Despite paying £11 at the Odeon Camden to watch a film this afternoon, it still infuriated me that the programme billed to start at 2pm ran adverts and trailers for almost half and hour. I’ve paid good money and for what? Why should I pay to watch advertisements? Someone’s getting money for something here and at £11 per ticket it certainly isn’t the cinema goer. But more importantly the film companies themselves should be concerned as this long charade at the start of their film, especially a comedy, does little to warm the audience up. Indeed, I had finished my overpriced popcorn and drink before the film eventually started leaving me a little annoyed and, I imagine, in not the sort of mood the film makers would want me in when I start watching their film.
OK rant over. Still, despite a sour opening to todays FilmFriday, the movie of the TV comedy The Inbetweeners should get points for changing my mood against all the odds. This show, if you’ve not seen it, is one long “coming of age” TV comedy on E4 (UK only) that appears to appeal to many. This is probably because the characters, whom have more than their share of awkward, embarrasing and shameful moments, will bring back similar forgotten (maybe suppressed) memories from what, you were always informed, were supposed to be the best days of your life. Nothing could be more representative to this “coming of age” theme as the first holiday abroad with your mates. The first taste of freedom from your parents and the promise of sun, sea, sand and sex versus the grim reality of low budget holidays. And it’s all there from the monotonous football chanting from the back seaters on the coach, your arrival at the worst hotel on the resort to the ubiquitous cheap tequila shots served in plastic beakers similar to the one you drink Beneloyn from.
This is a very British film of a very British sitcom and I doubt very much that it will transfer to any other parts of the globe without being seriously lost in translation. But in a selfish way I don’t care. Like a good cuppa, it’d be wasted on them.
I am always impressed how the writers manage to evoke the essence of a weird age, a purgatorial mezzanine where you’re neither child or adult. “Year 12/13” or “Sixth Form” as it was once known to my generation.Too young to drink, but old enough to drive! Old enough to have sex, but too young to ever get it. Top marks to Greg Davies whose brief appearance as Head of Year Mr Gilbert was as hysterical as it was painfully accurate. And credit to the actors behind the four main characters. I’m sure everyone has their favourite, but there is no favouritism from the writers/director and good for them.
Fans of The Inbetweeners will not be disappointed by what is essentially a summer special of the show.
[rating=3]
This film has the rather rare label of being an animated documentary. It follows the quest of the film maker, Ari Folman, to unblock suppressed memory of his experiences as a soldier in the Lebanon war, specifically his service in Beirut when he was 19 years old. With the help of a psychologist and former veterans, he helps make sense of a recurrent dream he has where he is bathing in the sea over-looking the shell of Beirut which is lit up by flares. The significance of this dream slowly becomes apparent after various discussions and reminiscing about a period he has thought little about in the preceding 20 years. And the inevitable results explain, if explanation was needed, why he had buried these memories in a shallow grave of his subconscious and why these memories needed to be properly laid to rest.
Say the word genocide and one immediately thinks of the Holocaust and the Jews. Of course butchery can happen anywhere and be perpetrated by anyone. In this instance, it was perpetrated by Christian Lebanese Philangists to Palestinian refugees under the auspices of the Israel Defence Force, of whom Ari Folman was a soldier. It became known as the Sabra and Shatila Massacre.
Two ex-cons execute a well planned kidnap, but all is not what it seems. Secrets will out leading to paranoia and fear in this highly strung drama from writer/director J Blakeson. The poster promises action/thriller excitement and the skeletal cast, Martin Compston, Gemma Arterton and the instantly recognisable Eddie Marsan suggest that this film will be another clip in the montage of great British modern cinema. But I’ve seen better written and better directed British movies.
My principal gripe with this film is that it should really be a stage play! Most of the action takes place in the kidnappers converted prison lair where they hold their hostage. Most of the “raw” and “gritty” emotion takes place there. However, if this script were done in a theatre it would soon become apparent that the plot twists (implausible though some of them are) would not be enough to sate the audiences attention and that the writing itself was cliched and ineffectual. Significant moments in the story look like they were straight from an improv workshop and relied heavily on the shots being moody and artistic.
This was clearly a film on a budget (course it was, it’s British) However, that should be no excuse. Indeed some of the best films ever made were done on a budget and even set in one room (Cube). But lack of finance required these films to rely more on a use of invention and imagination in telling us their story. This film, alas, was a bit more text-book. And that’s not a compliment.
Kyrgyzstan, as I know you’re about to tell me, is a former Soviet occupied country in Central Asia neighbouring Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and, of course China! And since independance in 1991 it has suffered much political instability owing to the high levels of corruption and prolific organised crime. Oh come on, you weren’t aware of any of this? Do the names “Jalal-Abad” or the “Andijan Province” not ring any bells? That’s right! There was something about something happening you heard on News24 from a reporter on a crackly phone line who said something about …..no?
The film was written, directed and indeed stars Aktan Arym Kubat. The story takes place in a small rural village in the country and follows the life of the towns electrician, Svet-Ake (Kubat), whom has been stealing electricty off the State from passing pylons for the poor of his village. The film starts just in time for our hero who has been arrested by the Soviet police, only to be let off as the USSR dissolves and Kyrgystan declares independance. A wealthy businessman takes an interest in the village and recruits the electrician in his plans for modernisation. However, there is quite a shocking dark side to this new development which has just as dark consequences.
When the Coen Brothers announced they were remaking the John Wayne classic True Grit, one could be forgiven for shuddering slightly. After all, their remake of The Ladykillers was a notoriously bad decision. But then again when you think of their more successful films, notably Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou? and No Country For Old Men, then this tail set in 19th Century America couldn’t be in better hands, could it?. Typically for the Coens, they make great use of seemingly very remote locations, cut off from civilisation, dead trees, tumbleweed and chilled with a wind of lawlessness. A place where no-one can here you scream.
Our hero is a 14 year old girl(great debut performance from Hailee Steinfeld) out to avenge the death of her father. She hires a US Marshall (Jeff Bridges) whom she insists on accompanying. They are joined on and off by a ranger from Texas (Matt Damon, though I admit it took me a good scene to twig it was him) The rest of the story is pretty straightforward which is just as well. Because, like my experience watching The Wire, the script is heavily vernacular and I was frequently puzzled by what the character were actually saying. But like a song by Tom Waits, it didn’t matter too much that you understood the words, but more enjoyed the song – or in this case the story. And telling a story is something the Coen brothers are good at. That and casting.
Don’t get me wrong, I suppose you could call me a ‘fan’, but you do really have to step back from it all and ask yourself if it’s worth sleeping in Trafalgar Square for three days in the rain to witness the premier of its final installment: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two.
number three’s director Alfonso Cuaron whose work has always been darker and grittier. Then there was The Order of the Phoenix with Mike Newell and for the final three films we’ve entrusted Harry and his friends to David Yates. Consoling these four very different styles has been both the downfall and the making of the HP series, which moved from a wholesome and young beginning to well formed gripping movies. From the outset the style of the final two films is notably far more mature, so that you could even say that the innocence and simplicity of the characters and the story (the challenges faced progressively become more demanding and dangerous) is reflected in the film style as though it were a part of the characters’ own perception.
Part One and now one line in Part Two. Apparently his only purpose in the films is to be Fleur Delacour’s husband and to let us know that Shell Cottage is by the sea and used to belong to his aunt. We know it’s a house by the sea because we can see the sea through the windows and in all the outdoor scenes. But if you weren’t sure, there are subtle reminders of the cottage’s name and location in every surface, with shells pressed into the walls, piled onto shelves, even on the roof instead of slate…
The cinematography is phenomenal, there’s no denying that this looks and feels like the Hogwarts that most people imagined, what’s more there are some delightful touches that refer back to previous films, including another visit to the Chamber of Secrets from film number two (exactly as we last saw it!), and flashbacks to the Sorting sequence that began it all. Given that David Yates was not involved in those first two offerings, his nod to the past was seamless and a welcome taste of nostalgia.
and handed over like a birthday present. One of the first things that you learn about story telling is that you need a beginning, a middle and an end, and there’s something comforting about going to the cinema and being transported into a tale for two hours then coming away with something to ponder on with friends over coffees or post-cinema dinners. But what happens when you strip a film of this structure?
“Never Let Me Go” based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, introduces us to a world where children are bred to become organ donors. They live an isolated childhood rather reminiscent of a boarding school (whose motto should have been “Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori”) with no mention of parents having ever existed. They are aware, albeit in an anodyne nay romantic manner that they are required to donate and eventually “complete” (they are striped of organs until they die). And yet they are fine with this as they’ve been brainwashed throughout their lives to believe that they are somehow fulfilling a destiny. Indeed the whole of society is happy to turn a blind eye because the system conveniently saves them from diseases like lung cancer etc… And because society has made the progress and enjoyed its benefits then, regardless of ethics, regression is out of the question (rather like, say, our dependancy on oil or sweatshop labour! Yeah.. topical!)
Unlike other reviews, I’ve not really mentioned much about the film per se, rather how it left me feeling and thinking at the end – a sign of a good production. Top marks therefore to director Mark Romanek, screenwriter Alex Garland and the three leading actors and their child selves. Also Adam Kimmel for what should be award winning cinematography.
Betty Blue Eyes, the musical theatre adaptation of A Private Function, is currently showing in London’s West End. With this in mind I asked myself: when it comes to adaptations, is it generally best to experince the original first? Should we always aspire to read the book before watching the film? Or in this case, should I have watched the 1984 film version before I purchased my seat at the Novello Theatre?
Not necessarily your typical US Blockbuster war film. If Pearl Harbour is one of your favourite movies you might want to give this one a miss, but if you’re a fan of wholesome British humour with a good dash of nostalgia it won’t disappoint. Alliteratively post-Python Palin is endlessly charming as the hopeless chiropodist Gilbert Chilvers firmly under the thumb of wife Maggie Smith – a lady who oozes a sense of ‘could have done better’. Perhaps that’s the most British trait of the film: a sense of comic despair encouraged by our love of queueing, moaning about the weather and dissatisfaction with Our Lot.
Now I’m not saying that this film doesn’t tick some of these boxes, but it gave the impression that it wasn’t a priority. Instead it is interested in telling a good story, not peaking too soon, trusting in itself that the audience is both intelligent enough to follow the plot and is still entertained even though it may not be filling every waking moment with mild-altering special effects. The concept is effect enough and it is illustrated using some marvellous good old fashioned film techniques and a deft ecomony of script that leaves us savvy to what is happening without them having to insert a scene in which the brains of the outfit (which ever character is wearing glasses) patronises us all with a classroom explanation involving the ubiquitous blackboard and the phrase “imagine I have two apples…”
Beautifully understated acting from 
Jake Gyllenhaal (who could be the next Harrison Ford) and a lovely performance from 
if I were you.