reasons why. The Eddie Marsan character here is a monstrous, villainous cartoon, and while I don't doubt that there are people who beat their wives for no reason, it would undoubtedly be more harrowing to have some understanding of this relationship and that character, rather than insisting on portraying it in such a black and white, simplistic way. Marsan was just a ghoul, and while that might be the most politically correct way, its sort of like when you get films where you get a cartoon racist or a cartoon sexist. Dramatically, its just not the most engaging way to discuss the point. 6/10

PERFECT SENSE

Tagline: Have you seen blindness? No? Great, then this movie is a one-off original, bitches.

Plot: What if you couldn't see, touch, taste smell or hear anymore?

Best Thing About The Movie: Eva Green is in it, so naturally that means Eva Green's boobs are in it too. Yea boi. (Also Ewan McGregor penis for those the other way inclined. Democracy for all)

Worst Thing about the movie: So like, its blindness with all 5 senses instead of one. But you haven't seen blindness so its cool.

Best In Show: Eva Green

In Summation: I liked this. maybe it's my fondness for post-apocalyptic fiction, but this is yet another reason why David Mackenzie is one of the most underrated British directors. Smart and haunting. 7/10

FOOTLOOSE

Tagline: Let the shoes cut loose.

Plot: Dancing is illegal, a premise as hilarious in the 10's as was in the 80's.

Best Thing About The Movie: Mostly sharp dancing sequences, has enough of a sense of humour to get by, Craig Brewer is a good director.

Worst Thing About The Movie: Julianna Hough. Not a good actress. Why are modern kids listening to 80's music with such frequency?

Best In Show: Miles Teller

In Summation: I actually didn't hate this, and I thin Brewer did about as a good a job as could be done. The attempts to be dramatic, including the legendary angry dance, sort of fall flat but there was fun here for the undemanding. Rating: 5/10

THE THREE MUSKETEERS

Tagline: See that money, you just wasted it.

Plot: Oh go fuck yourself

Best Thing About The Movie: Suck my dick.

Worst Thing About The Movie: It's existence. Find Paul W.S Anderson and kill him. Seriously. Stop reading and do it now. I'll wait..

In Summation: A violation of time and space, and all that might circle therein. A stupid, gross dumbing down of a book that was already a pretty simple piece of mass entertainment. Anderson appears to have had free reign just to make the thing into the scribblings of a 12 year old boy circa 50 million dollars. Truly, it did go full retard. Rating: 2/10

REAL STEEL

Tagline: Violence without consequence for all the family.

Plot: Hugh Jackman learns what it truly means to be a father by......ZZZZZZZZ. Oooh, robots fighting.

Best Thing In The Movie: Some pretty epic robot fighting, I feel unclean just saying that, but I was invested in which scrap of metal won. Yes I was.

Worst Thing In The Movie: Erm, phoned in Spielbergian father-son story. Nobody cares. Really.

Best In Show: Hugh Jackman. He should play Indiana Jones in the inevitable remake.

In Summation: You know what, I kind of appreciated a family film as utterly non-threatening as this. Charisma generated by Jackman and robots pounding each other will do you for a good time (low bar) Rating: 6/10

CONTAGION

Tagline: Germs comin' to fuck you up.

Plot: See above. Haters of Gwyneth Paltrow would be well-advised to see this movie.

Best Thing About The Movie: It was certainly a well-studied movie, and enjoyed the immense detail, and the sense of realism. A number of great performances, and a cast that surely has to be up there amongst the starriest in recent memory.

Worst Thing about The Movie: It's PG-13 rating. Lacked the ferocity to explore the human impact of a virus to the extent that a better movie would have explored it.

Best In Show: Kate Winslet

In Summation: Its an internet blogging cliche, but this really needed to be darker. I liked a lot of what it was trying to do, but there simply was too much optimism in regards to the human race. I wanted to see the worst reactions, the less nobly convicted. Instead we just got one ridiculously stereotypical characterization of a soulless internet blogger that was just petty. Not quite Shyamalan killing a film critic in Lady In The Water,but still. Rating: 6/10

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

Tagline: We're in a recession.

Plot: Totes the same fucking movie, you all knew that. Did I mention DOLLARS ALL UP IN YOUR FACE. Gonna buy me some hookers, gonna buy me some blow, gonna have a good time, gonna last all night.

Best Thing About The Movie: Slightly more exaggerated here then in the past, but this formula works man. There's yet to be an absolutely terrible PA movie, and I challenge you to name a horror franchise that got to 3 without producing at least one piece of assaultive dogshit. (Alright George Romero. But whatcha gonna do with genius)

Worst Thing About The Movie: Things got a little too arch here, and the more like a horror movie these films get, the less effective they are. Just about made it I think.

Best In Show: Chris Smith

In Summation: Yeah its the same movie, same beats, same scares, same ending. But it's a well oiled machine, that may now lack the ability to amaze, but it sure can shock you. It's just the shocks are getting cheaper and cheaper, and I do think there's been a slight decline each time out, but not enough to stop these movies being around for a decade. Rating: 5/10

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN

Tagline: Kids Today

Plot: What would really happen if your kid was evil, and will Ben Linus just be Ben Linus regardless of what his mother does?

Best Thing About The Movie: Lynne Ramsay, who directed the under-seen mini-masterpiece Movern Callar, is equally adept here, and I can't imagine too many more captivatingly put together films then this this year. Plus a pretty stellar performance from Tilda Swinton.

Worst Thing About The Movie: The Kevin characterization is stuff of fantasy. Can't claim to be a serious psychological drama when you have such a broad unflappable Machiavellian villain from the age of 4. More in common with The Omen then Elephant.

Best In Show: Tilda Swinton

In Summation: I liked this movie. I really did. And I've had a couple of post-match debates that have lead to fire and brimstone, but for me Kevin is almost a cartoon in conception, despite Ezra Miller's mostly terrific performance, and that affects its psychological credibility. It plays fantastically as a horror movie, but it doesn't want to be one, and in that, in spite of how much I liked it, it fails in the main thing it came here to do. Still, an excellent piece of film-making if you can accept the fundamental flaw in its premise. Rating: 7/10

Week In TV

2011-10-22T16:54:00.000-07:00

SUNDAY:

The Walking Dead - What Lies Ahead, A pretty lean, tense opening hour of the Walking Dead. But then that was never the problem, it's the show that exists around the zombies that concerns, but that was badass. 7/10

Homeland - Clean Skin, This show continues to shape up to be a gooden, and while this was another table-setting hour, the show continues to make the characters as interesting as the story 7/10

Hung - Mister Drecker, An interesting episode of this comedy that never seems to make me laugh, but never the less I enjoy every week. 6/10

MONDAY:

How I Met Your Mother: Mystery vs. History 5/10, the sort of sucky, tired hour of this show that seems to be the way for every 2 out of 3 episodes. Due a good one next.

2 Broke Girls:..And the 90's horse party. 6/10 I love the world of TV criticism, where being racist is much more forgivable than being shit. Still, in spite of its racism, I am being sort of won over by it.

Bored To Death - Gumball, the ratings for this show are astoundingly low, yet fortunately for it's on the cancellation free paradise called HBO. Not really been impressed with this opening two parter though. 5/10

Enlightened - Now or Never, Hmm I was curious to see the second episode of Enlightened, mostly because the pilot really gave no indication to what kind of show it would be. I still don't really know, but ya know, its a fun half hour. 6/10

TUESDAY

Man Up - Pilot, Try to watch the first episode of everything, and while this wasn't awful necessarily, it was pretty bland. Meh. 5/10

Workaholics- Dont' entirely know why I've watched this three weeks in a row, but I have. So there's that. I don't hate it. 6/10

WEDNESDAY

Up All Night - Birth, I was getting quite close to abandoning this show, but this episode meant I'm probably in it for at least a season now. Rich and surprising 7/10

The Middle - Bad choices, Continue to like this show, even as it gets uniformly ignored. Not the best episode ever though. 6/10

Suburgatory - Don't Call Me Shirley, She won't because she's playing a kid and all, but Jane Levy's performance on this show is probably my favorite on any new show and deserves to be emmy nominated. Not quite sure about the show around it yet, but it is at least pleasingly weird. 6/10

Modern Family - Go Bullfrogs, the Emmy's favorite show is doing nothing to help the inevitable rage filled backlash against it, with a sort of awful season so far. Stop giving Julie Bowen screentime please, I like Bowen, but this is the most grating character on TV. 5/10

Happy Endings - Secrets and Limos, Happy Endings continues to be one of the funniest shows on TV for me, and this trend was not in any way rescinded this week. Great stuff. 7/10

THURSDAY

Big Bang Theory - The Rhinitis Revelation, At this point you can pretty much trace the stronger episodes of big bang theory to the times when Sheldon is being repressed in some capacity. And seeing his mum come to town lets you see a different side of him at least. 6/10

It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Storm Of The Century, there's a general sense that this season of Sunny started really strong, so it would make sense that these last couple of episodes have disappointed people somewhat, but this had its moments. 6/10

The League - The Au Pair, this aged frat-boy comedy continues to be obnoxious and funny in spells, but the more Paul Scheer and Nick Kroll appear the better it is. 6/10

Top Three:

1) The Walking Dead - What Lies Ahead

2) Happy Endings - Secrets and limos

3) Homeland - Clear Skin

Week In TV

2011-10-15T11:38:00.000-07:00

Sunday:

Breaking Bad - Face-Off, maybe its just the astronomic standard set by last year's finale, but this was a bit too much of a straight forward thriller for my taste. A frickin excellent one though, full of memorable moments and a farewell to one of the greatest characters in TV history. 8/10

Homeland - Grace, This has to be the best new show of the year, with creator Howard Gordon's smarter take on what he already did on 24. Very promising. 7/10

Hung - Take the Cake, This felt a slight reversion into the aimless hi-jinks of previous seasons, but still fun and Rebecca Creskoff's turn as Lenore is one of the most scene-stealingy performances on TV right now. Very entertaining. 6/10

Monday:

How I Met Your Mother - Field Trip, for a show that feeds you so much information, it rarely seems to go anywhere these days. They clearly don't want to reveal the mother till the end of the show, but it just means that all that matters is the end of the show. 5/10

2 Broke Girls - There's been two god-awful episodes of this show to two ones that have been OK, but I was teetering very close to quitting on this. This one though was a bit more of an improvement, although the racial stereotype supporting characters are still a carcass the show is carrying around. 6/10

Bored To Death - The Blonde In The Woods, Bored to Death really is the ultimate hipster show, that puts its smarts to absolutely no use other than pointing out its smarts, and has absolutely no story to tell. Having said that, thanks to its over-qualified three leads, it ends up being infectiously enjoyable regardless. This wasn't the best episode though. 5/10

Enlightened - Pilot, This was sort of a catastrophe of a first episode, but this is a show I am none the less intrigued with, I like Laura Dern and if they can figure out what the show is then it might be great. But as for right now...eh. 5/10

Tuesday -

Workaholics - Model Kombat, Tuesday became a very slender day indeed, what with raising hope and New Girl getting bumped, so this was it. Like the last episode, it was OK I guess. 5/10

Wednesday -

The Middle - The Test, Another fun and well put together episode of this show, which is probably a lot cleverer than it's given credit for. 7/10

Up All Night - Mr Bob's Toddler Kaleidoscope, this show is still working too hard to convince me its not boring, but this was probably the best one yet. 6/10

Suburgatory - The Chatterer, The show is very much becoming a two-hander, between Jeremy Sisto and Jane Levy, and I think it's working quite well for the moment. Probably the weakest episode yet though 6/10

Modern Family - Hit And Run, This show had a very shaky start, but I think the last two episodes have normalized everything. Still over-rated though. 6/10

Happy Endings - Yesandwitch - This felt like one of those sitcoms where a guest star comes in and takes everything over, but it was still reliably funny and ha a rhythm like any other show on TV right now. 6/10

American Horror Story - Home Invasion, and I'm out of here. 4/10

Thursday -

Community - Remedial Chaos Theory, After a start that seemed to make everyone profoundly nervous, including me and I'm probably going to be a pretty hardcore apologist for this show always, this was what everyone was looking and hoping for. The kind of fantastically put together episode of Community that's both smart and soulful. 8/10

Big Bang Theory - The Russian Rocket Reaction, A mostly sweet but sort of pointless episode. Something that defines this show at this point. 5/10

Parks And Recreation - Pawnee Rangers, A lesser Parks and Rec I think, although I enjoyed the Ben subplot quite a bit, and the batman costume worked as a great sight gag. 6/10

It's Always Sunny In Philidelphia - Frank's Brother, Frank's origin story probably seemed funnier in concept than in practice, but there were still laughs to be had here. 6/10

The League - The Sukkah - The atmosphere of this show is really quite repulsive to spend time in, yet I think the writing and performances are strong enough to survive the extremely high douche factor here. 6/10

Friday -

N/A

Top Three Episodes:

1) Community - Remedial Chaos Theory

2) Breaking Bad - Face-Off

3) Homeland -Grace

REVIEW; Red State

2011-10-12T12:46:00.000-07:00

Hell raining down etc..

In the early 90's, Harvey Weinstein and Miramax had the novel idea that maybe the directors of a movie would speak about their project with more eloquence and insight than the actors who starred in it. The likes of Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and Smith became their films, they became voices that superseded their work, and to varying degrees of measurement, all of their careers fell victim to the ego that this status created. Smith's is the most overt though, in which Kevin Smith the personality, Kevin Smith the cult seemed to overwhelm everything, from the reception of his films to his status as a film-maker.

Every film made under the Smith name left to devolve into a critics vs Kevin Smith pissing match, regardless of how good it actually was, until it became apparent that his legacy outside of his hardcore fanbase of Smodcast listeners and fans, would be as the guy who threw a hissy fit every time someone gave him a bad review. The Weinstein plan had backfired, and the platform Smith had been afforded was being used to throw poop at the meanies. To be honest I think Kevin Smith somewhat missed his calling, and probably was supposed to be a stand-up comedian as opposed to a director. He's an incredibly smart, insightful guy with a unique voice, and anyone who's seen a Smith movie knows how good he is at writing dialogue, it's just he's never really been able to tell a story, and always seemed ill at ease in any kind of narrative that didn't rely on irreverent bullshitting. Chasing Amy was maybe the closest, but as the years passed by so did Jersey Girl, Zack and Miri and Cop Out. Each in their own way more damning evidence of the fact that maybe this guy just doesn't have it in him to make a great movie.

Red State feels like the last-ditch attempt to get away from all that. To get away from the Pre-conceptions and self-destructive media patterns that Smith has gone down before. He's tried to make his voice disappear here, and let the movie speak for itself. Except he couldn't, and via a pretty smug publicity stunt at Sundance and a consequent bemusement that people were talking about him again instead of the film. But much as been said about that. Red State itself? Well it's an imperfect movie, sure, but there's a lot of ambition here, a lot of good intention and a lot of raw talent on display. It may be the closest Smith has gotten to reigning in his various abilities and applying them to making the movie as good as it could possibly be, to allowing the material to stand on its own. Equal parts religiously-themed horror movie and morally ambiguous siege movie, it's still way too ADD, but there's a lot to like here.

The first thing that comes to mind of course is the performance of Michael Parks, who as the extremely fundamentalist preacher who has taken to murdering those who in he's opinion aren't living up to the word of God quite as stringently as he would like. Parks is pretty terrific, pleasingly under-playing the role and making him as a little a cartoon as is humanly possible. I'd say his sermon scene went on way too long that the speechifying somewhat sucked the tension and the horror of the situation, but I enjoyed the performance enough that I'll forgive that. I'd say that the political dynamic is somewhat lessened by making the lead potential victims being relatively bland horny teenagers, instead of say, a gay person or someone to whom Parks and his congregation loath most profusely. Indeed the only gay victim dies without a name or a line.

I think the second half, in which the protagonist becomes John Goodman's FDA agent takes over the movie, is probably the stronger, in which difficult moral dilemmas and a violent siege replace the torture porn style executioning. Goodman is terrific in everything, but I found him to be a real stabling presence in this movie, which maybe wanted to more than it's 90 minutes would allow, and it gave the second half a real energy. Melissa Leo was pretty great, but I was pleasingly impressed by both Kerry Bishe and Kyle Gallner, playing two teens from different worlds who worked well together here.

Ultimately, I don't think Red State quite gets right all it wants to get right, but I am a sucker for films with ambition, and almost certainly Smith's most ambitious film as a director. It's the kind of horror movie that should be made more often, where the horror speaks to something as opposed to the violence being the whole point, and its certainly smarter than your average slasher or torture porn movie. Not a direct hit, but not too far off either. I do think the ending is sort of a botch though.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: What's Your Number

2011-10-08T22:04:00.000-07:00

Women, the 21st guy is the new Scarlet Letter. Let's make this happen.

Here's the thing. I think I've probably spent more time bashing on Romantic comedies on here then any other genre. I don't apologize for this, nor do I believe that I've targeted these films unfairly and it's just my manly agenda and desire to see manly things such as shouting and violence as opposed to girly emotions and love. I think that in theory, the romantic comedy could be my favorite genre, or at least tie with horror. Because right down their very specific DNA, Romantic comedies are about character. They are movies entirely about how two people relate to each other, and how there various problems effect that relationship. In theory that sounds awesome, that's going to have so much more depth and value than a run of the mill action movie.

The problem with this of course is that mainstream genre releases tend to be cynical, they tend to be formed out of what pitches well, what you can sell people on. It's hard to sell people on a movie about two people talking to each other and falling in love. You have to be like this....

" So there's this bitch right, and she's about to sleep with her 20th guy, and like oh my god, that would make her an S-L-U-T slut, so she totally goes through her all her old boyfriends to find the one, so she doesn't have to sleep with a 21st guy because then she'd be a Super Ho. Say What?"

And therein lies the rub. You can't approach a romantic comedy as if it were a thriller. A thriller can survive this cynical way of thinking because the point is to take you on a ride, and the characters are there to service that ride, but with a romantic comedy the characters are the ride and the movie just can't be put together on a high concept and a formula and not be excreble. It needs to be genuinely funny, and it needs to be genuinely romantic, and if you think about all the time that is wasted on explaining that premise, on setting that premise in motion and eventually dismantling that premise, well that's 30 minutes of screen-time you could have spent on getting to know these characters, instead of making them cheap, recognizable ciphers.

I actually didn't hate What's Your Number all that much. Sure, It's got the cynical poster serving premise, but it also has two likable leads and at least glimpses at an ability to be funny that navigate around the groan worthy moments. Of which there are admittedly quite a few. The film starts out pretty atrociously, with star Anna Faris over-acting pretty shamelessly and the whole thing coming across very manic and silly. I'd say once the growing pains are dispensed with, Faris and co-star Chris Evans work pretty well together, Evans has always been a slightly under-rated comedian, and I imagine the whole Captain America thing might make that disappear even more but he's a good fit for films like this.

Ultimately though the end doesn't really live up to the middle and it goes the way every single one of these films has to go and you just tune out. It's not the worst romantic comedy you've seen in recent years but rather one of the better bad ones. It has the same fundamental problems as say Leap Year, but it is not quite as gloriously consumed by them as that movie was. Instead it is just good enough to not be memorable. There are some nice supporting turns by the likes of Joel McHale, Martin Freeman and Anthony Mackie, but yeah.

Rating: 4/10

Week In TV

2011-10-08T06:03:00.000-07:00

A new feature I've devised, and no doubt many other have devised before me, is to do a calender of the week's TV, instead of writing actual reviews which would take time and effort. Here We Go.

Sunday:

(Disclaimer - I don't watch Dexter anymore because ergh and I tend to marathon Boardwalk Empire)

Breaking Bad - End Times, an episode that perhaps didn't live up to previous weeks but still contained some great moments. 8/10

Homeland - Pilot, A very strong, engaging pilot. Providing a smarter, darker and altogether more suspenseful look at modern espionage than we've come to expect. 8/10

Hung - Don't give up on Detroit, I don't really know why I'm still watching this show, considering how aimless last year was, but something about it's tone amuses me. And this was a strong season premiere. 7/10

Monday

How I Met Your Mother - The Stinson Missile Crisis, A lot has been made of this shows' decline. But I do still enjoy it week to week, even if it is a pale comparison to what it used to be. 6/10

Tuesday

New Girl - Wedding, I liked this a lot more than previous New Girl episodes, I'm still not convinced there's a show here, stil. Fun half-hour. 6/10

Raising Hope - Kidknapped, Not as strong as the previous two episodes, but I think this is probably gonna be a great year for this show. 6/10

Workaholics - Temp-Tress. My first time checking this show out, It was OK. Might watch one more to see if I got a fair sampling. 5/10

Ringer - It's gonna kill me, but I'll do it, Done with this shit. 4 episodes was infinitely more than it deserved. 3/10

Wednesday

Up All Night - New Car, I tend to think when all of a show's plots are about the leads not being boring, you;re in trouble. But this was likable at least. 5/10

The Middle- Major Changes, I'd be tempted to say this is one of the most under-rated shows on TV, given that the amount of acclaim it gets is precisely zero. I liked this one. 7/10

Suburgatory - The Barbecue, The best new network show for me. Leads Jane Levy and Jeremy Sisto are excellent. Not as good as the first episode, but am feeling this one. 6/10

Modern Family - Door to Door, It's not been a great year for modern family, which is going to compound the internet hate for it into stratosphere, but you know, this one was OK. 5/10

Raising Hope - Henderson, Nevada adjascent baby!, The stronger of this week's two raising hope episodes, a show everybody should be watching at this point. 7/10

Happy Endings - Baby Steps, Honestly I don't think there's a show that makes me laugh more than this one, even if it is a wafer thin show, its a fucking funny one. Not the best episode ever but still. 6/10

American Horror Story - Pilot, It's incredible ambition is only matched by its incredible failure, in that it seems not to understand what makes horror work, or what makes a functioning episode of television. Ryan Murphy writes for moments not cumulative effect, but this is a concoction of all his worst qualities. 4/10

Thursday

Community - Competitive Ecology, Certainly the best episode of season 3 so far, even if the year as a whole seems to be responding to a network note to tone everything down a bit, I'm sort of worried about that direction, but I enjoyed this a lot, mostly thanks to an inspired Chang B plot. 7/10

The Big Bang Theory - The Wiggly Finger Catalyst, Worth it for the line 'Everyone knows all disabled people are good people,' even if this was a weaker half-hour. 4/10

How To Be A Gentleman - How To Have A One Night Stand, this show has been banished to Saturday's, with cancellation soon to follow so there's probably not much point in watching it. It;s not really that great either. 4/10

Parks And Recreation - Born And Raised - This spoof of the birther scandal was a little meh, as Park and Rec goes. Which is quite a bit better than most shows out there. 7/10

Whitney - Silent Treatment, Call it morbid Curiosity, but I have watched three episodes of Whitney. I shan't be watching anymore. 3/10

It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Sweet Dee gets audited, Not as funny is the stellar first three episodes, but I love this show man. 6/10

The League - The Lockout, This show is a bit obnoxious for me, but it does make me laugh intermittently. Guest-starring Seth Rogen yo. 6/10

Friday

N/A

Saturday

N/A

Top Three episodes of the week:

1) Homeland, Pilot

2) Breaking Bad, End Times

3) Community, Competitive Ecology

REVIEW: Abduction

2011-10-06T00:51:00.000-07:00

This dude is going to vanish faster than you can say Jacob is a pussy.

I always say that films like Abduction are the hardest to write about. Watching these kind of films leaves you longing for honest to god pieces of shit, because at least there, there is an identity. Something that could conceivably leave a mark, or make an impression. I saw Abduction two days ago and I honestly don't have anything to say about it. I can barely even remember it. Ten seconds out of the cinema I couldn't remember it and in many ways, that's exactly the point. It's designed to be generic, it's designed to offend no-one and it's designed to impact no-one. Wha the fuck is there to say about that?

Sometimes in these things there can be peripheral joys, such as the supporting roles or maybe a couple of decent action sequences. But there are a couple of problems here. Firstly, this movie is largely a cheap piece of shit, with not enough money spent on it to make it even a superficial joy. Secondly, it's a star vehicle for someone who can't remotely act, so even if the script hadn't been terrible (which it is) and the direction wasn't so run of the mill (which it is) and every scene didn't feel like a pale copy of some scene you've seen in a better movie (Which it does), then you're still stuck with a complete blank slate in Taylor Lautner, an actor who seems to perennially make every scene more awkward and lame by just existing in it. In the world of Twilight, maybe Lautner's inability to carry a scene is less conspicuous, but ask him to carry a movie and it's just a no go. It doesn't help that he's paired with the equally vacuous Lily Collins, whose continued presence as a girlfriend character defied logic, and also seemed to be to make Lautner look good in comparison.

Star vehicles for an actor with no talent aren't impossible to pull off, you just need to pair him with someone who can quietly carry the thing, while he postures. But despite this movie having Maria Bello, Jason Isaacs, Alfred Molina and Sigourney Weaver at it's disposal, none of them are asked to do anything other than carry exposition, and Abduction just becomes even more tedious to watch. There's just nothing here for anyone who might expect more than the barest minimum from their cinema going experience. And if that's all you want, if you see it solely as a distraction then that's fine I suppose. But Abduction is the kind of experience that I find to be just the worst you can have. I'll give lower grades, sure, but this is a movie purposefully made in a vacuum of talent, and any talented people who felt like getting paid didn't bother much to change that. A truly cancerous meh.

Rating: 3/10

REVIEW: The Debt

2011-10-05T22:41:00.000-07:00

You's about to get whacked son.

Right first thing's first. It's 2011. 2011. So if we all collectively trigger the maths-like portion of our brains and figure out that 2011 is 66 years after 1945. And lets assume that to be a high-ranking nazi official you'd need to be at least 30. To be one of the guys at the absolute top of the chain. That puts even the youngest, youthful Nazi at the he probably would be dead age. All of this to say that having a Nazi as your villain in this day and age is not only sort of hackneyed, but very soon will be completely implausible. I get the attraction. The Nazi regime is the serial killer of mass-murdering empires. Whilst others did it for such understandable reasons as money, materials and status, The Nazis were crazy, and killed for reasons of crazy. It makes them the ideal villains for movies that want villainy to be a shorthand. This guy is bad. Why? Because he's a Nazi. Next question.

I don't want to be too harsh on The Debt, it contains a number of good performances and manages to be a strong thriller, building it's suspense out of moral quandary and character. Yet a lot doesn't work about it, and it contains a flashback structure that seems to exist for the sole reason of because it's what films like this usually do, and it's worked out pretty well so far. But it's lazy, and while Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson and Ciaran Hinds are all great actors, I'm not convinced these scenes really added anything to the film other than something to cut to. The thrust of the narrative is the 60's stuff, in part because of the great performances by some of the lesser known talent here. Jessica Chastain, who's had somewhat of a career explosion in 2011, is the best I've ever sen her as the young Helen Mirren. Similarly Marton Csokas, who has has been at the fringes of big movies for a while now, definitely makes his mark in this film, seizing the bigger role with aplomb. Sam Worthington is predictably the weak link, but he's not distractingly bad.

But the problems with the present day scenes is that they seemed to exist to comment on what had happened in the past as opposed to any kind of resonance in and of themselves, and as a result you are just waiting to get back to Chastain and Csokas. I did like how mostly incompetent our three leads were as spies, as so much of what went on seemed to emerge out of their inexperience at their jobs. Too often films tend to lionize spies as infallible, and I liked that these ones could both be credible, and yet capable of making a mistake. The film tails off pretty terribly though, finishing about 40 minutes before it actually finishes and losing a lot of the tension and atmosphere it has built up in the process.

Ultimately though it feels like one of those films that struggles too hard to convince you it's better than it is, and that just stops it from being as good as it could be. The premise is a little hacky, but I think a tight, complex thriller could have been made here, but instead we get a flabby concoction that whilst containing elements of that better film, is just carrying too much superfluous baggage to ever really capitalize on it's strengths. Still, worse movies out there for real.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: Melancholia

2011-10-04T10:55:00.000-07:00

Melancholia the planet is convicted of being drunk while orbiting.

Lars Von Trier is an asshole. Someone who has let his incomparably defined view of his awesomeness almost derail his entire career, to the point where he's almost as renowned for his antagonistic stunts and quotes than he is for his work. But this antagonism has bled into his movies too, from Antichrist, a fairly vapid and smug attempt to be controversial for controversy's sake. To setting Dogville, what almost certainly should have been his masterpiece, on a chalk-outlined sound-stage. I still love that movie, but it would be undoubtedly in the best movie of all time conversation if it's very making wasn't an act of petulant arrogance. Von Trier is an incomparable talent, but he's incomparable saboteur too, someone who seems to delight in not allowing himself to be as good as he could be, and indulging his stubbornness over creativity.

Melancholia feels like his first attempt to make a film without some extra-textual stunt worked into the mix in quite a while, and I have to say that it is nice to be reminded what an excellent film-maker Von Trier is, and to see all the things he's so good at that seem to get lost in the hysteria. For example, he always gets career-best, near revelatory performances from his leading ladies, to which this film is no exception. Kirsten Dunst has always been a very one-note actress, not a bad one necessarily, but one with a very limited range. I don't think her performance is flawless here, but it is undoubtedly her most bold attempt to challenge herself and she does show a lot of depth we've not seen before. Particularly in the film's first segment, which sees the manic depressive Dunst slowly but surely sabotage her wedding, I was very, very impressed by what she did. I still wouldn't say she's capable of all that much nuance really, but this is certainly a different shade.

Charlotte Gainsbourg meanwhile, who went through proverbial and literal hell for Von Trier's Antichrist (What a waste of a great performance that was) gets a real chance to shine here, and gives a performance as good as anything else I've seen this year. I think Dunst is the much more likely to get awards recognition for this, but it's Gainsbourg who amazed me. In the role of the person who gives a shit, incidently the role who Von Trier traditionally most likes to punish and deride, she's appropriately heartbreaking, but in such a quiet, understated way. It's difficult to say that she's not one of the best actresses around at this point, and I think how good she is really isn't acknowledged enough. The film also found room to give Kiefer Sutherland a prominent role, which I appreciated seeing. I think he's Jack Bauer for life now, but he is capable of more than that, as he proves here.

The film itself is the same kind of fatalist study of depression and the inevitably of death we've come to expect, except this time Von Trier makes things a little more literal with a giant, hitherto undiscovered planet on a collision course with Earth and there's nothing for us to do but well, wait. The film creates a great sense of powerlessness, an aura of how small, pointless and pathetic we and our worries all are. It's misery porn, to be sure, but Von Trier is a steady hand at this kind of thing and while his films can be guilty of lacking a little life on occasion, this film is punctuated by some truly beautiful imagery, from the hypnotic opening sequence to it's climactic image, which is to my mind, the most horrifying shot I've ever seen at a cinema. Wagner's Tristan and Isolde is used to terrific and devastating effect, and it gives the thing a tremendous sense of the operatic, and makes the tragedy that little bit more soaring. Best use of classical music in quite a while I'd say.

I do feel the film is perhaps a little overlong, and there is some sag in the back-half, with the message and the metaphor superceding the characters just a little bit, but regardless, Melancholia is an involving and occasionally beautiful study of despair. Not the director's best, I would still call that Dogville, but a great movie, by anyone's standards.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: Crazy, Stupid, Love

2011-09-30T11:59:00.000-07:00

All the commas in their right place.

So here's the problem with Crazy, Stupid, Love. It's another film that uses the ensemble structure for the pathos and credibility that it brings, yet only has one maximum two stories to tell here, which is Steve Carell's and sort of Ryan Gosling's. For the most part it seemed like a collection of scenes that didn't really lead anywhere or do anything, and characters that were too thin to justify their screen-time. Having said that the film does feel sincere, and that makes even a ham-fisted message more tolerable, if you get the sense that the writer's heart is in it. And there is a sweetness and earnestness to the film, it's just drowned in what one might call the unspectacular. There's no voice here, no insight. Just the same old platitudes re-framed in a more appealing way. And that's fine, to a point.

If there's something that works here it's the scenes between Gosling and Carell in the first half of the movie, where Gosling who is basically playing a less goofy, self-serious take on Barney from How I Met Your Mother here, teaches Carell his almanac of rules and strategies to picking up women in bars. (Always the same bar, by the way) Gosling proves himself to be a very adept comic actor, perhaps because he's simply a good actor, and has an endlessly confident, deadpan vibe to his delivery, which in a way draws something more interesting out of Carell as opposed to just leaning on his usual schtick. Carell in these sort of comedy movies tends to be more enjoyable than Carell in straight out comedies, perhaps because it brings him out of default mode. But there's always been something innately sad about Carell as a comedian, which is way his best work is in the likes of Little Miss Sunshine et al, and he is very good here.

But the movie has such an expansive, over-qualified cast that roles that were probably meant to be throwaway have the spotlight drawn on them, and if you're going to have Kevin Bacon you might as well have him do more than mope around in the background for two scenes, and if you're going to have three-time Oscar nominee Marisa Tomei, you might as well give her role that would be embarrassing on a middling to lesser sitcom. But the worst thing is that Julianne Moore, 50% of the love story we are supposed to care about, is given absolutely nothing to play and fucntions simply as 'Wife', a goal Carell has to reattain. Even Emma Stone, who thought she was going to get her own story there for a while, just gets funneled into Gosling's. And the less said about the teenage son the better.

As an ensemble movie it's sort of terrible, too many undeveloped characters with trite one-note functions, and would certainly have been stronger say if it had narrowed the focus to Carell and Gosling's dynamic, because I enjoyed both of those performances quite a bit. Gosling in particular, in what feels like a necessary move to give him some more mainstream exposure and credibility, comes of well. But movies about middle-aged troubled marriages are vast in number, and you can't be as unremarkable as this movie is and still expect to make a dent. Some scenes are fun, and there are laughs scattered about but fuck is this generic.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Drive

2011-09-27T14:19:00.000-07:00

The scorpion jacket gag was well meta.

Every now and again you get a film that's so specific in it's intention, and so forthright in the way it goes about realizing it that it feels like someone's vision. A perspective that is so prevalent in every camera move, every cut and even in the way the actors look at each other that at a certain point, you're going to respond to it or you're not. Drive feels like one of these movies. When I watch it I see a text book example of how to make a movie through tone, a viewpoint expressed through mood and emotion as opposed to ideas and words. It's an action movie that fixes an unflinching eye on itself, and becomes more about art than entertainment. Yet someone telling me they saw a slow, uninvolving movie that didn't really do anything or go anywhere. Where people just stared at each other without speaking and was super violent for no reason. I can understand that. I just think Drive is one of those films you get or you don't, and neither side really has the right to tell the other they're wrong.

Personally, I had an incredible experience watching Drive. An anti-action movie that's clever and moving in the way it went about telling it's story, a story that even a semi-casual movie-goer will recognize as having been told many times before. But that's that great thing about experimenting with genre. In terms of what actually happens, it is a forgone conclusion. So in that sense, it gives film-makers an opportunity to delve into how it happens, through style, through character, whatever. Time is afforded to you by the thriller shorthand viewers have picked up over the years, and you can secretly make a film about loneliness.

The action hero is a perfect through-line for this, and Gosling's character isn't even afforded a name. He's simply 'Driver', because it doesn't matter who he is, it matters what he does. An expert behind the wheel, he is incomplete elsewhere, walking around as in a separate universe then those around him. Gosling fights so hard for his chaste, innocent relationship with Carey Mulligan and her son precisely because it's probably the first time he's known any kind of emotional connection, and the film's willingness to make him so ill-formed and arguably the most pathetic character in the film, lending a different coloring to the silent but deadly leading man, was something I really dug, and it lent a different perspective to the scenes of violence that inevitably came in the movie's latter half. It's not Gosling's best performance, but I loved how restrained he was, how internally he played everything, a compliment that could be extended to the movie as a whole.

Nicholas Winding Refn makes a film where the style and atmosphere does the storytelling in lieu of the script, and while this tact has produced many odious and god-forsaken films in the past and really takes a delicate touch to get right, I think Refn makes it work here, and as a result watching Drive is a hypnotic, encapsulating experience. The supporting cast does some great work here too though, and often make it so Gosling can go as far as he goes. Carey Mulligan is essentially given the thinnest damsel in distress role, but I appreciated the casualness of her character and relationship with Gosling, she was pleasingly real and her innocence wasn't exaggerated. Mulligan did a lot with just unspoken glances to work with. There is some career best work for Albert Brooks here too, the comedian/Movie star who has always seemed to be falling through the cracks, his career never really took off like it might have, yet he makes for a compelling villain, and one with enough dimensions to be more than just a plot point. Bryan Cranston comes very close to stealing the movie, in his role as Gosling's mechanical mentor, and Oscar Isaac did a lot with a little in the role of Mulligan's husband.

But like I said, Drive is a mood piece. Not without it;s flaws, there is the odd scene where the silence becomes a little awkward and the plot really is formulaic to a tee, but it's also a beautiful, melancholy study of a man who doesn't understand the world dismantle his life in the name if the first person who made an effort to understand him, with a few exploding heads thrown in there for good measure. I loved this film and the ride that it took me on, even if it wasn't the one I was expecting. Yet I totally get if you didn't. Because whatever you think of it, this a film that commits to what it wants to be one-hundred percent and that in itself is something to admire. Works even better if you click with it too.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: The Guard

2011-09-25T12:29:00.000-07:00

I'll turn you into a tree, motherfucker.

The Guard isn't a good movie. Not really. What distinguishes it from the many, many other Elmore Leonard/Quentin Tarantino derivatives out there is frankly it's accent. The joke that this sleepy Irish village where nothing ever happens is currently where everything is happening is not a new one. It's the same principle that gave us Fargo, it's the same principle that gave us In Bruges and at this point it's not a clever enough twist on the norm to cut it. Having said that, the film put together an intriguing double act in Don Cheadle and Brendan Gleeson, and who knows, on paper In Bruges looked a little hackneyed too, and that turned into something great.

But The Guard is the sort of thing one hopes doesn't become of these 'clever' post-modern thrillers. A glib, self-satisfied movie that eschews being about something in lieu of pointing out it's cleverness at all turns. Nobody loves movies with great dialogue more than me, but I think when it becomes annoying is when it's used as a crutch so the writer doesn;t have to bother with any characterization. This is something a lot of people wrongly accused Easy A of last year (That movie had an incredible amount to say both in terms of ideas and character) but it's something that The Guard is severely guilty of, particularly with it's supporting characters. Mark Strong's character for example, is given a lot of Leonardesque lines pointing out the various idiocies in gangster cliche, which he delivers well, but what is he ultimately? A placeholder bad guy, with no depth and no perspective, simply there to be defeated. I would have gladly sacrificed some of his dialogue to spend that time creating a character. Several minor characters come and go, speaking with the same hyper-aware syntax and contribute little to anything really and it becomes quite insufferable. This is why people say irony can be a bad thing, particularly when used as an excuse not make anything interesting.

Thank god then for Cheadle and Gleeson, who are both such cool, likable heads that they sort of diffuse the pointlessness of the whole thing. Cheadle's character is very much under-written, but he's an actor experienced and talented to do the best with what he's got. Gleeson though, is pretty extra-ordinary. There's a quality about him that's both pleasingly acerbic yet warm. In this movie he reminded me of Humphrey Bogart or some similar talent that manages to make an incredible impression even with lesser material, and give a performance that's both funny and affecting in a movie that entirely leans on his charisma. I think Gleeson is a large reason why In Bruges is the film it is and by that same token he elevates this from disposable to almost recommendable. Probably one of my favorite performances I've seen this year, but the film around it is such that I have to keep my head here.

On the face of it, The Guard is something I want to like more. Because I do think this is a clever movie, and the performance of Gleeson is that strong. But it applies it's cleverness in the worst way to make this a memorable and effective movie. It applies it in a manor that purposefully keeps everything at a distance, the kind of post-modernism that has an erodible impact on a film's depth. I do think this film wanted to be more than a sum of its parts, and a couple of scenes with Gleeson almost get there. But the story is incredibly flimsy, as are too many of the characters. It's disappointingly lightweight, so I can only view it as a missed opportunity.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: I Don't Know How She Does It

2011-09-23T13:52:00.000-07:00

Due to this films OCD obsession with taking lists, I have decided to review the movie in this manner:

1) I hung around for two hours to see this movie. And got the bus back at 11 O'Clock subsequently. I could have got jacked. Or died. For I Don't Know How She Does It. That would have made my existence a comedy existence.

2) FUCK THIS MOVIE. It is offensive on several socio-political levels, aside from just traditionally sucking balls.

3) Sarah Jessica Parker is not a good actress. She never has been and never will be. And she is the WORST deliverer of voice-over human kind has ever known. Take you're twee, perpetually flat and high pitched tones somewhere else Parker, for they are not wanted here.

4) If you disagree with number 3, I'd stop reading now because the rest of this is liable to make you very upset.

5) Memo to rich white women. There is one group of people the world hates more than you, and that's rich white men. But it's funny how few movies I see about a rich white guy banker complaining about how his life is so gosh darn stressful, and about how those poor people keep getting mad about us kicking them out of their houses won't stop whining, and my how I don't have enough time to have sex with my hot wife as much as they like.

6) People would leave these movies man. They'd involuntary splurt out FUCK THIS DOUCHE and then leave and go back to their ten hour shift at McDonalds. But for some reason, rich white women think it's OK to make the exact inverse of this movie. Again and Again. Every studio romantic comedy outside of Bridesmaids seems to star a rich female lead, who has just about EVeRYTHING but love.

7) I'm not even opposed to making films about these women, but they keep whitewashing everything, saying that no problems are their fault, and they're perfect hard-working captains of industry. If I Don't Know How She Does It could say, be a comedy about the relationship about two hard-working people whose lives don't allow for true love, then I'd watch that movie.

8)But all they seem to want to do is reinforce how awesome they are, and how their awesomeness defeats any and all problems.

8) I believe the saying goes that whereas you need a reason to hate poor people, you need a reason to like rich people. And if rich white women want to hijack a once proud genre to soapbox their whining, then everyone gets to say FUCK THIS SHIT.

9) Yeah, yeah. It's a fantasy. Except it's not. This film is like the comedian who jokes about how easy it is for him to get into VIP events, and how hard it is to fend off all the girls at the same time. This is that guy.

10) Pierce Brosnan is an increasingly bad actor, Greg Kinnear looks like he has dead eyes and Kelsey Grammer shows up to promote his new show soon to be airing on STARZ.

11) The film ends with a dick joke delivered by Christina Hendricks. Badly.

12) Hendricks is trying so hard to prove that she can be fun and bubbly that she ends up giving a wide-eyed, Jim Carrey-esque ridiculous performance. Embarrassing. Looks great though.

13) Best thing about this movie? Olivia Munn. By miles. A funny and winning performance.

14) Ergh. I feel like I've hit one of those down and out moments where you forget why you care about anything or anyone, and all that's left is for your thoughts of loathing and anger to circle furiously around your head until eventually the pressure becomes too much and before you know why, you've done something that can never be undone or taken back. Like see this movie.

Rating: 3/10

REVIEW: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

2011-09-23T12:49:00.000-07:00

The trailer for this was incredible by the way.

I've always had a somewhat adversarial relationship with films built entirely around plot. I understand many, many people believe plot to be the most important and engaging aspect of fiction full stop. In sheer number, I doubt any opposing genre can compete with the amount of mystery novels shifted each year, or the amount of viewers police procedurals pull in every week. But I can't help but think that viewing plot as the most interesting aspect of fiction is somehow reductive of it, that viewing it most giddily through the prism of what happens next is the right side of the brain trying to claim ownership of the left side's rightful playground. The most exciting thing about fiction is the characters and worlds it can create, the perspectives and ideas it can communicate and the atmospheres and moods it can explore. Plot to me seems like an extension of the structure, something that exists as a means to an end. So everything can be said with coherency.

Plot is a completely necessary part of the process, but making it the reason for everything makes your work sort of baseless, without root in any point or meaning. You're just a puzzle to be solved. This doesn't mean a plot heavy film can't be great, LA Confidential is one of m favorite films, but it has to place it through the prism of it's characters. This is why I was less enamored with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo than everyone else and it will be the reason I'm less enamored with Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy than everyone else. Superficially, it's an exquisite piece of film-making, with all the sets and photography looking absolutely beautiful and Tomas Alfredson's direction creating a remarkably controlled, consuming sense of paranoia that keeps you uncomfortable throughout. The performances are uniformly excellent. Although Gary Oldman's first starring role in quite some time will remind everyone of just how good he is capable of being, and in a performance quite unlike any he's given before, something entirely internal yet with his usual presence. His George Smiley is like a ghost, everywhere but nowhere, silent but taking in everything. A bafta nomination for sure, and maybe an Oscar nomination.

The likes of Toby Jones, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy and Mark Strong make for a strong supporting cast, Jones makes a strong impression as a particularly cutthroat bureaucrat and it was nice to get to see Strong play a more sensitive role than he is usually allowed to do. I was most impressed however by Benedict Cumberbatch, who in a performance as Oldman's subordinate, continues to build on the good will he's earned from Sherlock and many other projects. A couple of people strike a bum note, John Hurt was a little hammy and ill at ease with the film's underplayed tone, as was Kathy Burke. But certainly the performance you'll notice and remember is Oldman's. But for a film this deeply steeped in plot, I'm afraid you need to pack a stronger punch than this story had to pack. I liked that this was a slightly more realistic take on the spy world, but the end was predictable, largely in part to the casting, and because of the way the film had previously played. Spending so much time unraveling meant that relationships and dynamics had to be implied as opposed to seen, and I think the film had a lot less emotional impact than it was supposed.

My problem with the film is that at its core it's a potboiler, a story about what happens on the next page and never about what is happening on this one. For all the excellent performances and surface aesthetics, which again are stunning, the simple act of time passing doesn't turn a thriller into an art film, and I get the slight impression that Alfredson thinks it does. Be that as it may, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy is quite a way better than the usual junk you see at the cinemas, and is an incredibly rich and cultured piece of pulp for Guardian readers. Bu instant classic, maybe not quite.

Rating: 7/10

REVIEW: The Change-Up

2011-09-21T12:46:00.000-07:00

Also, this film is obscenely gross.

This summer is going to be known by many comedy fans as the summer they officially had to start apologizing for Jason Bateman. Time was when Bateman was a figure of incredible credibility, figure-head of what might be the most critically adored comedy in television history in Arrested Development, which ended in such a premature, grief-stricken hysteria that it made villains out of the Fox Network for a decade and made every actor associated with the show an incredibly high-value comedic asset. Will Arnett became a frequent presence in terrible movies starring Will Ferrell, David Cross' career got a bump, Alia Shawkat got to be an indie movie star in such things as Whip It and Cedar Rapids, purely off the back of AD, Tony Hale was cast in every TV show known to man and Michael Cera, will he got to become public enemy No.1 Michael Cera.

Most of these actors crashed and burned, with Cera being the most high-profile and high speed rise and fall, but Jason Bateman seemed to slowly but surely ascend after the end of Arrested Development. Arnett and Cera came out quicker, but Bateman seemed to be going about it the smarter way, playing supporting roles and forging an identity in movies that wasn't solely dependent on his AD persona. Dramatic work in films like Juno or The Kingdom led to a higher profile and eventually to 2011, where Jason Bateman movie star is now a statement people can say. But at the same time, the work seems to be getting broader and broader. Horrible Bosses was perhaps a better example of this, but The Change-Up feels like the moment Bateman becomes a harder guy to praise quite so highly. Granted, he's the best thing about the Change-Up and certainly does his best to elevate the material. But fuck. This is absolute bottom of the barrel movie comedy, built of a dumb premise that seems to only get dumber as things go along.

It feels like the movie does the same thing these terrible studio comedies always do. They get all their indulgence and raunch done and over with in the movie's first half and then work incredibly hard to say how wrong that behavior was in the second half. It's a movie that has no identity and nothing to say, and surely nothing funny to say. Bateman is bending over backwards to make it work, and Reynolds is about as affable/douchey as he always is. Leslie Mann has a nothing role, and Alan Arkin turns up presunably to pay for his granddaughter's piano lesson. It's all the worst things about mainstream comedy films put into one.

It's not going to get the worst rating I've ever given, because if you way up the material against what he's had in the past, Bateman is actually pretty terrific, but the Change-Up is still something I wish I could unsee.

Rating: 4/10

REVIEW: 30 Minutes Or Less

2011-09-21T10:41:00.001-07:00

Making movies for slackers doesn't really mean you get to be one.

What happened with Ruben Flesicher's last movie, Zombieland, is essentially a scenario they should teach in advertising college. That movie had an aura of cool, of anti-establishment smart-assery long before it actually came out. It had people celebrating it on arrival, and scored more than one ecstatic review from respectable critical entities, and yet what was so remarkable about it was how utterly tame and ultimately toothless it was. What an incredible sell they made here. I don't hate the movie, largely thanks to Woody Harrelson, but it is about as unhip as it possible to be, and zombie movie spoof that seemed to know nothing about zombie movies or even respect them, from the fact that there's not one zombie kill of a speaking character (Seriously have you guys EVER even seen a zombie movie?) to the forced teen romance and ridiculously positive ending. In a way it was the ultimate hipster movie, something that presented a perfectly formed veneer of ironic smarts on the outside, but as it's core was obvious, dumb and empty.

I say this because 30 Minutes Or Less seemed to carry that same sense of superficial coolness and slacker pandering, but was equally as lazy and uninspired when it came to actually being funny. Again the casting is canny, Fleischer gets Eisenberg back, whose stock has considerably risen since Zombieland, as well as Aziz Ansari, whose status as a rising star comedian has only been amplified by starring one of the best sitcoms on TV right now in Parks And Recreation. He's got Danny McBride, who might just be starting his down-slide, but for now still cuts as a credible comedy star. But there's a couple of problems here. Eisenberg and Ansari don't make a particularly charismatic pairing, mostly due the latter, who might be this generation's Chris Rock in the way he's so fantastic as a stand-up but sort of a lackluster actor. His goofy, over the top performance is ill at ease with Eisenberg who just might be too good for this movie, and gives a performance that doesn't really get on board with the movie's ridiculous tone.

If it has a saving grace it's probably McBride, although he's just doing the same thing he's done many times before, but having said that McBride is a pretty good actor, and it makes me curious to see what he'd do if taken a little more out of his comfort zone. He and sidekick Nick Swardson are occasionally amusing, as is Michael Pena in a turn as an Hispanic hitman. But the whole thing feels overbearingly obvious, no joke catches you by surprise and comedy is at its best when it gives you what you're not expecting. Fleischer's style seems to be give you exactly what you expect at all times, and without a Woody Harrelson or a Bill Murray to make these weak punchlines land, well it just makes the thing incredibly forgettable. A movie that will never cross anyone's mind ever again, and frankly I want Fleischer to try a little bit harder with the material next time. Because you can get away with that shit once, but as the critical and box office response to this movie would suggest, two times is a lot harder to pull off.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Jane Eyre

2011-09-19T12:37:00.000-07:00

Hey didn't I just see this movie?

There's a theory I have about adaptations like Jane Eyre. Books of such stature and cultural presence that they have century-spanning legacies, simply can't make for a masterpiece. The story becomes to saturated, too loudly shouted. And Jane Eyre, with 22 cinematic variations already existence, simply can't outdo what's already been done. You can't possibly say anything new with the material, and even if you get everything right, even if you come out with something outstanding, it's just a landscape that's been painted by too many people, and any power it may have had to be powerful or bold has been removed by over-exposure. And in lieu of telling a story with a fresh perspective, we get a 23rd iteration of the same old thing, and at a certain point that's just franchising.

Jane Eyre as a marketing brand cuts more water than an original story about the same period or even an adaptation of a lesser known novel. It sells as instant credibility and quality coming at half the effort. Jane Eyre didn't even have to be a good movie to get good reviews, because to the viewers it's not about being challenged or being told a story. It's about finding something they know every moment of in advance and seeing it play out exactly as planned. Intellectual comfort food. But isn't then the goal to be familiar? And if it is, then how can a movie of Jane Eyre ever be great. It's nothing against this movie in particular, I found it to be strikingly shot and as always, terrifically acted. Mia Wasikowska in particular, showing the kind of subtlety and intelligence she did way back on the first year of In Treatment, and she is certainly one of the best young actresses around. Michael Fassbender would no doubt be everyone's immediate choice for a role like Mr Rochester, a dark mysterious figure, who just might be Charlotte Bronte's version of the bad boy with the heart of Gold.

I think Fassbender can be great, but I've yet to see him completely pull of being subtle, and seeing him acting opposite Wasikowska only brought this home to me. I don't think he's bad by any means, and he certainly has more than one moment of powerful charismatic intensity. But I wanted him to bring something more to it, something maybe a bit more cerebral. Judi Dench turns up in what might be the most obvious piece of casting of all time, and Jamie Bell turns in some great, sure to be overlooked work in what we shall call the 'Jacob' role, to suit the parlance of our times. Everything is perfectly fine, and the story is a classic, with some surprising and welcome darkness. It's just, I already knew that. And I was expected to already know that, and the movie can only be forgettable when deliberately choosing a story with such a level of saturation. Literary classics are not a reason to never try anything new and this damn modern age inferiority complex is getting boring.

Rating: 6/10

Breaking Bad: Shotgun - A Lot of Miles In Between

2011-09-15T16:05:00.000-07:00

Two for the road.

- There's been a lot of grumblings about the pace of season 4 thus far, about the lack of forward momentum and the lack of focus on Walt being a badass. I think this is sort of complaint is particularly telling to how a lot viewers watch the show, because I'm pretty sure if you put yourself into the psychology of Walt, he'd be saying something similar. He's frustrated that he's stuck in an endless, uneasy status quo with Gus, and everything he tries to get himself out of it doesn't seem to work. The old Heisenberg solution of spectacular nerve and balls doesn't cut it with Gus, he's simply too clever.

- And it's not like Walt hasn't tried. He showed up to Gus' house, gun in hand in episode 2. He drove like a mad man to Los Pollos Hermanos at the beginning of this week's 'Shotgun', fully prepared to go out guns blazing. Walt at this point is the embodiment of those fans who watch this show for and through him, he wants desperately to move on up to the next stage. He feels he has earned it, and is tired of waiting for it. So much so it has blinded him to everything else. His increasing sense of paranoia and impotence as he is stuck being Gus' worker bee makes him seek conflict with even more ferocity than usual. And I think the more than sizable section of fans who watch this show solely for Walt and Walt's journey, well they're likely to be annoyed about a season entirely about his inability to solve his problems.

- Having said that, 'Shotgun' is the kind of Breaking Bad that I have the least time for. The kind of episode that is entirely and obviously about moving the plot along, and plot to me should be a means to service character, and not the reverse, but I understand many viewers see things the opposing way. But it can often feel jarring, to see the wheels being turned more fervently and openly than before. Breaking Bad has done these kind of episodes in the past, Season 2's 'Breakage' or last year's 'Abiqiui', and I think my official policy is that I don't mind these hours from time to time, they often enable incredible stuff down the line and it's not like they're bad. This is still better than the average episode of almost any other TV show and it might just be a necessary evil for a show as densely plotted as Breaking Bad. Every now and again you'll need an hour to just lay your shit out and say this how it's going to be.

- After last week's cliffhanger, it is revealed that Mike is not in fact taking Jesse to bury him in some hole somewhere, but rather take him riding shotgun (See what I did there) on his collection of deaddrops. That is to say, collect the money accumulated by those dealing the blue magic, put in various deep dark holes in various ass-end of nowhere's. I liked this twist a lot, because I think it was about the right time to bring the self-destructive Jesse arc to an end, as dramatically rewarding as it was. And because taking his mind of his pain was essentially what Jesse wanted to do, and here Gus has found away to do that for him -by throwing him into work - in a less possibly catastrophic manor.

- Plus he and Mike made an amusing buddy cop duo, in part because Mike's exasperation is never not funny. His reactions to various Jesse ravings about being bored always were the stuff of Gold. I think Jesse's dialogue was a little too on point this episode. He asked for a gun one too many times that one began to think it was inevitable he would need one, so when the Gus orchestrated fake-attempted stash-jack happened, it was a little telegraphed. But as a solution to the Jesse problem it worked fine for me.

- Skin-head Aaron Paul is quite considerably more badass then before. Boy to man type shit.

- It's also a shame we didn't get to see that hypothetical keys vs. shovel smackdown between Jesse and Mike, for that would have been legendary.

- I kind of liked how the episode began with a sequence of great intensity, Walt racing to Los Pollos Hermanos thinking he was about to die, telling his family he loved them, to dilute that with comedy, Walt having to sit in a cubicle and get a call from Mike telling him not to be so hysterical. That dissolution of his bravado is the calling card of season 4.

- Also, the show has nicely been building to getting Walt and Skylar back together, and it appears that is about to happen. Interestingly, Walt's 'I'm about to die' phone message was the thing that got him and Skylar back into bed. I think not making Skylar Walt's adversary might be a good thing for the perception of the character, or at least reduce the irrational hatred for a while.

- One thing I always liked about the Walt-Skylar relationship is that no matter what position of strength or weakness Walt may be in otherwise, within that dynamic he is the recessive one, as Skylar deems when he should move back in, and the manner in which their life together should be lived. And that's just how it is. Granted season 4 Walt will fight back against that parameter with much more intent than season 1 Walt, but ultimately there is no Walt and Skylar if she isn't in control.

- The deeds to the car wash were signed, so finally that can happen. It perhaps wasn't the wisest idea to make the buying of a car wash an episode spanning arc. Its much more interesting once the laundering starts.

- Minimal Gus in this episode, although as always his presence is felt. Right now he's hanging back pulling the strings, I expect him to take a greater prominence later. A lot of Mike screen-time in this episode though, and as always Jonathan Banks is terrific in the role.

- The dinner scene at the end felt in character for Walt, certainly, but maybe a little too convenient? Gale seemed like such an easy out for Hank's pursuit of Heisenberg that it felt something maybe a little more artful than Walt getting drunk and telling him he wasn't to solve that problem. Regardless, Cranston played the scene fantastically and with the final scene putting Hank not only back on the trail but potentially back on the trail of Gus, you can feel the various pieces of the season come together.

- Walt Jr. Watch. He had more screentime than usual in this episode, appearing in up to three scenes!

- That though, is what episodes like 'Shotgun' exist for. To get everything and everyone in the right place so future episodes can reap the rewards. Season 4 is a very different kind of year to the previous, which played out in halves as opposed to a full thirteen episode arc. Here, Everything is building to one huge explosion, but that wont come for a while. Its a long game, this one. And I'm incredibly intrigued to see where it goes.

Rating: 7/10

Breaking Bad: Bullet Points - Make Sure To Really Hit The Cancer

2011-09-13T17:30:00.000-07:00

Don't forget the dipping sticks.

- I think the most exciting thing about Television as a form of story-telling is that it has an in-built allowance for you to go off the map. There's the bigger picture, the mandate of what usually do, and what the audience expects of you. None of these elements can be ignored or passed over, but the exciting part comes in finding ways to expand on what an episode of your show can be. Breaking Bad has gradually become a show more deeply immersed in its plot, these experimentations and permeations on what is usually done are more vital for the show now then ever, considering that we are fast approaching the endgame. And Bullet Points, while not as notably rebellious as say 'Fly' or 'Four Days Out', was a subtler spin on the status quo, but one that was every bit as interesting.

- Bullet Points seem to take on directly how an episode of Breaking Bad is structured. There's the teaser, and then the A plot, the B plot and the C plot and usually runners involving minor characters and they usual play out in tandem throughout the episode. This creates a sense of forward motion in a way that best suits this show, because the simultaneous escalation of events, however unrelated help to ratchet up the tension. This is nothing new. What Bullet Points did was plays things out in segments, and the 4 stories of the episode, Skylar and Walt convincing Hank and Marie over the gambling story, Walt discovering Hank is onto Gale, Walt trying to find a way to save Jesse from himself and Gus deciding what to do about Jesse's slide into nihilism, came one after another, making each feel like it's own contained story, as opposed to the accumulative narrative the show usually goes for.

- It's episodes like this that make you realize how incredibly important structure is to a show like this, and how different these moments feel when played at a slower pace. It's not like Bullet Points didn't do its share of heavy lifting in terms of the plot, but playing out without cutaways made each sequence feel more significant, and have a great sense of gravitas. The opening scene of Walt and Skylar discussing just how they were going to tell their story to their family was a fantastic piece of writing, that seemed to both seemed to let you know how awesome it was and yet felt entirely organic. Seemed to serve as a great acting setpiece for Anna Gunn, giving a performance so much better than everyone seems to think, and a great comedic setpiece for Cranston, who hasn't got to be this funny on Breaking Bad for a while.

- The moment where he looked sarcastically down at his feet at Skylar's instruction was particularly choice.

- The moment where Walter apologized to Skylar for all he'd put her through and then took it back under the pretense of rehearsal was COLD-BLOODED. But awesome.

- The Dinner sequence was a bit more sporadic. Dean Norris continues to do some incredible work, but a couple of things felt a little too on the nose here. The video of Gale singing Karaoke was probably much funnier in conception or possibly in a different cut, but Walt's somber reaction didn't allow me to laugh at it because, as ridiculous as it was, this was a good-hearted man who Walt had by proxy killed, and that made it get stuck in a sort of awkward place between funny and tragic.

- Similarly the scene in which Hank and Walt go over Gale's notebook, was a little hit and miss. The tension it tried to play out of the moment didn't really work, in spite of its cleverness and the moving way Hank mourned the fact that he never got to put the cuffs on Heisenberg. I liked the Walt Whitman resolution to the W.W Problem (Call-Backs are the best aren't they) its just when the music went up and we were supposed to feel that Walt was in the shit, well I never quite bough that. Great scene otherwise though.

- As is the tendency these days, things began to kick up a gear once the episode became about Jesse, who after being absent for the episodes first half, became its lead in the second. It's pointless to say because every time you do, the subsequent week just makes you redundant, but Aaron Paul did some of his best work in the series to date in this episode. Just the sense of brokenness, the way he showed that Jesse has reached a point where he no longer gives a crap about anything. Emmy all over.

- The scene in which Walt forced him to reenact his murder of Gale step by step, was both a perfect example of how little Walt gives a shit about Jesse's actual soul or feelings, and a moment of incredible intensity from Paul.

- Matched by the way he called Mike's bluff on murdering the hobo who jacked him was awesome, both because it was a moment where Jesse got to be smarter than Mike, and also because it showed how fearless he is at this point. As Mike drives him off to some unknown destination at the end of the episode, you believe that he doesn't care, and we probably comes to the end of the Jesse falls apart narrative.

It's been fun, and some seriously great stuff from Paul, the second episode of this year is amongst my favorites of the whole run and this year it's hard to say that the show's lead isn;t Aaron Paul .

- A small moment of Gus, who hasn't appeared since his tour-de-force in the premiere. His absence has been used well. This a paranoid ass season.

- I believe Walt Jr had two scenes in this one instead of the usual one. Hit the big time.

- Almost forgot to mention, but that was a mind-melting teaser. A terrific reverse-expectation action scene, ending with a moment of gore to shoot for the cheap seats. Mike's annoyance at getting part of his ear shot off is the funniest thing that's ever happened in this show genius.

- An intriguing experiment in episodic structure, and perhaps something that non-writer nerd might find distracting as opposed to rewarding, but this kind of stuff is right in my wheelhouse, an experiment that added to the development of the big picture as opposed to detract from it, with an increased focus on character and less on pace. Nifty

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: Friends With Benefits

2011-09-11T13:06:00.000-07:00

This is the kind of movie where everything around what its about is good, but what it's about is lame.

I think a lot of the problems with the modern Romantic comedy, and arguably modern sitcom, as that they always need a hook. A high-concept contrivance that you can phrase in one line or less, so advertisers have something to work with. But the problem is what is best for advertisers is rarely best for the movies concerned, and it basically means the first 40 minutes are almost entirely about fulfilling the premise to the point in which it can abandon it. Hollywood is more business oriented than it's ever been, and rather than just assume what's good will sell, a financial strategy that's served 90% of the people that have subscribed to it, we get this kind of thing. A movie about a human relationship that you can understand in three words or less.

Currently, hollywood has decided that movies about loveless sex being attractive, but ultimately impossible without falling in love. Hence Love and other drugs, No Strings Attached and now this, the much more literal Friends with Benefits. Sometimes if there's enough talent involved then it doesn't matter how hackneyed a premise may be. You can pretty much skate through anything, and while to be clear Friends With Benefits (A title so glib it makes me gag every time I have to type it) is no classic, it's tolerably OK and not the assault on the frontal lobe that it should have been. It is in many ways the cliched romantic comedy it repeatedly insists that its not, maybe with a bit more carnality and self-awareness then usual but you know, still the same old problems. But thanks to a slightly smarter and quicker script than is usually had for you average romantic comedy, and the general winning nature of both Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, it works better than it had any right to.

The supporting cast is surprisingly strong too, presumably a possibility because of the success of Will Gluck's previous film, the terrific Easy A. You've got Richard Jenkins as Timberlake's father, Patricia Clarkson as Kunis' mother, Woody Harrelson as a gay best friend and cameos from the likes of Emma Stone, Andy Samberg and Jenna Elfman. Again, it falls into the same old romantic comedy traps and about half way through forgets that it is supposed to be funny, and in this case the lighter things were the better things were, but generally the two leads bounced off each other well and the dialogue was much stronger than it usually is so, yay? this is the definition of a muted victory, but the fact that Will Gluck made this kind of movie and it didn't suck makes me thing there's a lot of potential with this guy. I just hope this is his only big studio movie.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: The Troll Hunter

2011-09-11T12:05:00.000-07:00

Prior seeing this movie, I had a conversation with my Dad in regard to its content. It went a little something like this.

ME: I'm going to see a film about a dude who hunts trolls.

DAD: That sounds retarded.

ME: It's Norwegian.

DAD: Oh, well it'll probably be great then.

I think this Quantifies almost every critical response to this movie. The Troll Hunter came out a week behind Apollo 18. Both use the found footage format and both push it to the most fantastical in terms of subject matter and style. Both are more Cloverfield than Blair Witch, which to me is where the the genre is at least effective. Once you incorporate show-boating, glutenous CGI into proceedings, the illusion of faux-realism is just emphatically broken for me. And watching Troll Hunter, this very much like an effects driven enterprise, the camera lingers maybe a little too long on what it wants to show off, just like it did in Cloverfield, and the whole concept feels way too goofy. If the goal here has to be make everything feel real, then you can't get away with this kind of super-broad corny genre writing. In which nobody has never heard of the super-giant, super visible monsters that wonder the landscape just because.

I wouldn't have cared about this in a straight up movie, but if you are going to jump on the found footage train then you can't ignore its rules, and pick and choose in regards to how closely you want to be realistic, it's simply not going to work all that well. The Troll Hunter should have just been a regular movie, because its strengths have nothing to do with the format, and its weaknesses have everything to do with the format. The characters and the performances are for the most part quite strong, particularly Otto Jespersen is the titular hunter. But something about the trolls and the way this movie is written just keeps everything too wacky and everyone is too unaffected by what is going on to ever really ratchet up tension.

I don't want to come of like too much of a hater here, this is a good time and a serviceable and surprisingly tame monster movie, but the found footage genre is specific, there are things you can do and things you can't to really capitalize on it's potential and to be honest I think this film is only made this way for budgetary reasons, and that dissatisfaction shows. and I think much of the praise it has gotten is because of that same knee-jerk intellectual reaction that makes people think something is automatically better because it's in another language. Because the movie I saw was way to naff and broad to ever be as intense or involving as it wants to be. Then again by rights it should be much worse, and I like I said it is pretty enjoyable genre fare, it's just so much worse for being in a genre it doesn't belong.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: A Lonely Place To Die

2011-09-11T10:07:00.000-07:00

Touching the void for dummies

As generic and entirely disposable as it is, A Lonely Place To Die is actually something of a novelty in that it's a pretty straight forward thriller that got a nationwide release. Thrillers tend to be the stuff of straight to Video On Demand, of premiering on Sky Movies. But maybe because this one had Melissa George's name on it, an actress who seemed to transition from being eye candy in big movies to being a deceptively talented B movie star with enough clout to at least get these things seen. From Waz down through to Triangle, she made a tough, impressive centre to varying genre shenanigans and that is no different in A Lonely Place To Die, a film that starts of being a thriller about mountaineering, and ends up being a hostage thriller.

It's a gargantuan mess, and the writers have a serious case of ADD, but thanks to a couple of good performances and a couple of creative sequences, the thing has enough about to be a solid piece of pulp entertainment. We follow a group of amateur mountain climbers who upon discovering a living girl buried in the ground, find that rescuing her brings down all hell on them, in the form of Psycho professional kidnapper Sean Harris. Now, if anyone was born to play a psycho in the movies it was 24 Hour Party People's Harris, with angular features and raspy voice to make you uncomfortable in any circumstance. But he's pretty awesome here, resisting the urge to go over the top and instead choosing to play his blank slate of a character with a quiet menace. Also excellent is Eamonn Walker, who arrives somewhat out of the blue for the final act. Walker did a stint on ER and stole Lord Of War out from under Nicolas Cage's feet, and again he brings a commanding presence to the film it sorely missed and almost makes you wish the entire thing had been about him.

George and her group of mountain climbers a bit blander, although I think more could have been done to make these character make a bit more of a mark, although George herself does the best with what she's given and mostly sells the Pseudo-Ripley vibe she has with the box-girl they find. Who herself isn't allowed to be anything more than a plot device. The film is pretty run of the mill, and it does feel like one of things you forget as soon as you leave the cinema, but thanks to the sheer lack of thrillers released lately perhaps its worth checking out, at least to remind yourself what those cliches looked like. But you know, could be worse.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Fright Night

2011-09-09T13:07:00.000-07:00

This is a compromise, the vampire is still good-looking BUT he kills people. Win Win

The 1980's Fright Night is probably the kind of movie Hollywood should remake more often . It's good but great. It has a cool premise that's probably better than the execution. Sure they'll be those who whine about how great the original was but come on, it's cheesy fun at the best of times. This remake is slicker and a whole lot less goofy, while still being pretty goofy, and has a couple of impressively executed action sequences. It's disposable entertainment I can get behind, far from perfect but always enjoyable. Art it ain't, but Marti Noxon's script has enough about it to not feel too much like the next Happy Meal on the conveyor belt.

For those unfamiliar with the original, the plot like many, many films before it is someone moves in next door who is up to no good, and it's up to our hero to stop him. In this case our hero is played by Anton Yelchin, who has been bouncing around breaking out for a while, and he is pretty much your stock teen hero. Colin Farrell plays the Vampire next door, and is the main reason to recommend this movie. Farrell always seems to do better in none leading roles, and he has an absolute blast here exuding effortless menace and cool all the while being asked mostly to walk around rooms menacingly. Farrell might be one of my favorite actors when he's on his game and he carries the thing here. David Tennant is a bit less successful as the vampire hunter recruited by Yelchin to help destroy Farrell. I don't have much objection to Tennant's performance, he was actually a lot less hammy than I was expecting, but his character is pretty awkwardly crafted into the film, here solely because he was a character in the original film and doesn't really seem to serve a purpose. Imogen Poots is ' The Hot Girlfriend' and Toni Collette is wasted entirely as 'Mum'.

There is enough here to make you leave happy, sure plots come and go nowhere and the characters are archetypal (The kindest way to phrase it) But mostly thanks to Farrell I had a good time. And the Horror is predictably accentuated with the 3D, with blood and all sorts thrown towards the camera. I still think its a con, but at least it was a con that left an apologetic note here, instead of the usual slap in the face. High quality junk food cinema. A Cadbury's dream not a milky bar, Kettle chips instead of walkers. More of this food analogous shit will hence forth take place in your mind.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Kill List

2011-09-09T10:28:00.000-07:00

If you go down to the sewers today.

The British film industry is like a third world country in thrall of Global consumerism in more ways then one. It feels like we have all the natural resources, Over the years we've had directors like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Ridley Scott, Michael Powell and Christopher Nolan, and more incredible actors then you could even begin to name. Yet all that raw talent seems to exist to be shipped off, while nations with less resources and less raw materials continue to outperform us. And we're left with the crumbs. It's why films like The Kill List are so important in a way, regardless of how good they are. We barely get anything and when we do, they are often so underwhelming and formulaic. So I want to preface the review with how happy I am that this film got the release that it did, and it's success is something that can only be good for everybody in the long term.

Having said that, this isn't going to be an entirely positive review. Director Ben Wheatley clearly has talent. Particularly behind the camera, as The Kill List is a terrifically tense, unrelenting experience. He clearly too has a great amenity for the build, and viewed solely by the emotional journey it takes you on, The Kill List plays like a brutal, stark descent into madness pretty convincingly. The two lead performances from Neil Maskell and Michael Smiley are terrific, particularly the former, who is asked to do a lot of changing very quickly. No, the moment the credits began to roll I was pretty happy, thinking I'd seen the Best British movie since Fish Tank. But then I began to think about it, and I realized that upon closer inspection, the writing for this movie was kind of awful/non-existent.

It seemed like there were a number of things they wanted to shoot, they wanted hitmen, they wanted the wicker man, they wanted a David Lynch/Donnie Darko tone where everything felt just to the right of real. But what they didn't want was to do the work to figure out how to make it all cohere and work organically, instead of just changing the gears whenever it felt like it, damn the consequences. The movie is built around what they wanted to shoot, as opposed to what best served the story and the characters. I'm not even the guy who gets offended when movies don't make sense, and I do think there can be a great movie that doesn't have a lick of logic to it. But the problem was The Kill List wasn't quite good enough at papering over the cracks, and it meant that I kept being jarred out of what was otherwise a terrific experience.

For example, I think every movie is entitled to one 'Because it does/is' answer to a plot point question, and in a way the better the movie around it is, the more of these it can get away with and The Kill List is probably a good enough movie to excuse 5, even ten of these. But there are just dozens. And at a certain point that becomes lazy, using mystery and ambiguity as a crutch and not thinking anything through. But I think the average viewer won;t have this complaint, I always look for great writing in movies and some people don't. Some people just want to be taken on a ride, and in that sense The Kill List is absolutely fantastic, a cripplingly tense experience from start to end, and one hell of a calling card for Wheatley who can go on to make stronger and better movies of the back of this.

I think the best way to look at this is to compare it to Following. Not to say that this guy is as good as Nolan, or that he isn't. But this feels very much like a director trying a number of different things to figure out what he's good at. Following was a rough around the edges film that sowed the roots of a director finding and developing a fantastically striking voice. The Kill List could function in a very similar way. Here's what I can do, now give me the money to do something better. I for one am very excited to see what he does next. Maybe hire another writer though, hey.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: The Art Of Getting By

2011-09-09T08:55:00.000-07:00

If life is meaningless, then why am I listening to you? I could be doing blow of a prostitue or something

The Art Of Getting By is a relic of a lost time. A time right around the early to mid 2000's, when seemingly all teen movies would be about a sensitive, above it all skinny white boy who is smarter than Galileo, but through the evils of the high school caste system would find his intellectual potency ignored. Usually the movie and the character would abandon all these ideas at the merest hint of boobs, which made the films doubly intolerable because they not only make you sit through poser high-school fatalism, they also totally undercut it by unwillingly pointing out it's illegitimacy. It always plays like such a weak piece of egotist fantasy to me, that even the best movies of the era suffer from it. I think that Anna Kendrick starring Rocket Science, for example, is a terrific movie. But its handicapped by this ideology.

But eventually bullshit was called. The self-doubting, self-pitying Emo began to be a character that was gradually phased out and the high-school movie retreated back into the woodwork, waiting for the next type of social outcast take ownership and revive it. But like last year's Its kind of a funny story, not everyone gets the memo that this kind of film has seen the sun set on its reign. Watching The Art Of Getting By was an incredibly nostalgic experience, these were the teen films of my teens, for better or worse, but its a very muted kind of nostalgia. Its not a terrible movie, none of its ancestors were particularly terrible either, but its irritating until it admits that the thing it tries to sell you on is a crock of shit. I did appreciate that love interest of our central emo Freddie Highmore, was more or less just a normal girl, relatively free of quirk and artificial pep. Emma Roberts, so terrible in Scream 4 earlier this year, actually impressed me here.

The supporting cast is a little suppressed but I liked Michael Angarano, who over a number of performances in the last couple years is proving himself to be a real talent, and I reckon is one great role away from taking off. Similarly, its also great to see Blair Underwood get any kind of role, and it amused me to see Clueless' Alicia Silverstone in a role as a dowdy English teacher. But the main problem is Highmore, the film in many ways seems to revolve around the magnetism of his character and Highmore just seems to like anything resembling a screen presence. I remember back when he was a child actor in Finding Neverland and everyone went batshit for his performance, but I didn't get it then and I don't get it now. Maybe he's just playing the wrong kind of roles but he was just way too flat here.

Ultimately, this film may speak to a few teenagers who can empathize with not wanting to try very hard at school and not getting the incredibly hot girl they want, but to everyone else its just going to look like whining posing as story. Which it is. Again, it's not a terrible film and it can be occasionally charming but it just doesn't have enough about it to justify it's point of view.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Apollo 18

2011-09-06T10:15:00.001-07:00

The Dark Of The Moon. Because Transformers used...OK I'll go.

For all it's sins and opportunism, the found footage horror movie did one thing for the genre that it has to be eternally grateful for. It brought back the build. Thanks to their innate realism, the tone and scale of horror had to be scaled back, and these movies became about waiting for one ultimate, terrifying event as opposed to an over the top carnival of bloated grossness that most horror movies have become. They allowed tension to become part of the game again, and showed a modern audience brought up on Final Destination movies how excruciating being scared can truly be. And that's awesome. So while I actually think that many of them are kind of shitty (Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity are the only ones that deserve to be talked about in a serious way) I liked the feel of the model, if only because it meant horror became about scaring people again.

But one gets the sense that because it's such a specific model, about all that can be done with it has been done, and maybe now it needs to go away for a while. The tricks are becoming increasingly visible, hackneyed, dated and lame. Any illusion of realism is fast disappearing and that gripping 'this could happen to me' feeling got lost a long time ago. I thought Cloverfield was a piece of shit because its ridiculousness betrayed the format, it didn't work because CGI is CGI and it took you out of it. Apollo 18 suffers a similar fate. The ultimate enemy is so ridiculous that any sense of tension the film tried to build evaporates. And while the critical world at large took their frustration with the genre out on this film, calling it the most heinous assault on humanity since the last one, and I don't think that's entirely fair. In fact as far as premises go, I think this is the smartest and most interesting the genre has come up with outside of Blair Witch an Paranormal. The isolation and helplessness of the astronaut on the moon is sort of bread and butter for a horror movie.

I even liked the way the first 45 minutes or so were put together, and the performances of Warren Christie and Lloyd Owen were actually quite good. Creating a real sense of jeopardy and like I say, the no way out aspect is perfectly set up because we're on the fucking moon, and there is no way out. But then the bad guys have to show up, and well, maybe they should ave gone to a couple more focus groups or something because somebody needed to tell them that that? That was a godawful, movie destroying idea. Until they showed up I was well prepared to give the thing 6/10, and arguably the horror stuff done after we meet our bad guys is still executed pretty well. It's just... It's something too stupid to forgive.

So like everyone else, I have to give Apollo 18 an unfavorable review, even though I think its a great idea, and although the techniques are getting increasingly creaky, I was still involved. But this shit pushed the self-destruct button and then some. To be honest I don't think the found footage movie will ever stop. They're too profitable, and too cheap to make. But as a serious way to push the horror genre forward? Yeah I think we're done here. It was fun while it lasted.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: The Skin I Live In

2011-09-05T15:31:00.000-07:00

Eli Roth meets Freud meets Eyes Without A Face

I don't want to start out this review by saying something as stupid as Almodovar is under-rated, because I doubt too many people can compete with the sheer volume of critical praise he has gotten over the years, but I think there's perhaps a vocal group amongst film fans that Almodovar has never really had much luck with. People like me. Young males in between the ages say of 16-25. Not all, but I think many of us don't really get it. Many of my film-loving friends who have time for Tarkovsky, Eisenstein and Gaspar Noe, simply don't for Almodovar. Probably because he makes melodramas. I had a lot of trouble with his work when I was younger, a perennial favorite of the other members of my all female household, I watched many of his films without really seeing the appeal. This is just a Spanish Eastenders with pimped out production design, I would say.

But as I got older I began to see and get why his films work so well. He's continually obsessed with two things, the dark side of sex and, for the most part, the value of family. Common themes, but he seems to go further with them, approach them from darker and smarter perspectives. He makes melodramas, but he makes compelling stories about people, in a particularly singular voice. Families seem to be where the strongest bonds in his fucked up worlds exist, and Volver, which after a pointless thriller plot it disposes of inside of half an hour, is my favorite of his films because it's the most complicated, yet perhaps its the lightest and most hopeful. The performances in his films are always exceptional, and The Skin I Live In does not break this rule. It's also perhaps the most accessible of his films to date, in many ways a straight up Psychological Horror movie that infuses the gender crisis schtick of 60 and 70's horror with our very own torture porn ethos, and comes up with something that while not entirely new (He's clearly seen Eyes Without A Face) is as bold as he's been in quite a while.

I only wish he knew how to structure a damn movie though. He always has pretty great ideas, and in most cases writes compelling characters, but he insists on structuring every single one of his films, no matter what its about, like a bad 90's thriller. With predictable non-linear Flashbacks and scenes of exposition, it seems like something he is truly incapable of mastering. I think The Skin I Live In was actually a lesser offender in this regard then say, Broken Embraces, thanks to a twist that sort of justifies it, but there's way too much awkward and ill-fitting scenes in which you can just feel Almodovar pulling the strings too obviously. Similarly, I think Antonio Banderas' plot-driving psycho was all over the shop, with about ten different motivations, none of which was all that convincing or thoroughly explored. The inconsistency of it is sort of washed over by how good Banderas is, giving certainly one of the best performances of his career. But the movie ultimately won me over when it became Elena Anaya's story as opposed to Banderas'.

I've seen Anaya before, but like so many non-English speaking actors, she is a different actress when she is relieved of the burden of speaking in a foreign dialect and this was some Oscar worthy shit she does here. It's a very difficult role, but she carries it with an extra-ordinary amount of dignity and charisma. Come awards time I expect it will be Banderas who gets all the attention but I think the film finds its feet and its focus thanks to Anaya. The film is also admirable in the way it actually explores the psychological consequences of torture, as opposed to that merely being the point. It's why the best horror movies are always made by non-horror directors, because they are interested in the why so much more. It's not simply about sending people on a ride, it's about forcing them to think about why they are afraid. And when this happens the movie becomes so much more valuable.

Like I say I don't think The Skin I Live In is flawless. Structurally its a mess, particularly in the first half, and I think the Banderas character is written badly and too broadly to be truly compelling beyond a mere boogeyman. But Almodovar exploring that dark sexual psychology he always does finds a perfect home in this film, and it's always fascinating to see a man of has talents try and do something a little different.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: One Day

2011-09-05T12:27:00.000-07:00

Jim Sturgess' face here implies something much more awesome than you get

Before 2004, movies were a wasteland for the poor fans of the Romantic Drama. The 90's with it's slacker revolutionaries and its cultural rejection of baroque emotion, had pretty much laughed the genre out of the cinemas. They deemed the Romantic comedy the more tolerable and acceptable home for this stuff, if it had to have a home, because at least that way maybe someone would hit Hugh Grant in the face amongst the sentimentality. But then a little movie called The Notebook came, starring some green indie star and Lindsay Lohan's second fiddle in Mean Girls and these fans decided they had enough. They no longer cared that everyone called them ridiculous, they no longer cared what critics or society said about this kind of film or the people that watched it. They drew their line in the sand and resurrected a genre.

And for about 5 or 6 years, that genre mostly fueled by the works of Nicholas Sparks but not exclusively did very well for itself, tales of unlikely but always exceptionally good-looking love ending in artificial tragedy, spanning over time to give gravitas. This Weepie 2.0 seemed to thrive on crude sentimentally and never was met with much enthusiasm from those outside the faith. Even the genre's Godfather, The Notebook itself, was met more with tolerance than excitement, which its current rating of 52% on Rotten Tomatoes will testify to. But in spite of this, I don't begrudge the film it's success in part because if there's an audience for this kind of thing, then they should get this kind of thing. But just as it's ridiculous when boys try and argue that Commando or Enter The Dragon are some kind of classic, it is when people try and say these new generation of weepies is anything but derivative, lowest common denominator junk food.

Which brings me to One Day, which actually I didn't hate quite as much I expected, largely because it kept the swooning to a minimum and played things out relatively realistically. Or at least realistically for this kind of thing. For the most part I enjoyed the acting, Jim Sturgess is never going to be the charismatic actor in the world, but he does a job and plays the cad well enough here. As for Anne Hathaway, much has been made of her accent in this, and while I'm not from yorkshire, it didn't offend me, and I found it to be more convincing than Patricia Clarkson. Hathaway is a rarity in that she manages to relatable in almost any role, and seems to give off a natural breeziness that perhaps limits her as actress but also makes her excellent in the right kind of role. She and Sturgess work well together, and for the most part the film focuses on their respective lives outside of their love story, which I also liked.

It's not incredible or anything, but rather it functions. And it functions on a slightly more credible level than films of its type in the past have. It's still trite, particularly in its final third, which falls into the same old saccharine cliches of the weepie, but as a moderately realistic look at time-spanning love? Well I suppose you could do worse. It is telling to note though the failure of this film to catch on, particularly at the US Box office. Does it signal the end of the brief revival of the romantic drama. It's probably the beginning of the end.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Conan The Barbarian

2011-09-05T11:38:00.000-07:00

Ron Perlman is in this movie guys. No really.

To be clear, the original Conan is not a good movie. It's a bad movie. That's all be clear about that, and not let our idealism and joyous thoughts of our childhood convince us of anything of the sort. But what it did have, for better or worse, was sort of a camp earnestness. Like an attempt by a 13 ear old boy to write the best movie ever made, it made it somewhat endearing in comparison to other cheap entertainments, and of course it had the beginnings of the Schwarzenegger tidal wave going for it. This new Conan, next in the line of memorably camp/awful 80's movies being repackaged for a new generation, pieces of shit presented with out the one thing that redeemed them, their good intentions.

It seems pointless to say that Conan is the latest example to the degree that hollywood has been suffocated by Consumerism, because everyone knows this. Still, the main problem is how many pointless movies its producing, how many things are being made solely for profit and not some more amenable solution that includes both profit and creative intention. From a purely business stand-point every single one of these 80's remakes bar Transformers has failed to meet expectation, from Tron to Conan to Fright Night and from a purely business stand-point it would seem well advised to stop this shit now, but the status quo seems to be its better to have a predictable failure than an unpredictable success, Avatar and Inception be damned. The remake of Commando can't be far behind.

So to business, and you won't be surprised after that preamble that I am not a fan of this movie. It seems almost bored of itself, going through the broad, tired cheap fantasy movie motions with all the enthusiasm and energy of a shitty remake of a shitty movie. It's humorless, joyless, self-important and doesn't even have the decency to have a couple of ridiculous performances you can enjoy in spite of everything. At least the original Conan had James Earl Jones. On paper, Stephen Lang seemed like an acceptable substitute. He is after all the one redeeming human element in Avatar, a performance so terrific it prevented that film from imploding into its own triteness, but it's a different guy here and he plays a rote villain way too sincerely. His sidekick Rose McGowan has a bit more fun and is conversely the most enjoyable thing about Conan. She's not great, but she goes for something in a way that suggests she at least gave a shit. As for Conan himself, Game Of Thrones' Jason Momoa, well it seems that removed from his veil of Dothraki he's basically the worst actor in the world. Keanu Reeves without the strangely magnetic cool.

The film is just so incredibly in the way it goes about everything, from its plot, to its dialogue to its universe, so devoid of life and excitement its uncanny. Its a direct result of this kind of board-room film-making, no-one is actually invested in making it good. The fact that sometimes movies don't need to be good in order to make money means that too many people believe can't be good to make money, and we get cowardly, pointless stuff like Conan The Barbarian.

Rating: 3/10

Backlog Review Extravaganza

2011-08-29T11:30:00.000-07:00

Due to various other commitments and procrastinations, I've fell a bit behind all up on this blog so in an effort to bring things back up to date I'm going to bullet point out the reviews I didn't get around to writing, and fast-track my way through this shit. Here goes.

Zookeeper

Nutshell: Kevin James is fat and two hot women want him for reasons beyond my understanding

Good Thing: Rosario Dawson is always pretty to look at?

Bad Thing: Kevin James' personality. I'm not against movies about unattractive people scoring hotties, but nothing about James' personality in this film was attractive. A self-doubting, self-absorbed loser who is roughly around the same size as the gorilla he shares screen-time with. Oh yeah talking animals too.

If It Were A Person It Would Be: A useless fat fuck.

Rating: Seriously, what a piece of shit 3/10

Super 8

Nutshell: Kids making a monster movie in a small town, whilst a honest-to-gods proper monster arrives in town courtesy of the most spectacularly over-elaborate train crash of all time.

Good Thing: Clearly a heartfelt project for Abrams, there's a certain nostalgic sweetness to goings on and all the kid performances are very good, particularly Elle Fanning.

Bad Thing: It's kind of stupid, and at times that Spielberg-lite feeling becomes too self-conscious. The science-fiction element is hackneyed I think, with some cheap military villains and awkward exposition.

If It Were A Person: A nerd in high school who gets C grades.

Rating: Well-meaning if a little insubstantial blockbuster. Still better than 90% of other blockbusters. Better than Thor. 6/10

The Devil's Double

Nutshell: Iraqi soldier who looks like Uday Hussein becomes like, his body-double. Hilarious shenanigans ensue.

Good Thing: A gleeful, idiotic sense of insanity taking what should have been a serious story and making a spiritual remake of Scarface. Hell of a calling card for Dominic Cooper, whose turn as Uday Hussein has to be high in the running for comedic performance of the year.

Bad Thing: the extreme OTT of it all incapacitates it's attempts to be actually dramatic, and many serious moments fall flat on account of it. Anyone in the cast who isn't Dominic Cooper, particularly Ludivigne Sagnier.

If It were a person: A Bipolar thrill-seeker on cocaine. Makes about as much sense as you'd expect that guy too.

Rating: Shit is ridiculous, but Cooper is awesome enough to mostly carry it. 5/10

The Smurfs

Nutshell: This is a backdoor film about how hard it is to work in advertising and start a family, with some Smurfs there to get suckers in seats.

Good Thing: Hank Azaria entertains as Gargamel, I always like Neil Patrick Harris. Just about better than Zookeeper

Bad Thing: Why the fuck isn't the smurfs film about the smurfs? They are supporting characters in their own story, and smurf village makes a mere cameo, because Smurfs in New York! Yay! Also it's pretty crappy.

If It were a person: An adult who covers himself in blue paint and calls himself a smurf. Or Tobias Funke.

Rating: Cynical, money making movie making. Where product placement is king and I as an adult creep parents out because I'm seeing the smurfs by myself. Rating: 3/10

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes

Nutshell: A heart-breaking story of the world's most awkward title and one ape's attempts to become a sentient being while the man tries to keep him down.

Good Thing: So many wonderfully unexpected things. Andy Serkis' heartbreaking mo-cap performance as Caeser the ape, and a moving, character story told in a summer full of soullessness.

Bad Thing: Alright so every human character bar John Lithgow was a complete dud. Tom Felton embarrasses himself, and James Franco is boring. Maybe a bit preachy.

If It Were A Person: A CGI created Ape capable of more emotion than Freida Pinto.

Rating: Isn't it great when a movie you expect to be a complete dogpile turns out to be awesome? Rating: 7/10

Beautiful Lies

Nutshell: French farce about misunderstandings that end up hilariously awkward.

Good Thing: Audrey Tautou continues to do Zooey Deschanel better than Zooey Deschanel, is likable. So are other actors.

Bad Thing: Very predictable, very dated film. Should have been made in the 1970's and maybe even not then. France's love for the farce is something that is lost in translation.

If It Were A Person: A 70 year old man who can't quite figure out why his jokes aren't funny any more.

Rating: Sort of lazy, a script that screams written in a weekend, and all together too much familiarity. 5/10

Cowboys And Aliens

Nutshell: Well duh.

Good Thing: An over-qualified cast help to make the movie feel slightly less like an unremarkable piece of hackwork.

Bad Thing: Sort of pointless, sort of bland and lacking a sense of fun that may have been welcome for such an inherently stupid idea. Way too boring for the kind of movie it is.

If it were a person: Cpl. Hicks in Aliens. On paper pretty badass but in practice pretty boring and useless.

Rating: 5/10. And scene. This movie is something I'll never remember, think about or recall ever again.

The Inbetweeners Movie

Nutshell: Four horny teenagers go to a greek island and well, that'll about do it.

Good Thing: I only occasionally felt violated by this movie, which given what might have been I'm calling a win. A couple of laughs here and there.

Bad Thing: OK, as a British American Pie, teenage sexual shenanigans type movie it's fine I suppose, but is thing really expecting to get like, good reviews and shit. Lowest common denominator stuff, however you look at it.

If it were a person: Dude with an Oxford diploma in English Literature who tells fart jokes and makes puns until the sky turns red.

Rating: Very generic for this kind of thing, I don't mind people going and enjoying it, but don't pretend its a good movie. Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Captain America: The First Avenger

2011-08-09T07:36:00.000-07:00

Superman with lesser powers, am I right comic book nerds?

This summer up to this point has really soured me on Superhero movies. A genre that before was aging fast but still producing the odd good film here and there, has since May been infused with so much corporate, cynical mediocrity I don't know how a non die-hard can legitimately be excited about anything but the final Batman to be honest. Particularly marvel movies, which feel like such factory line pieces of 200 million dollar hackwork/shallow fan service that I'm so exhausted of, that I was actually delighted to see Green Lantern and see it was a piece of shit, because at least that's something distinctive. But I didn't hate Captain America. Because even though it was again just another piece of frustrating averageness, there was enough color around the edges and enough enjoyable performances that I found something to like, in spite of myself.

I think a lot of it was the WW2 setting, with the film wearing it's Indiana Jones influences on its sleeve and filling its cast with several capable performers with actual parts to play as opposed to just being there because it lends an undue weight to the material. It manages to give the likes of Stanley Tucci, Tommy Lee Jones and Toby Jones something to do, instead of just having A caliber actors playing D caliber roles as has been the usual Marvel way. But I'd like to talk about Chris Evans first, because he's an actor that's gone from seeming like a pretty disposable teen star to bona fide leading man, and I think Captain America for all it's ills will be the thing that solidifies this. Because from his terrific, underrated performance in Sunshine on down, Evans has shown there's a lot more to him than simply the guy to call when Ryan Reynolds is unavailable. He anchored what could have been a very silly role, particularly in the second half, and makes it pretty much believable but more importantly relatable. Evans nails the humble, selfless idealism of his character well enough to make the thing stick, and to be frank I thought there was no way I was going to be sold on a character called Captain America so, that's a victory. Credit too to Hayley Atwell, who does well in a surprisingly rounded love interest role.

As far as the villain goes, I liked Hugo Weaving's opening scene a lot and it looked like it was going to be a fun performance, but unfortunately he had to turn into a prosthetic-smothered monster which hampered both his performance and the effectiveness tenfold. Comic book movies, make sure you pick villains that have the capacity to be expressive, because putting Hugo Weaving under tons of make-up ruins the value of having Hugo Weaving. Similarly, it's kind of stupid, plot holes are everywhere, the traditional Avengers hype machine hijacks the final act, even as consequence of that contrivance leads to the ending playing pleasingly downbeat. People who've seen A Matter Of Life And Death will have quite the deja Vu feeling. But I enjoyed myself, and feel confident in saying this is probably the best Marvel movie of the year and roughly about as good as X-Men: First Class, in what has been a desperate year for comic book movies.

Rating: 6/10

Breaking Bad: Open House - Making It Rain

2011-08-07T18:00:00.000-07:00

- Last Week I mentioned how watching Breaking Bad week to week can be quite a different experience to the DVD marathon. Quite a few of my friends and apparently most of the world caught up on the show in the intervening year between seasons three and four, and I imagined there would be some growing pains adjusting to the pace and there'll be a subset of fans whom for the show needs to be intensely building to something at all times, those who care more about its plotting than its characters. Any episode that doesn't feature the gangster element heavily is going to be seen as frustrating, let alone one that has no Gus and no Mike but features Marie and Skylar prominently.

- Which is a shame, because the genius of the show is the level of intricacy it puts into its characters, as opposed to it's acumen as a thriller. And if anything the part which is thrilling only works on such an ascendant level because of the investment we have in all of the characters. So the ' I don't care about Marie' sentiments seen across comments sections everywhere following this episode grate me some. I know everyone already hates Skylar even though she's a fascinating character embodied by an incredible performance, but by my count Marie has never got close to this amount screen-time in any episode before this in spite of being a regular character, so if anything it's a faux-pas on the part of the show to just get to exploring her now. I don't get at what point complaining about spending time with great characters simply because they're women and not men becomes sexist, but I'm pretty sure it's getting close.

- Having said that, I do think this is the weakest episode of the season, despite liking almost everything in it. It lacked a throughline perhaps, and everything felt a little disconnected. Maybe because this was the first time Walt didn't lead any kind of narrative, and was the most sparingly used we've ever seen him be. They story-line he was involved in was lead by Skylar and because Breaking Bad is so fundamentally his story, and supporting characters even in their infinite complexity often act as a barometer of Walt's decision making, whose lives act as collateral damage to Walt's ambitions. All of them are worse off for the decision Walt made in the pilot, even if many of them are unaware of who he's become.

- The Marie story saw her visit open houses and each time making up an elaborate story for herself, always revolving around being at an exciting new turn in her life. Be it her 'husband' quitting his job at Nasa to spend more time with the family, or her getting into a clay modelling business and looking for a viable studio, it all revolved around Marie being pro-active, taking control of her life and turning a corner. Making a choice to be happy. Options which her marriage to Hank, which is now hitting a place of stalled existential despair, don't allow her. There she is a prisoner of her situation, nurse-maid and metaphorical punching bag of a man she loves and admires. A situation that has no end in sight.

-So her various fantasies of being somewhere new and exciting in her life, all terrifically played by Betsy Brandt, struck a very poignant note. It also saw the return of the kleptomaniac story from season 1, and while back then it felt arduous and unnecessary, here it made perfect sense. A desperate act of lashing out impotently. A it does no good but at least it does something kind of deal. Marie was essentially an erratic and self-absorbed person in the early going, but Hank's breakdown forced her into being altruistic and self-sacrificing, a person she's not necessarily built to be. Good stuff, and a long time coming.

- Dean Norris may be doing his best work as paraplegic Hank, and that's no mean feat given how excellent he was last year. He's just so angry, so bitter. And that scene where he discovered Marie had been arrested for spoon-stealing was incredible. I think he'll get better as it goes along though, particularly since his cop buddy gave him Gale Boetticher's Super-lab notebook. So it begins.

- In a way the episode's B story was lead by Skylar, who finally apprehends the car wash from the stubborn Bogdan, an does so in fantastically underhanded fashion. A think a lot of people's problems with Skylar stems from that she's a flawed yet forceful personality, and male viewers don't want a woman challenging their anti-hero. He's supposed to be rediscovering his masculinity and being awesome, not getting his balls busted by some bitch. Why is she telling Walt what to do? Why doesn't she just shut up and be clueless like Rita from Dexter. Now that was a great female character. SHE knew her place. OK, Rita bashing is always a cheap shot, but I genuinely believe this can be the only way these guys see it. Because the show's approach to Skylar has been one of the best things about it as its grown. Time was when she was just another clueless spouse, but she found out, discovered her darkness and now matches Walt almost in her scheming.

- Note the awesome scene where she tricks Bogdan into thinking his property is worthless via Saul Goodman stooge. Awesome.

- I love how Skylar is already starting to take control of the running of Walter White's Criminal Empire Inc, being the one who makes the decisions and decides which ways to go. Because Walt, for all his badassery and Heisenbergisms, is still the recessive one in this relationship, because that's how it always was. In a way Walt only found his balls once he pursued his extra-curricular activities and when he was separate from Skylar. Because when they get together she has a power over him that even he can't help. See for instance the scene where Skylar gets him on board with her car wash scheme, by expertly manipulating his ego, insinuating Bogdan doubted his manhood. It seems this is one dynamic that can never change.

- I think the seeds of the great White marriage reconciliation began here too, and one only had to look at the final scene between the two, as they shared champagne celebrating their new property. The slightly flirtatious vibe, the way that for first time possibly in the entire show, Skylar seemed genuinely impressed by Walt, his power and his status. This was an inevitablity, how is Skylar in the show if they split for good, but I like how they're not rushing it.

- Where the fuck is Walter Jr? His total season 4 screen-time currently runs at 1 line and 25 seconds.

- Aaron Paul's Jesse continues to be a hurricane through this season, such a presence of raw emotional pain that it hurts so much to see him on screen. This episode was Jesse-lite, but Jesse's go-karting/returning home to find his house a crack den montage was the episode's highlight for me. Jesse's primal go-karting scream hurts to the bone. And something tells me this is definitively going to be the year of Aaron Paul.

- Also the line that saw Jesse comfort Walt about getting beat up was I think meant to be funny, but ended up incredibly moving. At least to me. Jesse bin beaten up a lot, yo.

- As I said, no Mike, No Gus, No Walter Jr. I like Gus being here in everything but sight what with the security camera in the lab and his new henchman following Walt everywhere, but I think I'd like him to be in next week's episode.

- Overall, a nice little character episode that did a lot for the show's minor characters, and in particular for Marie, and giving her a little extra dimension was well overdue. Perhaps the episode lacked a little focus, but I liked so much of what it was doing I didn't mind. I think the plot best get started next week though or people be losing their shit.

Rating: 7/10

REVIEW: Hobo With A Shotgun

2011-08-02T17:09:00.000-07:00

Black Dynamite is the exception that proves the rule

Just...This kind of.....This abomination of....You know what fuck it. I give up, and concede to my generation's hydra-like ridiculousness. You think you abolish one negative trait like say the love of John Mayer, and up from the bloody stump sprout two more like planking or militant ironic detachment. And Hobo With Shotgun, well it's the ultimate logical consequence of that militancy. If you're the kind of person who refuses to be impressed by anything on an upfront level and can take no joy in how good something is; then all that's left is to take joy in how bad something is. And if you infuse that thinking into creativity and even film-making then this is what happens. The lovingly made, meticulously awful homage to god knows what, the movie that reminds its makers of those precious times they got high and watched Robocop 2 or Return Of The Living Dead. Hobo With A Shotgun is a travesty more for what it represents than what is, but there's plenty of vitriol to be found on that front too.

But as with most things in life, this is all Robert Rodriguez's fault. I don't want to join the Grindhouse bashing, because that's been done by everyone under the sun, and also because while I think both those films are terrible and for all the trailers and reel burns and what not they were honestly trying to make something good and failed. I'm fine with that kind of failure. I think it was with Machete that Rodriguez crossed the line into reprehensible. His sort of parody, sort of spoof sort of political commentary was just such a colossal fuck you to good film-making, to his own talent and to the audience. His career spiral of late is almost depressing. Plus, an intentionally bad movie is truly for no-one. For people who enjoy the shit movies, a deliberate disaster is never as fascinating or hilarious as the accidental one. It never can feel quite as organic, as ingenious as a legitimately catastrophic movie. And for the people who want to see something good, well why are they going to watch something that takes such pleasure in being bad? Who? They are comedies with no laughs, action movies with no production value and horrors without scares. Machete opened to bad reviews and poor box office, just like Grindhouse did, just like Snakes On A Plane did. This kind of film-making has been categorically rejected by the world, and it's core base of hipster douches... Well they're not going to come out and say they like something are they? Against the tide? Not a chance.

And yet, people keep thinking the ironic bad movie is still a good idea. Because Irony. The revolution is coming y'all, it's so clever etc. No. It's the dumb person's approach to cleverness, and Hobo With A Shotgun, supposedly a pastiche of the bargain basement 80's action movie, is just more of the same. Intentionally cheesy angles, intentionally bad acting, intentionally ridiculous dialogue and intentionally ridiculous violence. Sigh. I'm reminded of the guy who tells bad jokes on purpose, you know the guy everyone wants to rip limb from limb and then make a pun about it, to see if he still thinks its funny, who always defends his egregious actions by saying 'It's meant to be unfunny. That's why its funny.' I should be allowed to kill this guy. Much as I should be able to kill the people behind this movie for so thoroughly wasting everyone's time. If you want to make an 80's style lo-fi action movie then make it, but don't cover your bases by saying it's all some big joke. That's just being a pussy. And it's pointless.

Eagle eyed readers will notice that I haven't even attempted to discuss or review this movie here. Because it's literally exactly what it says on the tin. And if you think that sounds funny or amazing then great. But the problem with these things is that someone telling a bad joke on purpose not only isn't funny, but boring. And as with Machete before it, Hobo just becomes tedious. Once you adjust to the joke then it just morphs into the thing its supposedly mocking and that's no good for anyone. It's got to be the last in this ridiculous craze, and yet another blemish on the good name of Rutger Hauer. Which isn't really a good name anymore anyway. Seeing him here is perhaps the most profoundly depressing thing about Hobo. This guy was Roy Batty man. Ergh.

Rating: 2/10

REVIEW: Horrible Bosses

2011-07-31T19:02:00.000-07:00

Also Jamie Foxx is a lot of fun in this movie.

I love how the main legacy of Hitchcock's terrific Strangers On A Train is everyone thinking that it makes for comedy gold. Because I know for damn sure when I saw this incredibly tense, messed up psychological thriller, the first thought through my mind this shit is hilarious. They should remake this with Danny DeVito. Because from 'Throw Momma From The Train' onward, you kill my problem and I'll kill yours has been a fairly consistent comedic mainstay, the latest of which is Horrible Bosses. Now this feels like one of those moments when studios put one and one together and it made 100 million, because this felt like a slam-dunk to the core. We're in a recession. Everybody's working jobs they hate to get by. Everyone hates their boss. Nobody's remade the HILARIOUS Strangers On A train in a while. They kill each other's bosses! Stunt-Cast the shit out of it and we've got ourselves a new private island.

And while Horrible Bosses is as watered down and as toothless as it's possible for an R rated US comedy to be, most of the cast is inspired enough that I had a good time in spite of the movie trying at all turns to be fucking stupid. And it was stupid and obvious and irritating and all those things Studio comedies always are. But it has a caliber of actor good enough to make what is probably a terrible script feel something like OK. The Bosses in particular are all terribly written caricatures turned into something like funny thanks to Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston and Colin Farrell. Spacey, well to be frank he's on autopilot here, chanelling that sarcastic psycho schtick that literally nobody in the history of time has done better and infusing it with the tiniest bit of ' I'm getting paid in 100's right?' disinterest. Spacey clearly deems this to be a walk in the park, whereas Aniston and Farrell seem vested in using this as an opportunity to play with their image. And both are fantastic, Aniston in particular tapping into something that is gleefully different from her usual dead-eyed roles.

I'd say my biggest problems with the film are the straight men leads, or at least 66% of them. Jason Bateman seems to be getting less interesting the more his career takes off, and now that he's a bona fide movie star, pretty much, he's become an incredibly watered down version of Michael Bluth persona that it's becoming increasingly difficult to explain why I think this guy is amazing. And on top of that, I don't get Jason Sudeikis. He's the kind of broad SNL comedian that gets a bunch of movie roles in a flash and then disappears of the face of the earth. I see no reason why he isn't the next Will Forte. Thanks heavens then for Charlie Day, who not only holds his own against the bosses, but is outright the best thing about the movie. As anyone who's stuck with the incredibly erratic It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia will know, Day always had a unique and oddball comedic energy that always stood out, certainly more so than the show itself. And it's gratifying to see him finally get his due and be the big movie star he certainly should be. He's awesome. And he, Aniston and Farrell elevate would could have been a horribly toothless fiasco become something that I enjoyed, even if I wouldn't say it's exactly a great movie.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows - Part 2

2011-07-31T16:35:00.001-07:00

But the ending was embarrassing.

Much like every other review of Deathly Hallows Part 2, the final installment in a movie franchise that has been ever-present through a generation if it didn't define it, two thirds of this bitch is going to be about the series as a whole. A series which I would submit is the most critically apologized for in history, a series which has seen a decade of critics fumble around for reasons why it doesn't suck, a series of eight films where not one has a rating of less than 78% on Rotten Tomatoes, making it statistically the best reviewed franchise in history. Because nobody wants to be a killjoy? Because nobody wants to look like the muggle in the room? I think the likeliest explanation is because it's such a critic proof phenomenon, all the haters give up around film three and submitted because hey, these films aren't AWFUL right. For me, it's a series of films which are simply OK, with a couple of good ones and a couple of bad ones.

But to say any of them are masterpieces, or five star films or better than Lord Of The Rings is to be quite frankly ridiculous. Fans have basically interpreted nobody hating these films as everyone loving them, and this has led to some delusional things being bandied about like best film of the year or Oscar nomination talk. Guys just no. You got an entertaining, well-formed and occasionally impressive conclusion to a series you loved. It was certainly the best film of the franchise. But let's collectively curb our enthusiasm shall we? Because I think a lot of people who previously didn't give a shit will find their sense of unpleasant truth telling suddenly renewed, and comments will be left, outrage had, friendships destroyed and villages burned. So, it's good but not great, yeah?

But like I said, this is the best Harry Potter movie. It feels the least like a piece of fan service, as my biggest complaint about previous films is that rarely do they feel satisfying as their own movie, often feeling ill-formed or patched together, such is the need to get all the fans favorite moments in the films that the films themselves tend to be an incoherent mess. There's no film that didn't contain a scene or set-piece I didn't enjoy, but the story always felt rushed. This one felt like a movie, it felt like what happened should happen, and it made sense in the context of the movie as opposed to the books. It was a straight forward war movie, a straight forward good guy vs bad guy story that was basically Star Wars. No more going through the motions school-day tedium, and it payed off nicely.

Now for the elephant in the room, which is the performances of the three leads. The conventional narrative is that they grew up on camera, going from OK to great. I buy this sort of, although for me the metamorphosis goes from incompetent to OK. In fact there was one scene at the end of the film where I was actually quite impressed by the acting of Daniel Radcliffe. I was like wow, that was actually good. And then I thought, this is the first time I've been impressed by Radcliffe in 20 Plus hours of movies. And this is the first time I've been interested in Potter as a character in that same time, and it made it all the more frustrating that for the most these movies had three fully functioning black holes at its centre, destroying everything that could have been great with a sheer lack. Radcliffe is probably going to be a good actor from here on out, but its funny how the role of his life had to be the one where he figured out how to get there. As for Watson and Grint? Sorry, I've got nothing.

There was one sequence, as there always is, which particularly impressed me. That revolved around Alan Rickman's Snape. Rickman who to me has always been the best performance in the thing by a mile, has too often been relegated to caricature or flat out wasted in lieu of kids screen-time. But he gets his due here in a surprisingly affecting sequence that to me, is the best thing the movie's have ever done. My Voldemort problems have never gone away, to the end he's a simply drawn big bad, who may as well just be called the final boss, because that's how the movie treats him. In spite of the fun Ralph Fiennes is having, and that can be sort of infectious, it's a nothing character and that's incredibly disappointing. Everyone else kind of comes and goes, with only Matthew Lewis' Neville getting anything of substance to do.

Ultimately, it's a great summer movie that was suitably visually impressive and enjoyable. But it comes at the end of a series that always felt like a work in progress and not in a good way. And somehow what worked so well about deathly Hallows part 2 is a little less impressive knowing how long it took to get there. But I guess I don't want to look like the only muggle in the room, so this comes recommended.

Rating: 7/10 (Totally the first Harry Potter Movie to get anywhere near this rating)

REVIEW: Holy Rollers

2011-07-31T15:50:00.000-07:00

Jews as gangsters.

Holy Rollers belongs to a specific genre of film that I hate, but most people seem to love. That is of course the thriller based on a true story. To me these films are always both decidedly unthrilling and painfully self-serious. Of course it's not a finite rule, I liked Maria Full Of Grace quite a bit, but Holy Rollers, in its tale of hacidic Jews becoming drug mules, is like so many films before it utterly generic. It has no interest in being detailed and no interest in telling a character story. It just wants to be a coming of age gangster film and ride the pathos of the true story all the way to credibility. It's one of the laziest and most commonly seen film-making con tricks, but as far as I'm concerned simply being based on a true story doesn't give you a Hail Mary on poor storytelling, and employing cliche after cliche after cliche.

One of the greatest fallacies of movie-going is that subject matter has something to do with quality, when of course it has nothing to do with it. You can have a masterpiece about a man who dresses as a bat to punch people and a complete Bomb about 9/11. Yet people will continue to think this kind of film 'worthier' even though in many ways it's quite derisive and trashy. There's tons of potential with Jesse Eisenberg's Sam, from his faltering relationship with his family and his faith, to his development of a darker identity, but the film is way too seduced by the run of the mill crime story at hand, as opposed to the much more interesting personal one. So instead of seeing why Sam would do something so out of character, he kind of just does. A necessary obstacle to get past so we can get to the making out with hot chicks and doing drugs and engaging in bland scenes of criminal enterprise. And it just becomes plain boring. Spending way too much time with bland moll and crime boss Ari Graynor and Danny A. Abesecker for one. I think they we meant to be much more interesting than they were.

I do think Eisenberg gives a good performance, and I was more impressed by Justin Bartha as probably the most interesting character and one can;t help feel he should have been the protagonist of this story. Eisenberg's Sam is just a sheep, someone who just passively went along with his situation because he's told to, whereas Bartha made the choice to break from his traditions and beliefs off his own back, and was entirely more dynamic. I don't think it would have mattered all that much though, because the story here is slender, so dramatically underfed that only a miracle could have made this film something other than bland.

Rating: 5/10

Breaking Bad: Thirty-Eight Snub - Left 4 Dead

2011-07-25T17:39:00.000-07:00

Zombies are dead. It don't matter what they're job was when they were alive.

- I often think that you can identify the greatest television by how fascinating watching nothing happen is. If a show can develop its world and its characters enough that watching them be is as fascinating as watching them do, then I'd say you're onto something special. Now I have no doubt there will be Breaking Bad fans who wish every episode could be 'One Minute', who wish every episode could be 'Full Measure'. Those who wish the show would be about Heisenberg as opposed to Walter White. I'd imagine they won't like this episode very much. And don't get me wrong, those are my two favorite episodes, but they work as well as they do because of the sheer delicacy and intelligence the show puts into the build, because of the incredible level of understanding it has of it's characters.

- I don't mean to diminish viewers who like the show best as a thriller, but I am saying that if that is the only version of the show you have time for then the week to week Breaking Bad experience may be a little frustrating. For example plot-wise, there's pretty much scraps here. Walt decides to take out Gus but hits a dead end, Skylar tries to purchase the car wash but hits a dead end and Walt tries to sway Mike to his side. Thirty-Eight Snub was in many ways the calm after the storm episode, dealing with everyone reacting as oppose to acting, but it's still one that did a tremendous amount of character work and it's the kind of slower, quieter episode this show can do so well.

- I think the strongest aspect of the episode was the Jesse plot-line, which essentially saw him throw an epic day-spanning rager in his house, anything to avoid quiet, to avoid having to deal with what he's done. This both allows the show to get extremely creative visually, which it does at all quarters here with at least three visual set-pieces looking and feeling exemplary, but also Aaron Paul to do so much yet again whilst saying very little. I don't quite know how it happened, but Paul has gone from exaggerated comic relief to giving one of the best performances on television, and Jesse has gone from tertiary annoyance to profoundly tragic protagonist, the worst inflicted victim of Walt's path of destruction and I'd argue the truest centre of the show.

- Jesse's someone who's grown into a man before our eyes, yet this development has been surrounded by despair, by loss and by corruption. He's been disowned by his family, had his girlfriend die in bed next to him, been forced to fight back his almost innate decency all the way up to killing a man, all the while being deeply alone. Walt has his family. Jesse has no-one., because Walt's taken it all away from him. And the tragedy is Jesse is trying to become a bad guy at every turn, he desperately wants to feel nothing and be the monster his world requires him to be, he is just incapable. Which is why I loved his stuff in this episode. The party, which was just basically Jesse doing anything and everything not to deal with killing Gale (and seeing Victor's throat slit in front of him can't have helped) but at the end, everyone has to go home, even Badger and Skinny Pete, leaving Jesse with the person he least wants to be with, himself.

- How haunting was that final shot with Jesse in front of the super-woofer. Seeing him crack-up for the first time believe since all the shit went down, it was just agonizing. Give all the Emmy's to Aaron Paul for that scene alone. Honestly, when is this kid going to catch a break.

- Ok so the Rhoomba-cam shot was pretty inspired, as we got a POV of the little cleaning machine as it cruised through the aftermath of Jesse rave 2011. Not to mention the terrific way the raging scenes were shot, and of course that last pull away from Jesse. Some pretty pimp camera work and editing on display here.

- I do enjoy that Skinny Pete and Badger have become the number one source of hope and light on this entire show. The darkness is so thorough at this point that the mere sight of Jesse's ridiculous friends makes me do an internal jump for joy and have an involuntary big grin on my face. For Skinny Pete and Badger. Love these guys. True to form, their drug-fuelled debate about what in fact the best zombie game is ( Resident Evil 4, Left 4 Dead and call of duty: WOW zombie mode all in the mix) was a neat little comic gem. And Matt Jones and Charles Baker's giddy performances add great colour to the series.

- Also the show saw fit to bring back Jesse's sort of girlfriend Andrea for what I assume is a final bow. I do think she is a character that has been used a little too pragmatically, there simply to be related to the boy who shot Combo and to cause Jesse's anger at the end of season three, to be a catalyst rather than a human being. This is perhaps why she's being ushered off the show, as Jesse gives her money to start a new life with her son. Like I say, it's a pawn of a character, but Emily Rios was solid enough and I'm glad the character was given closure as opposed to simply forgetting about her. Aaron Paul was again awesome in that scene.

- As far as the Walt side of things go, this episode yet again reinforced the notion that Walt is much more adept at improvising than he is at meticulously planning, and his schemes to both kill Gus (by basically shooting him with an illegally bought handgun) and to get Mike to waver toward his side both ended in firm dead-ends. With Mike giving him a beating on the mere suggestion, and Gus actively distancing himself from Walt. Or as Mike says 'You'll never see him again Walter'.

- I love the way that Mike's relationship with Walt has developed this season, going from the sense that despite being a professional, Mike has a soft spot for Walt, even being constantly impressed by his scheming. But post-Gale, Mike is looking at a different man, a much more calculated, ruthless one than he thought he was dealing with. And that is showing in Jonathan Banks' performance, which is so much more distant, more cut-off. Great work.

- Perhaps the aimlessness of Walt's quest was a little too telegraphed, but it felt like a necessary acknowledgement the show had to make, so I'm fine with it.

- Who else let out a cheer when Mike punched Walt in the face? Walt has certainly become the least likable character on the show, by design of course as the slogan goes they're turning Mr Chips into Scarface, so full of Ego, of entitlement and of arrogance. Yet Cranston's so great that I' watching him with no less investment or interest.

- A terrific teaser, seeing Walt purchase his gun of an aged, good ole' boy type arms dealer. Deadwood's Jim Beaver only had one scene in the episode but he made for a terrific double act with Cranston, and made the teaser feel like a story unto itself. No show opens every week stronger than Breaking Bad, it has mastered the cold-open to the point where it's not even funny.

- The Hank and Marie arc continues to simmer, as Hank takes out all his frustrations and anger on his wife, treating her with a focused disdain. Hank is a proud man, and one who perhaps defines himself in more traditional masculine terms, so seeing him deal with being disabled is its own little horror, but it's bringing the best out of Betsy Brandt, who's stiff upper lip in dealing with his cruelty is quite heartbreaking. I'd say that Brandt has been underused in the past, but this season seems to be rectifying that, as she both has more screen-time and seemingly her own arc, for the first time in the season's run. Dean Norris, needless to say, is absolutely nailing the sheer resentment Hank has for his situation. This guy is probably never going to get recognition for this performance, there are too many other showier roles on Breaking Bad, but it truly is incredible and up there with anyone else on the show.

- If I did have a complaint thus far, it's that Walter Jr. Has pretty much been an extra so far. I think he's had at best three lines in two episodes. No Gus or Saul here either.

- Is it just me or was the Car Wash guy a really good actor, Anna Gunn was great but that was an unexpectedly good piece of acting by a guy hired for his eyebrows.

- But all a terrific, contemplative episode at least up to the standard of last week's premiere if not a little better. Keep it coming.

Rating: 8/10

Breaking Bad: Box-Cutter - Mess With The Best, Die like The Rest

2011-07-18T15:39:00.000-07:00

Man in a Barrel.

The Breaking Bad story is perhaps the most romantic in television history. Obviously when I say this I'm not referring to the show's content, which is about as far from warm and fuzzy as it's possible to be without circling back round again. A brutal, uncompromising tragedy about how the choice one man makes erodes his soul and the souls of the people he most cares about. It's about watching a good man slowly and methodically become a monster, from hero to villain in a way series television hasn't quite seen before. No, when I say romantic, I mean the story of how it went from a low rated, mixed reviewed show on the brink of cancellation to creative juggernaut, sure to be in any conversation regarding the pinnacle of what the medium can do.

How it went from a rejected FX pilot, passed over for what my calculations tell me can only be Dirt - the paparazzi show starring Courteney Cox. To a low-rated, abbreviated and frankly mixed reviewed first year that stared cancellation in the face until an unexpected and incredibly unlikely Emmy win for Bryan Cranston (Also known as the most important Emmy win ever) bought it enough clout to be given a second year, where it really had to do or die. It did, ironing out problems and just getting insanely better every week. The critics responded and the viewers responded, and the rest as they say, is history. Breaking Bad earned every bit of praise it gets and every viewer it gets, because it has an unyielding desire to improve, a mandate to take risks and to never sit comfortably. It's the rarest of example of a show becoming incredible out of a sheer Darwinian need to survive, and to go from there to being the best show on television, well like I say, it's the most romantic story in television.

- But anyways, to business. Box-Cutter was perhaps in a better position to carry on momentum than last year's No Mas, because the soul-crushing cliffhanger at the end of season three informed most of what would and could happen in this episode. So in advance we knew the whole episode was ostensibly going to be about Gus' reaction to Jesse and Walt killing Gale, and on top of that we knew Gus wasn't going to kill either of them, both because he needs a chemist and because these two just won Emmy's and are the stars of the show. Is it suddenly going to be about Skinny Pete?

- No. So what they had to do was draw pathos and tension out of a story everyone knew the resolution of, even the characters to certain respect. And to that the episode had to make it seem neither obvious or rote. Plus there's the specter of the masterful third year finale hovering over, daring it to flub the landing to one of the best episodes in television history. Looked at in this way, Box-Cutter had quite an unenviable job, it had to be about giving us answers we already knew, yet the expectation level for it be amazing was going to be stratospheric. But it's this show we're talking about, so naturally it met both obligations nicely.

-Can I just take a minute to say how glad I am that Jesse killed Gale? Not in a sadist sense, well maybe a bit, but more in that moment was so dramatically perfect that copping out of it would have been some 'Lila Kills Doakes' type shit. I guess it was silly of me to assume these writers would do anything that lame.

- What I particularly liked was how much the episode was about waiting. Too many season openers deal with cliffhanger's as if they were something to be ticked off, a necessary evil to dispense with in the first 5 minutes before they can get to the story they want to tell for the year, but rather than make the ' Gus reacts to being beaten' scene a stumbling block, or even a cheap in your face moment, they make it the set-piece of the episode, one they make you wait for and anticipate, with Jesse and Walt sitting silently in the super-lab, waiting their fate. Some great reaction acting here from everyone involved, saying everything whilst saying nothing.

- If anything, Gus' lieutenant Victor was the protagonist of the episode's first half-hour, in both his anger reacting to Gale's death and his eagerness to show that he can cook the Meth recipe so Gus can kill Walt and Jesse. On paper, a minor character being a glorified extra for over a year and than suddenly getting lines and emotions is a telegraph that they're not long for this world. And sure enough that's how it played out, but I found myself not minding because of the execution. Victor's been around sporadically since season 2, and thus far has only been asked to play a one-note of emotionless, cold enforcer. But I think actor Jeremiah Bitsui stepped up here and adeptly handled the meatier material to the point where his death meant perhaps more than it would have at the start of the hour.

- It's often said that you can measure the strength of a TV show by the way it treats it's minor characters, as pawns to service the story or credible characters in their own right. And the fact that Gilligan can't even kill Victor, quite possibly the show's most inconsequential recurring character, and someone who's racked up an episode count of eight without many viewers noticing he was even there, without making it so it felt as if we were losing a human being. RIP Victor.

- And if you're gonna go, what a way to go. The Gus kills Victor set-piece is one of the most tense, bleak edge of your seat sequences the show has done. And believe me it has done many of them. From the minute Gus enters the lab, his familiar calm, unflappable demeanor just about containing the volcanic rage underneath. Every step he takes stings, and Gilligan knows he's got us here, so he makes everything last that little bit longer, we watch Gus' entire methodical process for slitting someone's throat. He gets changed into a hazmat suit, he washes his hands, he takes off his glasses. He doesn't respond to Walt's desperate/pathetic rantings. Everything without a word.

-Then the moment itself is still somehow surprising and horrific. Watching Gus, a man we've never seen commit an act of violence up to this point, approach the act in the same rational way he approaches everything else, not to mention the very clear message of murder by surrogacy he gives to Walt. That, make no mistake, he wishes he could be doing this to him ,was just awesome. Giancarlo Esposito is just about my favorite performance on the show at this point, in spite of how incredible everyone else, but this was a masterclass to be frank. Everything done with expression, yet everything being underplayed. Emmy's better pay attention.

- Kudos too to Aaron Paul, who by my estimation didn't get a line till around the forty minute mark, and did so much to show how killing Gale has affected him. More darkness seems to be on its way for poor Jesse Pinkman. The scene in the dinner, was almost as chilling. Seeing Jesse become this hardened man, almost unaffected by seeing a man garroted in front of him. It's like he's hit his limit for all the suffering he can take He was just so broken, so for the lack of a better word, dead. This character is going to be awesome this season.

- I liked seeing Gale building the meth super-lab in the cold open but, to be honest that scene felt a little on the nose. Even if I liked that in terms of principles, Gale was a better chemist than Walt. Because for him the chemistry truly came first.

- If I did have a problem with the episode, it was with the Skylar stuff. Now to be clear, I both love Skylar the character and Anna Gunn's terrific performance, but her search for Walt just felt like it was there to give her something to do in the first episode, and while Gunn played it well, particularly the scene where she Broke into Walt's apartment, it felt a little arbitrary. I did like how the show weaved the rest of the cast into little vignettes throughout the episode. Saul's scenes in particular will bring people joy, in which he hires himself a bodyguard that is just exactly the kind of bodyguard Saul would hire, and scans his office for bugs.

- The Hank and Marie stuff was fucking brutal, to say the least. I get the feeling given Hank's level of popularity, it's going to leave quite a few people miffed to watch Hank be so utterly incapacited that he can't even shit by himself, in a harrowing scene in which Marie has to attend to this need, but for me it's going to give Dean Norris and in particularly Betsy Brandt's Marie, the show's most underused character up this point, something to different and new to do with their characters.

- Overall the episode felt a lot like the season 2 episode 'Grilled' in which Tuco held Walt and Jesse hostage in an enclosed space and we weren't sure what he was going to do with them. It was a similar deal here, only the approach to it shows how much this show has grown. While that episode was purely about tension with nothing really going on underneath, and its villain a lunatic who could do anything at any moment, here there was so much subtext, so much that every character, Walt, Jesse, Mike, Victor and Gus were communicating without verbalizing. It's just such a rich show these days.

- I wouldn't say it's quite up there with the best of the show, but it's a fantastic opener, containing one of the best sequences the show has ever done. And I'm ridiculously excited to see where it goes from here.

Rating: 8/10

2011 Emmy Nomination Reaction

2011-07-14T09:44:00.000-07:00

And so it was that Community became the Buffy The Vampire Slayer of it's generation. A show too daring and unique for the awards bodies of the time, yet sure to be treasured long after everyone who thinks Modern Family is the best show on TV has died, although to be fair that's probably only about 10 years. The total blanking of Community for the second year in a row is an abomination, whether you think its the best show or not its certainly in the top six, but that apart this was actually a set of nominations that I liked more than disliked. Parks and Recreation's series nomination, Louie C.K's acting nomination and the embrace of Justified were all good things, and on average I'm more happy than sad. Let's do this.

BEST DRAMA:

Mad Men

Dexter

Friday Night Lights

The Good Wife

Boardwalk Empire

Game Of Thrones

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 6/6 - I'm awesome

5 out of 6 of these shows are deserving, so you have to be happy about that. I'm not quite sure what Dexter has to do not to get nominated here, considering just how limp this past season was, but with Emmy finally acknowledging Friday Night Lights and the deserving presence of Game Of Thrones here, you can only bitch so much. Mad Men is still a lock to win this though I would have thought.

Snubs:

Justified - Because come on. The second best dramatic show on television last year isn't nominated , despite the embrace of its actors, which makes the lazy, ill-informed Dexter nomination extra irritating.

Terriers, Rubicon - Not here because they got cancelled, but both would have been worthy nominees

BEST ACTOR IN A DRAMA:

Michael C. Hall, Dexter

Jon Hamm, Mad Men

Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights

Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

Hugh Laurie, House

Timothy Olyphant, Justified

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very Good

OLYPHANT. Fuck yeah. Many people didn't think would happen including me, but its nice for an awards body to pleasantly surprise you every once in a while isn't it? Incidentally, with the absence of three time winner Bryan Cranston, one would think it's finally going to be Jon Hamm's year, especially when he's got The Suitcase and all. It has to be right? Otherwise nominations are sort of as you were, and while Buscemi is a first timer, this is not in the least surprising.

Snubs:

Sean Bean, Game Of Thrones - It wasn't my favorite performance on the show, but towards the end there Bean pulled out some very impressive stuff. You could make the argument.

BEST ACTRESS IN A DRAMA:

Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife

Kathy Bates, Harry's Law

Mariska Hargitay, SVU

Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights

Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

Mireille Enos, The Killing

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 4/6 - I'm pretty good

I'd like to think this would be Moss' year what with The Suitcase and all, but through and through this is going to be Margulies. Women in drama tend to dominate procedurals as opposed to the serialized cable dramas, which exclusively focus on Men. Hence Hargitay and Bates and even Margulies. But considering how weak this category has been in the past, at least there's good performances here.

Snubs:

Katey Sagal, Sons of Anarchy - A weaker year for Sons, but that doesn't diminish Sagal's performance which is still better than at least three of the nominated actresses as far as I'm concerned. But it looks like its never to be.

January Jones, Mad Men - Personally I think this is a good thing, because in no way was Jones a lead performance and quite frankly the character was a bit of a mess this year, so. Well done Emmy for lazily nominating her anyway

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A DRAMA:

John Slattery, Mad Men

Josh Charles, The Good Wife

Andre Braugher, Men Of A Certain age

Walton Goggins, Justified

Alan Cumming, The Good Wife

Peter Dinklage, Game Of Thrones

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 3/6 - I'm OK I guess.

Despite Dinklage and the series nomination, I would imagine there's quite a few who are annoyed at Dinklage being the only actor nomination. But while I liked other actors on the show, I think Dinklage is really the only one who deserves to be here. He may even win the thing, which would be awesome. Personally I'm delighted about Goggins being here, as I thought he was going to be the great Justified performance that got ignored. But he was fucking awesome this year, and he's my choice for the winner. The love for The Good Wife should get Mad Men fans a bit worried, because the only reason Charles is here is because they really like that show.

Snubs:

Aiden Gillen/Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Game Of Thrones - Littlefinger and Jaime Lannister respectively, again both these performances are stronger than Charles' but, I think the show's turn may come in a couple of years.

Michael Pitt/Michael Shannon, Boardwalk Empire - But frankly, this is a much greater slice of bullshit because both Pitt and Shannon were exceptional on a show the awards body clearly liked and frankly I'd nominate these guys before I nominated the show itself. Kind of a major snub.

Arliss Howard, Rubicon - This was never happening, but he's so unbelievably awesome on this show that I'd be amiss not to mention it.

Chris Noth, The Good Wife - Pretty much everyone on this show got nominated except this guy. Probably still taking some Sex And The City 2 backlash.

Denis O' Hare, True Blood - terrible show, but this was an awesome performance.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS DRAMA:

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife

Christina Baranski, The Good Wife

Margo Martindale, Justified

Kelly MacDonald, Boardwalk Empire

Michelle Forbes, The Killing

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very good.

Well the Forbes nomination annoys me, because that was such a one note character, Panjabi and Baranski are both awesome, MacDonald does good work and Hendricks is always a deceptively subtle presence. But come on, how can this go to anyone but Martindale. She was a force of nature on Justified this year and this simply has to happen. Has to.

Snubs:

Emilia Clarke, Game Of Thrones - I'm less enamored with this performance than the rest of the internet but I think it certainly deserved a nomination.

Kiernan Shipka - Mad Men - Don Draper's daughter gave one of the best performances on the show last year, adults be damned and this simply would have been awesome.

BEST COMEDY SERIES:

The Big Bang Theory

The Office

Parks And Recreation

Modern Family

Glee

30 Rock

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very good.

First of all the Parks and Recreation nomination is not only unexpected, but one of the best things Emmy has ever done, and could potentially save this show. But elsewhere? Meh is probably the best way to put it. I would nominate Modern Family, but Glee's presence here is embarrassing considering the critical backlash against it this year, The Office and 30 Rock are both once great shows here just because they're established. And then there's The Big Bang Theory. So that happened.

Snubs:

Community - Obviously

Louie - But I guess you can't be too down about this because at least Louie C.K got a nomination himself, and this was inconceivable.

Cougar Town - But this is because no-one can stomach filling in awards ballot with the name Cougar Town right? I mean people are gonna see that shit. Tis a shame.

United States Of Tara- I guess you could say this was too dramatic to belong here, but that's never stopped them before and this was awesome.

BEST ACTOR IN A COMEDY:

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Steve Carell, The Office

Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Johnny Galecki, The Bang Theory (WTF)

Louis C.K, Louie

Matt Le Blanc, Episodes

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 4/6 - I'm pretty good

First things first. Double nomination for The Big Bang Theory, and while I'd defend Parsons here in that he does give a legitimately great performance in the face of bad material, but Galecki plays the most inconsistent and badly written character on the show. They never have any idea what to do with him, and this is comfortably the dumbest nomination of the year. Elsewhere Louis C.K= best thing ever and I'm actually OK with LeBlanc even if I didn't like his show all that much. He was great on it. But what with it being Carell's last year on The Office and all, his win is a lock.

Snubs: Joel McHale, Community - Obviously.

BEST ACTRESS IN A COMEDY:

Melissa McCarthy, Mike And Molly

Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Martha Plimpton, Raising Hope

Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Laura Linney, The Big C

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very good.

This is the category where Emmy usually succumbs to star-fucking, often giving nominations to the most famous instead of the best. But you know, there's literally like 20 eligible candidates here and you do the best with what you've got. Linney probably will win, I hope anyone but Linney or Falco wins. The Plimpton nomination is great.

Snubs:

Toni Collette, The United States Of Tara - This can only be because her show got cancelled, given that she has both won and been nominated consecutively. But this is the best performance by a shot, maybe accepting Poehler, so its utterly ridiculous she isn't nominated. Just ridiculous.

SUPPORTING ACTOR IN A COMEDY:

Chris Colfer, Glee

Jon Cryer, Two And A Half Men

Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Ed O' Neill, Modern Family

Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family

Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 4/6 - I'm pretty good

Lamest category ever, bar none. In their rush to nominate every cast member off of modern Family they've not only ignored all the great performances from Community, Parks and Rec and a thousand other shows, they've even thrown mainstay nominee Neil Patrick Harris to the wolves. So incredibly lazy, boring and childish and Emmy is going to make people turn on Modern Family. They still found room for Jon Cryer though. That Charlie Sheen pity will go a long way.

Snubs:

Entire cast of community - Obviously

Nick Offerman - Parks And Recreation - This is atrocious. What is surely the funniest performance on TV has yet to be nominated. Just utterly ridiculous. There are no words.

Neil Patrick Harris, Jason Segel - How I Met Your Mother - You can make your case for both, but the Harris non-nomination is pretty shocking.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS IN A COMEDY:

Jane Lynch, Glee

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family

Julie Bowen, Modern Family

Jane Krakowski, 30 Rock

Kristin Wiig, Saturday Night Live

Betty White, Hot In Cleveland

PREDICTION CONVERSION RATE: 5/6 - I'm very good

OK, Wiig is here because of Bridesmaids, White is here because Old people are ridiculous and sometimes that's funny Krakowski is here because voters are lazy, Julie Bowen, who gives a bad, grating performance on Modern Family as far as I'm concerned just happens to be on a show they've gone nuts for.and arguably Jane Lynch, who's character was an inconsistent wreck on Glee this year. So I guess I'm behind Vergara then. Who I both want and think will win.

Snubs:

Alison Brie, Community - Obviously

Aubrey Plaza - Parks and Rec, but if Nick Offerman can't then she can't.

Busy Phillipps - Cougar Town - Curse of the name strikes again.

REVIEW: Tree Of Life

2011-07-13T17:54:00.000-07:00

This is the film that average Joe does not want to win the Oscar and he's gonna get all pissed when it beats Thor.

I think my greatest comeuppance as a reviewer is always going to be expressionism. I have for as long as I've lived detested art for art's sake, found poetry less valuable than a novel, photography of less value than cinema. I've always felt if art is about communicating, then its most complete form is always going to be the story, where the technicality and artistry of creating come together to serve an end, rather than they simply being the end. It's a personal bias, but I've found it to be a pretty steadfast one, so when I say I'm the worst person to review Tree Of Life, you know that I mean it. I think as a consequence of this I've never seen an expressionistic film I've connected with, I've seen ones I admire or can appreciate maybe, but never connect with. I've found the problem with expressionistic cinema is that it draws attention to the how, it is concerned with communicating emotion, and does so without the need to 'go anywhere' whatever that means, hence the many inevitable accusations of slow and boring. Accusations that the seven people who walked out of my screening would surely submit toward the Tree Of Life

Now I don't mind slow and boring, as its come to be known, but what I do hate is aimless. The difference between having something to say and having nothing to say. And art film has too often been the refuge of film-makers who have nothing to say, and who use expressionism as a means to conceal this, Gus Van Sant's Elephant and almost every Sofia Coppola film I would site here, and too often people don't call bullshit on these films and thus people begin to hate the entire idea of the art film. Much as I did for a while, because it felt that there was simply too much of the latter and not enough of the former. Suffice to say, Tree Of Life has something to say, and my initial response to it was that somehow it's both a travesty and a masterpiece. Some of the worst stuff you'll see all year is in this movie, scenes that feel like someone's walked up to most ridiculous, stereotypical and pretentious film student and said 'here's 60 million dollars, do what you will'. But then there's also aspects that are so sublime, so ingeniously and subtly handled that it doesn't feel an overstatement to say it's amongst the best stuff I've seen in a cinema in my life. I think what's happened here is that a genius has been allowed to self-indulge with no checks, and as a consequence he's produced both the best and worst that he's capable of producing.

I found a lot of the film's first third to be close to intolerable. A voice-over in which characters would wax broadly philosophical was painful, and it seems to use the death of a child too easily to create an impact, as apposed to exploring the consequences of it. I found pretty much everything involving Sean Penn to be pretty awful to be honest, just him looking lost against tall modern buildings and nature-scapes. Imagery so cliched that at the point Penn started walking through a weird looking rock formation in a suit I laughed, and make no apologies for it. It was incredibly lame. And just when I thought I was in for an almighty train-wreck we abandon all our characters for a 40 minute sojourn into how the universe was created. Now at first I was wowed by the imagery. It looked incredibly beautiful, shot with such a sense of wonder and skill it was a treat for the senses. And then it kept going, to the point where I honestly couldn't make a distinction between a high school science video except a fat effects budget and classical music. I'm sure it's all a metaphor about how beautiful life is if only we cared to look and how furiously it has to work to even come into being, but this was such an incredibly pretentious sequence I was waxing pretty furious even before the horrible voice-over come back and made me just want to leave.

I was so excited that I was going to get to be the guy to call Tree Of Life a piece of shit and mean it, how hipster awesome I would be, but then the film returned focus on its central family, like any other, and promptly became incredible. The story of a boy's childhood was being told with the same sense of reverence we had seen devoted to the universe's creation, the same sense of awe and wonder, the same sense of beauty. But whereas the scale of creation is something Malick simply can't say anything about with authority. He knew this family, he knew the exact emotions and experiences and he knew exactly how to express them. So watching this intimate, tiny story being told with such clarity and vision by means of expressionism was simply incredible, and amongst the best stuff ever put on film. It just rang so true, because when you're a child, you don't rationalize, you don't reason, and everything is taken in through a whirl of emotion and I think no film has truly captured what it is to be a small child quite like Tree Of Life. It had the detail the opening did not, it was no longer speculating or suppositing. This entire sequence, which I reckon was the film's bulkiest, was so beautiful I quickly found myself losing my anger and reservations toward it.

Brad Pitt, who has recently been notching up an unfortunate record of being in great where films where someone else just blows him off the screen, Rinko Kikuchi in Babel, Casey Affleck in Jesse James and Christophe Waltz in Inglourious Basterds, faces no such problem here, giving a performance that not only will be Oscar nominated, but will deservedly be so. It's the best performance he's given since Fight Club, and certainly the most mature work he's ever done. Pitt is always someone who has been a better actor then his looks allow for, and one is getting the sense that his best work might be done in the next ten years, now that his looks are less of an all-consuming factor. Jessica Chastain isn't really asked to do much beyond look spiritual and ethereal, but that she does excellently, and Malick certainly gets great performances out of the kids. As I mentioned before, Penn's entire part is pretty embarrassing, so there's not really much to say about that.

Thinking about it though, I can only give this film a great review. Because while some of it is intolerable, and boy will there be people who want their money back who didn't know what they were getting into, the parts I liked were so impressive and perhaps the first time I've truly lost my shit for expressionism that I can't not tell people to go and see this film. There's some legitimate 10/10 material in Tree Of Life, there's just some 2/10 stuff as well. What it is, I think, is two incredibly specific films awkwardly fit together in a way that doesn't really work or make sense (yeah yeah, metaphors, fuck you) yet one of these films is amongst the best films I've ever seen. Like I said, someone let a genius cut loose, and it's produced the best and the worst of him. But if you have patience for it, the best is worth the wait.

Rating: 8/10

REVIEW: Larry Crowne

2011-07-13T14:54:00.000-07:00

Tom Hanks will kill all you motherfuckers, Hanx.

Larry Crowne simply wouldn't be here without Tom Hanks. It's the kind of film that only a man with two Oscars, infinite amounts of movie star credibility and who is literally disliked by no-one on earth can get into the cinemas. Not because it's awful necessarily, but because it's so biologically forgettable and so thoroughly unremarkable almost to the core, that without Hanks at the helm and a hefty assist from Julia Roberts this thing re-appears as a pilot on ABC Family in about 5 years. I like Tom Hanks. I like him a lot, but this movie is so utterly inoffensive that its most passionate supporter will only think its kind of OK.

The story, which follows Hanks as a superstore worker who upon being laid off, attends a community college and finds a new way of life/friendship group/love etc. It's set in the kind of world where everything is strictly karmic and Oprah-ish, and being a good person guarantees things will work out in the end, as long as you work for it. Everyone goes out of their way to help Larry, from a motorcycle gang to wealthy neighbors/black stereotypes (played by Cedric The Entertainer and Oscar nominee who has no career because she's black Taraji P. Henson) to the most obnoxious, irritating manic-pixie dream girl platonic friend of Hanks, played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Everyone in this universe gets what they deserve, and no-one's really a dick apart from Bryan Cranston, Robert's interim husband, who plays a character that's simultaneously the most interesting character in the film and the worst thing about the film. Playing a fallen academic/author, who is now unemployed and looking at porn all day. Why? Who cares, this movie is not interested in complexity. It's just interested in making Cranston's character into a hissable villain that we can't wait for Julia to get rid off. A truly epic fail of a character.

Now as far as positives go, Hanks can't not be likable. Its just who he is and what he does, and he gives the title character more then one moment of winning relatability. But actually I think my favorite thing about this film was Julia Roberts. While the romance itself is rushed, awkward and lame. Roberts playing the extremely bitchy, self-loathing teacher of the first act is something I found to be entertaining, as Roberts always seems to work more for me when she plays a bitch. I have no idea why, perhaps because she's got that I'm better then everyone demeanor down to a tee. Who knows, but I enjoyed her in this movie. Also Wilmer Valderrama is alive. And in Larry Crowne. Yay. I think I am more likely to forget everything about Larry Crowne more than any other film I've ever reviewed on here, simply because its so perfectly mediocre.

Rating: 5/10

Transformers 3: Dark Of The Moon

2011-07-13T14:16:00.000-07:00

In which we drop the 'side' so our goldbrickin' asses don't get sued.

I think Shia La beouf's performance in Transformers 3D: The revenge of John Turturro's self-respect is something akin to performance art. While everyone else is clearly trying to get in and out without irrevocably embarrassing themselves, something nobody succeeds at but Alan Tudyk, La Beouf's is performance of indescribable and often inappropriate rage, in which he communicates his share reluctance to be here with a series of almost fourth wall breaking outbursts, that bear no resemblance to how a human being would react in any situation. Take for example, when the military commandeer his car and he just starts screaming and screaming and screaming and screaming. Its sort of like Nicolas Cage in Bad Lieutenant only awful instead of awesome.

I say this because watching LaBeouf's contractually obligated coked-up presence in a franchise he clearly believes he's too good for trainwreck is about the only thing worth tuning in to this third film in what has to be considered one of the most godawful blockbuster franchises in movie history, a blemish on the CV of everyone concerned. But particularly John Turturro. Because fuck John Turturro man. Three of these films he's done now and each time it gets more embarrassing. I don't care if we're in a recession John, you were Barton Fink, and now there's entire generation that will define you as the lame comic relief in the Transformers franchise. While Turturro makes it a hat-trick, plenty of other talented fucks shamelessly mug their way to seven figure pay-checks. John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Ken Jeong, Patrick Dempsey and even Buzz Aldrin all show up. The Aldrin scene is particular is just a set yourself on fire moment. And why would Optimus Prime give a shit if Aldrin went to the moon. He's a fucking alien. He'll see your moon and raise you a galaxy. As for Rosie Huntington Whiteley, well she was hired for being hot, and that is really all Michael Bay wants from her, and that's all she has to offer, so its a deal that works out pretty well for everyone. Although I have to say I enjoyed her acting in the scene where RHW reverse psychologies the shit out of Megatron, you know the super evil, super intelligent alien being. Dude gets played like a fiddle by RHW. What a culmination of writing, acting and plausibility.

Michael Bay, bro, listen for a second, yeah. Sure you're technically proficient and can put together an action scene or two, but I swear you didn't used to direct movies like a 13 year old boy who's just discovered there's such a thing as boobs. You made The Rock and Bad Boys, movies which I unapolgetically like and I guess The Island isn't a total piece of shit. Point being that as ridiculous as it sounds to say, you're better then this shit. You're never going to be Terrence Malick, but you could be Walter Hill with more money. Just stop with this shit already. No more. Or winter is coming Mike, and it's coming for you. Also 2 hours and 45 minutes? What is this Tree Of Life, fuck this shit.

Rating: 3/10

REVIEW: Stake Land

2011-07-13T09:38:00.001-07:00

Vampires, lets do this.

What with the lore of the vampire being consumed by chick-lit for a generation, you get the sense male vampire fans are pretty pissed off. Hence the noticeable reactionary theme of vampires becoming ugly, barely humanistic zombies, as if taunting female vampire fans with 'there, find something attractive about that'. Now I'm not particularly for this development, as depriving a vampire his intelligence is to me every bit castrating as depriving him of his violence. Personally my real problem is not with sensitive vampires, but of the notion of them falling head over heals for boring, every day girls. Something that's as inexcusably ridiculous as cheerleaders falling for nerds, but I suppose that's an egregiousness to logic that happens on a far more regular basis, so boys kind of have to can it.

But anyway, vampires. This vampire as zombie trend doesn't necessarily make for a bad movie, it just means it's going to have more in common with Dawn Of the Dead then Near Dark. And that's certainly the case here, where Stake Land is for all intents and purposes a post-apocalyptic zombie film, with the vampire thing being neither here nor there. And while it's certainly not a bad one, I think its indie credibility has perhaps scored it some better reviews then it deserves. There's a lot of cliche here, and while that's not definitively a bad thing, I feel I have seen better versions of Stake Land many times over. The characters are all kind of stock and pile for the genre, you have the gruffled anti-hero, the teenager, the pregnant woman, the black guy, the cult leader etc. I guess Kelly McGillis' nun was a nice touch but generally this all sort of unimaginative and certainly not any kind of genre re-invention. At times critics tend to be kind to something simply because it's lo-fi, and in this particular instance I imagine if you made exactly the same script with 30 million instead of 1, the reviews would be about a third as kind.

It's not a bad movie, rather an assured retread of familiar territory. Nick Damici makes for a solid lead, and Connor Paolo managing to not be obnoxious as a post-apocalyptic teen warrior is something of an achievement in and of itself, and McGillis brings some much needed warmth to proceedings. But I'd call Stake Land a fun diversion and nothing more, and it's way too insubstantial and slender to be called anything better then workmanlike. But of course, simply being workmanlike puts it in much better stead then the majority of horror movies so I guess I have to be happy with that.

Rating: 6/10

REVIEW: Bridesmaids

2011-07-13T08:49:00.000-07:00

Still, could have done without someone shitting in a sink. A fairly standard rule for any movie.

I've had a mixed response to Kristen Wiig in the past. I've seen her be both incredibly funny and incredibly annoying, although if I'm being brutally honest it probably skews more toward the latter for me. I've never much liked her on my few painful experiences with watching Saturday Night Live, and her varying movie roles have always been a hit and miss for me. And I have to say the trailer for Bridesmaids didn't do much for me either. Just looking like an excuse for Wiig to mug for the camera and do her best Jim Carrey impression. It looked like Melissa McCarthy was just going to exist to be a dartboard for a series of lazy fat jokes, it looked aimless. And yet. I fucking loved this movie.

I always thought I'd laugh, but I thought it would play out like a series of sketches and not really attempt to, you know, be a movie of any kind. But I think it's this aspect that was most impressive. There was a real effort to draw humor from narrative and character instead of leaning on Kristen Wiig being exaggerated. Which is not only great for the film but also for Wiig, who gives a performance that's not only hilarious but well-rounded and not just a series of ticks. It's the most impressed by Wiig I've ever been, and it deserves every bit of praise it gets. If Oscar wasn't terrified of comedy I'd say there's a real case for a nomination, but that's wishful thinking beyond the usual parameters of wishful thinking. Having said that, I think this film belongs to Melissa McCarthy, making what could have been a horrible one note character into just about the funniest performance I've seen in a cinema all year. There's another winning comedic turn by Rose Byrne, who continues to be as excellent in comedy as she is drab and bland in drama. As far as the men go, everyone will love Jon Hamm in this, but I was particularly impressed by Chris O' Dowd, given the straight man role of the movie and creating a really strong dynamic with Wiig.

The title is a bit of a misnomer though, as the film is very much about Wiig's character as opposed to an ensemble piece, and a couple of members of the Bridesmaids troop go underused and wasted, particularly The Office's Ellie Kemper. But this is a minor complaint in regards to a film that not only manages to be terrifically funny but also keep one foot in reality, and present characters that could conceivably exist in our dimension. Something studio comedies rarely are able to do. Just a fantastic movie, by any definition, not just a feminist one. And certainly one of the best comedies I've seen in a cinema in a long time.

Rating: 8/10

Emmy Predictions/Perfect World Nominations

2011-07-10T13:45:00.000-07:00

Get it?

With the emmy nominations coming Thursday, it seemed high time to discuss, so below are both predictions and ideal ballots. Let the speculation commence.

Best Drama Predictions:

Mad Men

The Good Wife

Boardwalk Empire - Winner

Game Of Thrones

Dexter

Friday Night Lights

What I'd do:

Mad Men - Winner

Boardwalk Empire

Game Of Thrones

Justified

Rubicon

Treme

Best Actor:

Jon Hamm, Mad Men - winner

Hugh Laurie, House

Michael C Hall, Dexter

Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

Timothy Olyphant, Justified

What I'd Do:

Jon Hamm, Mad Men -winner

Timothy Olyphant, Justified

Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire

Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights

Hugh Laurie, House

Best Actress Drama:

Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men - Winner

Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife

Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights

Kyra Sedgewick, The Closer

Kathy Bates, Harry's Law

What I'd Do:

Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men - Winner

Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights

Juilianna Margulies, The Good Wife

Emmy Rossum, Shameless

Katey Sagal, Sons Of Anarchy

Best Supporting Actor In A Drama:

John Slattery, Mad Men

Michael Pitt, Boardwalk Empire

Peter Dinklage, Game Of Thrones- Winner

Alan Cumming, The Good Wife

Chris Noth, The Good Wife

Michael Shannon, Boardwalk Empire

What I'd Do:

Peter Dinklage, Game Of Thrones

Jared Harris, Mad Men

Wendell Pierce, Treme

Michael Shannon, Boardwalk Empire

Michael Cristofer, Rubicon

Walton Goggins, Justified - Winner

Best Supporting Actress in Drama:

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Kelly MacDonald, Boardwalk Empire

Margo Martindale, Justified

Emilia Clarke, Game Of Thrones

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife -Winner

Christine Baranski, The Good Wife

What I'd Do:

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Kelly Macdonald, Boardwalk Empire

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife

Margo Martindale, Justified - Winner

Khandi Alexander, Treme

Kiernan Shipka, Mad Men

Best Comedy:

Modern Family- Winner

Glee

The Office

30 Rock

The Big Bang Theory

Community

What I'd do:

Community - Winner

Parks and Recreation

Louie

Cougar Town

Raising Hope

Modern Family

Best Actor in Comedy:

Steve Carell, The Office -Winner

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

Matt Le Blanc, Episodes

Matthew Morrison, Glee

Joel McHale, Community

What I'd Do:

Louie C.K, Louie - Winner

Joel McHale, Community

Rob Lowe, Parks and Recreation

Steve Carell, The Office

Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock

Matt LeBlanc, Episodes

Best Actress In A Comedy:

Laura Linney, The Big C - Winner

Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Amy Poehler, Parks And Recreation

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Toni Collette, United States Of Tara

Melissa McCarthy, Mike And Molly

What I'd Do:

Toni Collette, United States Of Tara - Winner

Amy Poehler, Parks And Recreation

Mary Louise Parker, Weeds

Martha Plmpton, Raising Hope

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Tina Fey, 30 Rock

Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy:

Chris Colfer, Glee - winner

Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother

Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Jon Cryer, Two And A Half Men

Danny Pudi, Community

What I'd Do:

Danny Pudi, Community

Chevy Chase, Community

Nick Offerman, Parks and Recreation - Winner

Chris Pratt, Parks and Recreation

Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Garrett Dillahunt, Raising Hope

Best Supporting Actress Comedy:

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family - Winner

Jane Lynch, Glee

Kristin Wiig, Saturday Night Live

Betty White, Hot In Cleveland

Julie Bowen, Modern Family

Swootzie Kurtz, Mike And Molly

What I'd Do

Sofia Vergara, Modern Family

Aubrey Plaza, Parks And Recreation

Alison Brie, Community

Merrit Weaver, Nurse Jackie

Mayim Bialik, The Big Bang Theory

Busy Philipps, Cougar Town - Winner

REVIEW: The Green Lantern

2011-07-07T18:03:00.000-07:00

The most egregious waste of Tim Robbins. Man I miss when that guy was awesome.

There have been two Superhero films whose positive receptions have somewhat baffled me. I think both Iron Man and this year's Thor were so hacky and uninspired, so lacking in anything to say or even a perspective on the material. Just go through the motions fan-service projects, with the most basic and paper thin approach to characterization. This was kind of washed over in Iron Man by the casting of Robert Downey Jr, a man with enough charisma and talent to sell pretty much anything so I enjoyed that movie in spite of itself, but Thor...ergh, it just felt so devoid of any imagination, going through all the same superhero things in all the same superhero ways. It felt tired, and I felt tired watching it. But Green Lantern. Look, it's mostly I piece of shit. But at least it didn't feel quite so out of the factory pile as every marvel produced movie I've seen recently. What made it distinctive also made it terrible, but at least it was distinctive. And even if its a worse movie then Thor, which it is, I'd much rather watch this again in all its hilarious inadequacy then watch that meticulously OK piece of nothing.

But first thing's first. The Green Lantern is kind of a ridiculous Superhero. Conceptually I think its cool, and its good that it has a more complex mythology then 'dude puts on a costume and fights crime' but when you see an acid green, speed racer circuit created out of thin air by Ryan Reynolds in a CGI skin-tight suit, well it was kind of laughable really. The film didn't do a good job of showing the powers of The Green Lantern without making it feel juvenile and as a consequence it's hard to take the film's serious action sequences seriously because well, for the lack of better elocution, it just looked so stupid. Which is a shame, because I liked the essence of what it was trying to do. I was just a bad iteration of it. Ryan Reynolds was inevitably going to be a superhero at some point, and on paper this seemed like a perfect fit, douchey, smug asshole forced into responsibility? Every role Reynolds has ever played. And he tries his hardest to make this work, probably too hard almost. Blake Lively is chasm of soullessness, a person with so little personality its almost magnetic. Watching the depths of woodenness she sinks to is probably the most entertaining thing about The Green Lantern. Well except for Peter Saarsgard, Who I came out of this feeling incredibly sorry for. Not only did he get turned into the elephant man, but he also gave a weird, enjoyable performance that belongs in a much better film. His character here is like a lame Green Goblin redo, but he legitimately does something with it and I enjoyed the moments Saarsgard was on screen.

Of course he was a secondary villain to a giant, planet sized space monster that was clearly a fan of Lost's smoke monster, which is just a stupid fucking decision. Colossus type villains always suck because what's impressive about them is how big they are and that's it. Parallax is just a placeholder, something for Ryan Reynolds to fight at the end and not get in the way in the mean time and that blows. The Green Lantern is overblown, painfully cheesy, inconsistent and frankly awful. But it went for something, and the fact that it was capable of being this much of a mess makes it more valuable then the safe-playing mediocrity of marvel movies, because there's an alternate reality where everything it got wrong went right and its just the most awesome movie ever, it's just not this one.

Rating: 4/10

REVIEW: Bad Teacher

2011-07-06T07:03:00.000-07:00

I know people have been all like, Diaz's hotness is washed up etc., but girl looks pretty fine.

Mainstream studio comedy has probably always been more good then bad. For jokes to get past the numerous rewrites and conference meetings they're going to have to pretty universally broad. You imagine what pitches well does better than what works as a story, and thus this is why every studio comedy, for adults or kids, ends up something like Bad Teacher. A concept you can some up in one line, enough famous names to put on the poster and material enough you can make a trailer out of. Everything else can be allowed to slide accordingly. And while this doesn't always mean these films are terrible, funny people can often be funny whatever the circumstances, it does mean that it rarely works as a movie, because everything is so intentionally slender even a ninety minute running time feels stretched.

And Bad Teacher is this problem incarnate. Its a one joke sketch extended to something that's supposed to resemble a story, and after the first couple of times they told that joke to you it becomes sort of like, yeah so she's a teacher and she does bad things because she's bad. Despite this, I didn't hate this movie. I feel like if I'd just read the script I would have found it to be awful, but unfortunately for my credibility I found most of the performances to be funny in spite of everything. Particularly Lucy Punch, playing Diaz's tightly wound teacher nemesis, managed to do a lot with a little and certainly stole this movie and hopefully will get some better movies off the back of this. Jason Segel in possibly the world's most superfluous and empty straight man role is just great, adding at least a semblance of reality in a lamely exaggerated universe. As for Timberlake, well I'm not convinced he's a good actor yet, or even that funny. But even if people seem to grade his performances kindly simply because he's Justin Timberlake, he does show a willingness to laugh at himself that is endearing I suppose.

But like all studio comedies, it's not really a movie. More an idea, and a series of scenes designed to cheaply amuse around that idea. Thankfully I enjoyed the cast enough that I didn't mind that I wasn't laughing all that much, or that everything was way too derivative and generic. Like many people have said, its an inferior version of Bad Santa, and I didn't even like that film all that much. But thanks to Punch and Segel and even Diaz, who is having fun here in a way I haven't seen for quite some time, and for an actress who's taken as many pay-cheque roles as she lately, this is good to see. It's a shame the film around these guys couldn't have been better.

Rating: 5/10

REVIEW: Senna

2011-06-25T09:56:00.000-07:00

Fastest man on wheels.

Senna is an excellent film because it does all the things a great documentary should do. It takes a world that few are initiated with and many simply aren't interested in and makes it fascinating and tells the story of an incredible human being in a way that's fundamentally universal. You could argue that its a slight lionization, that the Ayrton Senna presented here is almost too mythical, too gifted and whose journey is so classically tragic, it makes you almost suspicious of it. But then you just have to remind your inner cynic that sometimes there just are people like that, and there exactly the kind of people whose story should be told.

Senna follows the career and life of the Brazilian formula one racer, but primarily focuses on the rivalry between him and Alain Prost which I think is both a positive and a negative, A positive in terms of the fact that it makes for gripping drama and seeing Prost and Senna's various moments of battle and sabotage makes for electrifying cinema, but at the same time it meant the film almost suffered in terms of portraying the man and more than that made Prost out to be too much of a two-dimensional villain. Something that felt a little beneath this mostly excellent film. Similarly engaging is the way it presents the world of formula one, the level of corruption and politics involved in the sport, and often the scenes of pre-game meetings with the drivers and the various members of F1 royalty are quite illuminating in the way we see this enforced hierarchy, in which everything seemed to work in favor of the brass' favorite drivers, to the point where it seems almost incredible that this kind of thing could have gone on so openly.

I think the main attribute Asif Kapadia's film has though is Senna himself, whose such an engaging, earnest presence. A man who just wanted to win, and did so in the face of seemingly every obstacle thrown in his path, you could almost watch a film entirely about him simply sat in a room talking, which is exactly what you want in this kind of film. But thankfully his story is so wonderfully epic and ultimately tragic that it makes great watching for anyone, and what's doubly impressive is that by not showing any modern interview footage, instead using audio clips rolling over archive footage. Talking heads never take us out of the narrative, or more importantly takes away from Senna himself. It's a wonderfully made documentary that's in places both innovative and electrifying. Its perhaps a little too simplistic in telling us who the good and bad guys are, but its certainly a minor complaint against a film that manages to feel so epic.

Rating: 7/10

TV REVIEW: The Killing Season 1

2011-06-24T13:35:00.000-07:00

The Killing, a show about stuff that didn't happen that we tell you did, only for it not to have actually happened.

Watching the progression of The Killing from critical darling to emerging disappointment to outright train-wreck has been one of the more interesting sample studies of how difficult it actually is to make great television. The Killing has all the ingredients of what we've come to define as great television in recent years, the requisite darkness, the requisite silences, the requisite character types. It's as if someone has been taking notes, and has got all the pieces in the right place yet when it came time to start moving them, well no-one had any fucking idea. Its a show that had no idea how to go forward, no idea how to develop character, no idea how to make its subject compelling. Everything suffocated in a bland concoction of cop show formula and imitation pathos. Yet back when I saw the pilot I could have not comprehended writing this review. That was a great episode, with a number of good performances and a heart-breaking conclusion. How it could have gone from there to here in 13 weeks is almost astounding.

I guess the only example I can think of even remotely comparable is Heroes, but that did the same trajectory over 3 years and not one, but still. The Killing didn't just go from suck to suck, it had good will to burn, from both its first episode and from the ambiance of being an AMC show, the place that's brought us Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Even the premise lends itself to intrigue, imagine an episode of CSI told in long-form, giving us a chance to layer the characters, deepen the mystery and enrich the universe. But the Killing chose not to do any of these things, instead all it seemed to know how to do was be that same episode of CSI, with the same broad-stroke characters and the same misdirective bullshit only it lasted 13 hours, so it was even more grating and formulaic. Instead of getting to know the suspects of the Rosie Larsen murder, or even Rosie herself, we just got red herring after red herring after red herring. All this amounted to was the show telling you information, then telling you that information was false, then telling your more information, then telling you that was bullshit and so on and so forth. It meant that every episode after the first and before the last was ridiculously disposable in terms of mystery.

Now I wouldn't have minded this so much if we were being told a compelling story in the mean time, but fuck we weren't being told that either. Meet Linden. She's going to Sinoma to marry Leoben from Battlestar Galactica, but then she's into the case, but then she's leaving, but then she's into the case. No clue is given really as to why she's so obsessive nor why she's marrying Leoben, no texture given to their relationship nor any evidence to say why she likes him at all. He's merely a plot point. An excuse to create hollow drama. And as for the whole Bennett Ahmed business, where he was continually flouted as a suspect long after it was clear he didn't do it. Errgh. Billy Campbell's politician has got to be high in the running for the most boring and falt characters television has ever known, and his entire plotline is not only pointless but badly told. It felt like some horrible catch-22 where characters were being sacrificed in lieu of plot, but there was no plot, just endless misdirection. And by doing this of course, the show makes who did it much more important then the journey, and the show chooses this issue to take its subversive stand on. Everything else is same old, same old. But when it came to tell you who did it? We don't feel like it, Go fuck yourself. Se you next year.

I think there's an alternate reality and an alternate version of the killing, when I find this to be the greatest piece of genius ever, but for this one, this hollow shell of a show, it was the only thing we had left. So all we've got left is to return the go fuck yourself in kind and then go on with our lives. I think the saddest thing is that I keep almost thinking I like this show, I like the central performances from Mirelle Enos and Joel Kinnaman. Particularly Kinnaman, whose from the street, rough around the edges stylings go against the clean cut cop norm, and his performance grew to be the most engaging and likable thing about the show. Indeed the episode 'Missing' which came way too late and completely kaput any momentum the show built, was a pretty good episode, a feeble imitation of Mad Men's ' The Suitcase' sure, but it was rewarding to see Kinnaman break through Enos' barriers and give the impression that a partnership was forming here. And then what do they to the only successfully realized character they managed to create, oh yeah they undercut everything by making him some political middle-man bad guy. So that's the mystery element checked off, and now the one interesting relationship we managed to build amidst our scrambling? Well that's gone too. See you next year folks.

This is a show that simply had no idea how tell a story, no idea how to subvert police procedural to serialized television and no idea how to create an engaging character of any kind. Oh except the one, which we promptly blow the fuck up. Terrible television emphasized by the sense of betrayal and disappointment. Under a different set of writers The Killing is a slam-dunk, a great show in a line of great shows. As it stands, its the fastest self-destructing show television has ever known. A monumental failure and a misfire to make one feel the need to apologize to Heroes. Well maybe not that far.

Rating: 5/10