Out of Control: My review of Black Swan

It's safe to say that, to the best of my knowledge, Darren Aronofsky has rarely ventured into horror. Granted, he frequently presents the viewer with brutally visceral imagery such as Jared Leto's gammy arm and the ass-to-ass in "Requiem For A Dream" and the wrestling match with a few extra items in "The Wrestler" being a few examples. So, to approach this as a horror film is something new but hold on.....it's not exactly a horror film either. It's a psychological exploration into obsession, love, hate and perfection. And with Aronofsky's style, the exploration is brought to life in a grand manner.

So all you fanboys and fangirls of Aronofsky will know he has developed a few trademarks of his own over the years. Very similar to the Wrestler and Requiem For A Dream, Aronofsky shoots "Black Swan" with a muted colour palette and grainy style to achieve a look of desaturation; subsequently evoking themes of realism, entrapement and madness. Thats one of the things I loved about the film; its real. Or it was to me. It was strikingly vivid and never seemed to lack the balls of his previous efforts. Sorry for the slang term there! Not very professional of me I know! 

Onto the story then. A prosperous New York City ballet company is using a revamped version of Swan Lake as their opening show of the season, with direction being given from Thomas Leroy (played by Vincent Cassel). They decide to choose a new lead over their previous Swan Queen, Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder). In steps Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) who is chosen to play the prestigous part. However, Leroy believes Nina lacks what it takes to play the White Swan's twin; the more sensual Black Swan and chooses newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis) to play the part. In a bid to convince him otherwise, Nina soon experiences erratic paranoid delusions and becomes convinced that Lily is out to steal her role in Swan Lake. With an overbearing mother treating her as a child and constantly over-reacting to her daughter's every word, Nina slips into an overwhelming obsession over perfection and ego.

That's the short sypnosis because obviously, I don't want to spoil it for you all. One of the central themes to Black Swan is sexuality. Of course, it would be since the Black Swan is supposed to be played as a sensual and promiscuous character but aside from the production, Nina's work is ruled by sex. She explores deeply (and rather graphically) her sexual side and these scenes are important to understand her ego. She's an innocent character, who is very much like  a child because of her mother, who wants to perform as the Swan Queen. Yet her innocence hinders her ability to perform as the Black Swan and thus the more provocative scenes are used as a way of 'toughening' her up if you will. What Cassel's character wants from her performance, Portman simply cannot give. The sexuality of the piece therefore works as a catalyst for her decline into obsession.

Another central theme is mirrors. For anyone who doesn't notice this, well; I'm surprised since a fair majority of shots feature them and all when Nina is in frame. It shows the superficial nature of her work, becoming the embodiment of something she's not. It also casts the possibility of memory and what this means to us as humans. Aronofsky always deploys a little motif in his movies that create a submeaning and by using mirrors, he opens another door. To that of the horror genre. By manipulating stereotypical notions of horror, he essentials makes it easier on himself to portray Nina's obsession as one of psychological origins. Mirrors are the door to another world. Don't be surprised when things appear randomly; there for a reason. Oh and they're there to scare you as well!

And onto performance!! Natalie Portman is brilliant. Who knew Padme could act? I did always like her as an actress but she truly flourishes in this role. A gruelling year long schedule learning the ins and outs of the routines and toning her body to perfection, the effort really shows. The scenes in which she slips into her obsession are ones of great drama and high tension; via Aronofsky's visceral imagery, you really feel the pain of her character. One scene in particular I will not indulge too much, safe to say; its harsh on the fingers and proves that with good editing, performance and direction, you can make even the most brutal violence seem fascinatingly beautiful. I suggest the Academy give her the Best Actress Oscar since she's plain awesome and on the back of her Golden Globe win at the weekend, thoroughly deserves the acclaim.

I too would like to mention that Clint Mansell should be nominated once again. Sat in a packed cinema with surround sound is the only way to fully experience this movie. The juxtaposing sounds of Mansell's classical score combined with the raw vision of Aronofsky propel this movie to great heights and with the music, the film would fall flat. It keeps you on edge and prepares you for all the drama thats meant to come. Simply fantastic.

OK, verdict time. If you follow me on Twitter, you may know I have been rambling on about this for a long time. I've been awaiting its release date with enormous anticipation OK?! Is that a crime!? It certainly lives up to its hype. Aronofsky has created a beautifully visceral experience of obsession and perfection that genuinely looks like the Red Shoes got shot with adrenaline. Its evokative and memorable and so far this year, is my favourite of 2011. Brilliant stuff. Certainly gonna watch it again!

5 stars out of 5 (I don't give these lightly but after seeing two films in two days that I thought were worthy of this rating as staggered me)

I don't know what's next on the agenda to be honest!! Errmmmmm......OH.....I'm seeing the Fighter on Tuesday at an extra special preview screening but I might wait a while to review that. Its only fair to people since its still a couple of weeks from release. I think the Fighter and True Grit will be the next installments guys!

Thanks for reading!
Tward

Broken Home: My review of Blue Valentine

Romantic dramas, due to contrary belief, are NOT simply boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy marries girl etc.....no, that's what happens in Hollywood. Unfortunately, Derek Cianfrance's "Blue Valentine" is not Hollywood. Far from it. This is real. Love, marriage and children all carry their own individual burdens. Put bluntly, romance just got hardcore.

The concept is simple. A contemporary married couple recolate how their relationship came to be over the course of 24 hours. This necessitates temporal shifts and a non-linear narrative, that describe the happy pre-marriage couple and the deeply unsettled present married couple. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams start as the married couple to great effect. Not only is it believable; its passionate and brutal, sweet and emotional, heart-wrenching and unnerving. All of these words describe exactly the kind of experience you should expect from seeing Blue Valentine.

In order to see this movie, I had to go to the Sheffield Showroom; my local independant cinema (thank god its there) since the big megaplexes like Cineworld are far too mainstream for this kind of indie flick. Therefore, the attention the film has received has been minimal compared to say, The King's Speech. Frankly, this is a good thing. I wouldn't have wanted to see this on a big screen. Its not that kind of movie. You have to embrace its quality and it really came to life on a small screen; most of the audience I was with definately reacted a great deal to some of the more emotional scenes than I thought they would. Independant cinema holds some brilliant gems, this being one of the more recent ones. So, like I say, I'm lucky to have a cinema that can get hold movie prints such as Blue Valentine. It will have disappeared by tomorrow, so I caught it when I could!

Stylistically, director Cianfrance uses Super 16mm for the pre-marriage sequences to create a grainy filter across the lens. Like the guy who introduced the film to me before the screening, I agreed with him when he said this adds authenticity and acts as fading memories of a once happy couple. Its genuinely powerful stuff, cause once we shift back to the present, he uses crisp stark imagery that really emphasises the declining relationship between Gosling and Williams. Along with vibrant colours of (guess what!) blue, it sets a unsettling tone that never lets up once. The tension is ever-present and it really hurts you as an audience member to see what the couple were once like. These pre-marriage sequences only serve to make the emotion of their decline worse. Its a brilliant and original technique; something I'm sure other filmmakers will pick up on. If its not original, so be it but Cianfrance uses it in a stylish way to compliment his own film and it works.

Performance-wise, you got Ryan Gosling giving ANOTHER Oscar worthy nod. I loved Colin Firth in The King's Speech. ALOT. He was fantastic and definately deserves the Award. However, I wish the Academy would recognise Gosling again after the brilliant Half-Nelson. He's one of the best of his generation and for once, I wish they didn't ride the hype of one performance and give it someone who exerts raw passion and emotion the way in which Gosling does. I know he won't get the Award or probably a nomination, but in my eyes; he's a worthy winner. Michelle Williams is also on fine form; her quiet, shy nature forms a conflict between her and Gosling that re-inforces the uncertainty of their future. The moments when she breaks under the pressure are wonderful pieces of acting and absolute credit to her performance. Without her, Gosling wouldn't have excelled the way he did.

I'd tell you to go catch this movie but I doubt you'll be able to. That is unless you have an independant cinema close by or God forbid, your actual cinema is showing this. I get the feeling its had a limited release but thats the way I want it. I like to feel that this was a special experience. It really really was and I know the whole audience felt that. 

A simple concept executed to perfection, "Blue Valentine" went beyond my expectations and is already in my Top 10 of 2011. Maybe by the end of the year Top 5. I will not be forgetting this anytime soon and neither should you. Remember the title. You'll want to watch it when its on DVD.

A rare 5 out of 5 stars.

Thanks for reading!
Tomorrow, I will be seeing Black Swan (arugably my most anticipated so far this year) and therefore a review will emerge sometime tomorrow. Look out for it! 

Peace out!
Tward 

That Green Gentleman: My review of the Green Hornet

In production for as long as 2 years, adapated from the popular radio series of the 40s as well as the renowned TV series of the 70s, featuring Bruce Lee as Kato and written by Seth Rogen, you'd think the Green Hornet was hot property. Sadly, the latest adaptation falls flat. Having had time to recolate my thoughts, I can publish them with what I hope is the most sincerce and honest opinion.

Taking a pre-exsisting property is notably all the rage in Hollywood, yet it rarely pays off. We have been treated to exceptions such as Christopher Nolan's reboot of the Batman series and Zack Synder's Watchmen (yes, I thought it was great) but most of the time, the film falls flat yet frustratingly takes in a shit load of money at the box office, prompting tireless sequels that are a) not needed and b) are there to take advantage of people who don't know what a good film is if it slapped them in the face. It may sound arrogant of me and perhaps it is, but if you're paying good money to go watch Michael Bay blow shit up with robots for 2 and a half hours, your idea of a good film differs GREATLY from mine. And with the recent explosion of 3D (thank you Mr. Cameron), we can be treated to action spectacle in fantastical 3 dimensions!

And so we get to the Green Hornet of 2011....

Famously a project whereby Seth Rogen shed his weight to play the titular superhero, he wrote and stars as Britt Reid, a young playboy whose wealthy father runs the Daily Sentinel, one of the biggest newspaper chains in Los Angeles. Upon his father's death, the reckless Reid inherits his father's company as well as his father's car mechanic (and coffee maker) Kato, played by Taiwanese singer Jay Chou. During a (completely illogical) discussion where they decide to go do something ridiculously stupid, they unwittingly defend a vulnerable couple from a gang of thugs and decide to become superheros, with Reid taking on the persona of The Green Hornet. Using his power as Chief Editor of the Sentinel, he pushes for more coverage of his superhero alter-ego that only attracts the interest of the city's crimelords, particularly Chudnofsky (I know, I can't say it either but apparently that's the point) played by Inglourious Basterds Christoph Waltz. Cue mindless action sequences, utterly dreadful dialogue and a terribly miscast lead performance by Seth Rogen..... Let the reviewing commence!

Honestly, I left the cinema satisfied. It was nothing brilliant obviously, but for a bit of escapism entertainment, i was satisfied. However, as I munched my lunchtime Subway before the far superior The King's speech (my previous blog), I got thinking. Specifically, I got thinking what the hell were they thinking. Seth Rogen is so boring as the Green Hornet that you literally wanna fall asleep. He rehashes the characters that he's known for and basically plays the Hornet as the stoned, wise-talking hero of Pineapple Express; an arguably better and more rounded film. 

The plot goes absolutely nowhere with the characters a part of ridiculous situations that you are suddenly aware shouldn't be there. How did we get from there to here?!?! It's beyond me. One minute, Rogen's partying. Next minute, he's engaging in high-speed pursuits with police and enjoying it. This all comes down to one important factor and above all, the most important part of a film: Characterisation. Does the Green Hornet have any? Not. One. Bit. As a result, the characters are weak, lack any enthusiasm and play it off as if they are utterly hilarious. No. You are not. Sorry team!

The mind boggles as to why someone as talented as Michel Gondry chose this as a potential project. For one, it has none of his quirky trademarks or any notable camerwork that he is known for. Expecting Eternal Sunshine with a superhero twist? Sorry, you won't get it. This is such a mainstream fim you won't get any originality from it at all. The same goes for Christoph Waltz, my (and many others too) favourite actor of 2009 thanks to his wonderful performance in Inglourious Basterds. He was menacing, brutal, funny and unforgiving in that. Here, he doesn't have an ounce of the wit or sadism that he included in the character of Landa. In fact, to say he's the films main villain, he really is hardly in it. And if you want a scary villain, you have them in it. Otherwise, you just have Seth Rogen giving himself too many lines then blowing stuff up when he runs out of things to say. Unfortunately, this is the case with The Green Hornet.

I wish to say as little as possible about 3D cause I despise the format. With the exception of last year's Tron: Legacy where it genuinely worked, there is absolutely no need for it. So why it is included here where it enhances nothing and often distances the audience from the action, well; it just serves to confirm that this film is a dud. Enough said.

Overall, it is fun in parts. There are a few notable exchanges between Rogen and Chou but with a story that is ridiculously unfocused and with no time for Waltz to establish what could have been a great villain, the film has no direction and as a result, is splendidly unfilling. 

I expected alot more from all involved. Just do me a favour Hollywood. Make your money from this and DO NOT greenlight a sequel. However, that plea looks to fall flat too......

2 stars out of 5.

Next up; It's a toss between Blue Valentine and Black Swan. DEPENDS which I see first, most likely the former. I have a screening of it on Wednesday or Thursday before Black Swan on Friday. Lots of activity. Very exciting times! 

Speak laters!

Tward

Poetic Tragedy: My review of the King's Speech

To determine the life of a Royal has been, assumed, as a hard task. But with more recent cinematic endevours such as the Queen (2006) proving to be successful in box office results and awards, its a dead cert that the trend can continue. Lets face it, us Brits are suckers for a Royal drama. The BBC's most recent adaptation of Bleak House was critically well received and who can forget Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy back in the late 80s, emerging from the pond and certifying his role as a posterboy for a Royal generation? It's his latest film, The King's Speech, that has been drawing all the attention of movie-goers and to be honest, rightly fucking so. 

Posting a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and enduring all the pre-Oscar buzz for literally what has felt like months, The King's Speech depicts the story of Prince Albert, Duke of York or "Bertie" as his family know him, in his attempts to cure his stammer and recover his flawed reputation. Beginning with the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium, director Tom Hooper establishes the story immediately. Faced with a huge crowd as well as the listening ears of the nation, Bertie breaks down as his stammer overcomes him and visibly unsettles the crowd. 

Upon the insistence of his wife, soon-to-be Queen Elizabeth played amazingly by Helena Bonham Carter, he visits Lionel Logue, an Australian speech therapist living in London played by Geoffrey Rush. Logue is known for his somewhat unusual and often controversial techniques and much of the films humour derives from the conversations that occur between Firth and Rush's characters. Attempting to embrace a friendship and understand Bertie's issues, the two continue to make amends as Bertie faces many problems such as the death of his father, King George V and the womanising ways of his brother, David, who would become King Edward VIII.


As previously stated, awards buzz for this film has been rife for months since its premiere at the Telluride Film Festival on 4th September and focus greatly upon the performance of Firth himself. This, I can say having now seen it, is totally justified. Firth embodies the troubled persona of Bertie wonderfully, in his body language as well as his mannerisms which lead to his stammer. There are many heart-wrenching moments that Firth truly makes believable such as his reluctancy to tell his daughters a bedtime story due to his stammer and the moment where he reveals the pressures of his childhood; his strict father, his natural left-handedness and his neglection at the hands of a nanny who greatly favoured his brother David. Its truly heart-breaking and Firth handles the subject matter with authenticity and care. I will be immensely surprised if he doesn't walk away with the Best Actor this year as its thoroughly deserved.


That said, without Carter and Rush's character, Firth wouldn't have an emotional core or at least one the audience can relate to. Not only was I convinced Carter was the Queen Mother, but I couldn't believe this was Bellatrix Lestrange from the Harry Potter series or Marla Singer from David Fincher's Fight Club. She embodies the role of any character shes wishes to play, evil or good, better or worse. She is, I believe, one of the best actresses of her time and I really wish the Academy acknowledge this with a Best Supporting Actress nomination come the announcement.


Onto Rush, whom without the film would not be humourous in any form. He is the comic relief, if you will, for the film's otherwise strong and topical subject matter. I'm not trying to play the film off as a comedy. Far from it. But at times, films such as the King's Speech need a relief from the hardship that occurs on-screen and Rush is simply brilliant. Often engaging in dialogue-orientated sparing matches with Firth, the two create a fabolous chemistry that excels into humour; a scene worth mentioning involves Rush's character persuading Firth to swear in an attempt to make him relieve some of the pressure on him. I gotta say, I was genuinely laughing at this scene and so was most of the cinema, who were of the older generation and wouldn't be caught dead repeating the words that coming from Firth's mouth. But in the context of the scene, the audience understood the humour behind and it works splendidly. 


On a different note, I can easily see Tom Hooper receiving a Best Director nod because of the films great success. I urge the Academy to think otherwise. This is a performer's film. No doubt, a greatly directed period piece by Hooper, I just don't feel there is anything artisticly different or something that stands out that he has placed in his film. Maybe some other time, Hooper but not just yet.

This is Firth's film. And I wouldn't have it any other way.


Up next, The Green Hornet in (not-so) spectacular 3D!!!

WE ARE SEX BOB-OMB!!! ONE TWO THREE FOUR!!: My review of Scott Pilgrim (Comic/Movie)

OK, sooooooo this blog is about both the comics and the movie adaptation of Scott Pilgrim so bare with me. Let's start with the awesome comics which got delivered two days ago along with the Walking Dead (check yesterday's blog)

So the comics of Scott Pilgrim began in July 2004 and ended recently in August 2010, just after the release of the movie. The story is split into six black-and-white volumes that follow Scott Pilgrim, a 23-year old Canadian slacker who plays bass guitar in the band Sex Bob-Omb. He falls in love with Amazon delivery girl Ramonna Flowers but in order to win her heart, Scott must first defeat her seven evil ex-boyfriends.

Greatly inspired by Japanese manga artwork, the characters emotions are often expressed through seemingly simple lines. The story itself is incredibly strong; with convincing dialogue that is quite literally a nerd's delight. Frequent references to video games and over-the-top action are rife throughout the volumes, which is dominated by Scott and Ramonna's attempts to stay together despite the numerous battles Scott faces. This aspect of the volumes is surprisingly serious. The love story is cute and honest, something I didn't expect to see in a graphic novel. As an 18 year old guy who loves comics, I was amazed by how much I dug this story and the connection between Scott and Ramonna. What enhances its quality is its quirky and kinetic energy; often cutting away to random events that relate to the present or even creating video-game style fight scenes in the same vein as the Street Fighters series that are just plain bizarre. I mean, no one has super powers (with the exception of vegan Todd) and thats established but somehow the fight scenes transcend into surreal fantasy. Its really cool how there is not one drop of blood in all the fight scenes. Its all very PG which brings me to the movie.....

The film adaptation of Scott Pilgrim combines all volumes of the graphic series with the exception of Vol. 6 since it was released after production began. It was directed by Edgar Wright of Shaun of the Dead and Spaced fame which means that the film was already guaranted to have a quick paced editing style, that was reminiscent of the novels. The great thing about the film (apart from it being totally awesome) is that its a more than faithful adaptation; it retains the edge, the quirkiness and even the comic book style. Many images in the film are the exact same as the ones from the comics and as someone who has read half of the series, its greaat to notice these little details.

As Scott Pilgrim is Michael Cera, the bass playing jobless slacker who fights for Ramonna. As many people may know, Michael Cera plays Michael Cera in every Michael Cera movie. Just something I thought of. He is a good comedic actor, I love Superbad and Juno. I now love this equally but Michael Cera plays the same character. Geeky, silly, rather idiotic. Just like Scotty P. Which makes him perfect for the role.

Artistic license is taken though. To condense six graphic novels is tough. Therefore, storylines are changed to fit other characters or are omitted completed. However, this does not change the final quality of the film. I'm gonna stop now cause I really can't be arsed to keep writing. Simply put, like the Walking Dead, read and watch kids! Its awesome stuff and I would like to make a change to my Top 5 of 2010. I stupidly omitted Scott Pilgrim in favour of Kick-Ass. WRONG DECISION. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is now Number 5 in my Top 5 of 2010. RESULT!!

Peace!!!

It's Not The End Of The World, But I Can See It From Here: My review of The Walking Dead

So yesterday I received off Amazon (arguably the greatest internet delivery service EVER) all volumes for the Scott Pilgrim comic book collection and Book one of The Walking Dead which is the topic for today's blog. As many of you are probably aware, The Walking Dead has recently been adapated into a TV series by Frank Darabont of Shawshank Redemption fame and AMC, a cable network which also produces my other favourite TV series Mad Men. Do NOT under any circumstances begin to underestimate the potential of this network. Originally, it only premiered movies but after the MASSIVE success of Mad Men has behag producing original programming. And thank God, they did.

The first season of the Walking Dead premiered on October 31st; with the pilot episode opening to both universal critical acclaim and a 5.3 million viewership, making it the highest rated premiere episode ever on cable television. This viewership was eventually eclipsed when the season finale brought in 6 million viewers, making it the most watched basic cable series for its demographic. Now I don't about you, but I think those figures are staggering. Firstly, The Walking Dead is made on basic cable. AMC proved with Mad Men that they can offer budgets of $2-3 million per episode which for cable is amazing. Unfortunately, I can not find the budgeting figures for each individual episode so I cannot say but I'm pretty sure we're looking at a similar budget. The pilot episode itself was like watching a film. Much like Mad Men, there is a cinematic quality to the entire series and what I love the most; unbelievable characterisation. Seriously, combine the characterisation of Mad Men with zombies and you get the Walking Dead. That simple. But this begs another question. How the hell has this become such a popular choice of viewing not only for North America but the world over. In the UK, many of my friends including myself tuned in every week to watch because the quality was so enhanced. Its unlike anything I've seen before and its this connection with the characters that make this series so worth the watch.

However, it must be remembered that this began, as many films/series do these days, in an entirely different format. The format of comic books. The Walking Dead was originally created by Robert Kirkman, published by Image Comics that began in 2003 and is still running in 2011. Its released monthly and tells the ongoing of Rick Grimes and the group of survivors he leads, that includes his wife and child , in the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse. Sure, this sounds all too familiar but as I've mentioned in my blog about Ben Affleck's "The Town", its how you execute a familiar idea that counts. The Walking Dead comics are definately a subversion of the zombie genre, a different take if you will on our prior understanding. The story's execution is wonderful and the fact that is released monthly only adds to the excitement of the next issue. Its a wonderful format for an ongoing story like the Walking Dead and I'm hopin that for the second season of the TV series that they can capture some of this. On the back of Season 1, its safe to say they will.

So, jump to the present day and here I am, having made my way through the majority of Book one in roughly 4 hours. I must stress I haven't finished it yet however I have been asked the question that often people ask: Does the TV series stay faithful to the original books? The answer is yes and no but the no part is not a bad thing at all. If you haven't read the comics or watched the series and are planning to I suggest you stop reading since the contents of the next passage will be of a spoileriffic nature.......have you gone yet?!?!

............*looks at watch*

GOOD!!

Book one covers two story arcs from the comic books which essentially means two chapters. The first chapter is called Days Gone Bye, the same name for the pilot episode of the TV series. The TV series follows the opening chapter to great detail. I recognised a great deal of imagery that was present in the show and for that, I'm thankful. Although, some of the TV series' best bits are not present, for example; that absolutely fantastic opening scene of the pilot where Grimes goes for gas amongst the debris of battered cars only to discover a zombie in the form of a little 6-7 year old girl and subsequently (literally!) blows her brains out. In 5 minutes, we have established a post-apocalyptic world, a band of potential survivors and that the world is overrun by zombies but also the horror of having to shoot an adolescent. It makes for great TV and this is my next point. Remember this is an ADAPTATION in the same vein as Harry Potter and Twilight (God forbid!). It doesn't always follow the book word for word, scene for scene. It takes artistic license and attempts to enhance the product. I myself am a strong believer in sticking largely to the main story however I don't mind removing unneccesary subplots that work in a novel. You see, two vastly different formats like books and film/TV don't always translate well. By adding a scene 'in media res' (this is a common filimic term which means 'In The Middle' in Latin) in the TV series, it starts to establish codes and conventions for an audience whereas a book or comic can divulge in greater detail about a certain issue and not lose their readers interest. That is the difference.

The TV series does also add characters to the already established repititore of the comics but these only enhance the quality of characterisation. They all have a backstory and a reason behind their motives; they all tend to have lost family and friends to the zombies. There physically and mentally scared by the events that have taken place. As Heather Havrilesky in her review of the show, "A film-quality drama series about zombies? Somebody pinch me!" And this appears to a running trend, with most reviewers stating that this series is more than just about zombies. If anything, its not about zombies. They are the obstacle in the way of human survival and many issues are raised such as the common motif of how far would one go to rescue his family. The book and TV series are gripping stuff and genuinely full of emotion; one scene in particular had me extremely close to tears. This, of course, wouldn't occur had the producers not picked a splendid cast led by Britain's own Andrew Lincoln. Over in Britain, he is well-known for his role in "Teachers" which was well-received and might be known in America for his role in "Love Actually" as Keira Knightley's (other) love interest. Like Hugh Laurie before him, he is an original Brit. And I pray he sees the ride out cause he is brilliant; even though I know his British accent, he certainly fooled me a Texan one. 


Can't think of much else to say guys! I'm running out and don't want to repeat myself. Remember this though; The Walking Dead is a "continuing story of surivival horror" as described by the author. I hope that this means both in comic format and TV format since both are simply stunning achievements. I request you watch/read them both. Like right now. Go! Run! Watch! Read!


Peace out!!

The Update: What it says on the tin really!

I assure you that this IS a song title! It's your job to lemme know by who! No clues guys! You're on your own and to be honest, you should know it! 

As it states, this is an update on matters. I've decided to once again postpone my reivew of Season 1 of Mad Men simply because I've got lots of revision to do and further reading (Uni can be a bitch sometimes!) and since its gonna take me a while, I'm gonna stick with the movies but also, a new addition to the blog, is books. Specifically at the moment, it will be comics. I have just placed an order for the entire collection of Scott Pilgrim volumes after my girlfriend got me the first for Christmas! I can't wait to get reading them!! WOOP!! 

So, yeah, boring update. Gonna be reviewing comics soon. YIPPEE. Time to read more Bleak House.

Peace!

Bad Medicine: The (brief) story of my failed blog and my review of The Town

The title refers to a Bon Jovi song from the 80s which totally rocks. If you hadn't guessed that already, you're an idiot. Everyone knows that song. Hell, my mother knows that song. You should get your heads examined at the hospital......What is a hospital you say? Well, its a big building with patients in but that's not important right now....and if you seriously didn't get that reference, SHAME. ON. YOU.

Anyhoo, this whole shindig is a light hearted thing so to sum it up, the Bad Medicine title should really be saying Bad Times. However, since I cannot for the life of me think of an artist who wrote a song called 'Bad Times', Bad Medicine has to do. I'm pretty down right now. And it's cause Blogspot deleted my last post. It was on the first season of Mad Men and it was splendid shit. I was nearly done. Then it disappeared......I mourned its loss. Then realised I could do better. So tomorrow, since its going to be a long blog, I will re-write it. And there you have it, the brief story of my failed blog. Now down to brass tax gentlemen. And ladies.

Within the last hour, I've literally just finished watching the new Ben Affleck-directed "The Town". You know what time it is! Time to review that shit!! *applause from my humble minions*

"The Town" stars Ben Affleck and Jeremy Renner as robbers in the Boston area of Charlestown, a notorious environment that has generated more robbery than anywhere in the world. This fact is indeed authentic; it is a very well known fact amongst American folk. Thankfully, Affleck addresses this issue in the closing credits stating that whilst this maybe true, the area of Charlestown still just as many good people as anywhere else. And this is what "The Town" represents. Affleck and Renner's character are the small minority of crooks that shine a bad light on the town and the film deals with issues of redemption, family, crime and loyalty. Pretty familiar you might say? I couldn't agree more with you. But stop right there kids, there more than meets the eye.

In the last five years, Affleck has been taking cinema by storm. In all seriousness, he's a force to be reckoned with and he's doing it in spectacular fashion. Ever see his debut "Gone Baby Gone" back in 2007? Independant production, starred his younger brother Casey and involved a very controversial story of child abduction....Yes, very touchy themes. Very adult themes. But it was executed properly. It was motivating, it was emotional, it was dramatic, it was powerful.....There's ways in which to make films and Affleck takes an otherwise conventional story and turns it on its head. You have to watch his films to understand my point but believe me, his main attribute is story and characters. And nothing else. You want a good film? Invest in the characters. You can never go wrong. Whilst "Gone Baby Gone" was fantastic, there were a few downsides most of them stemming from his lack of skill behind the camera. Nonetheless, it was a bold effort that raised eyebrows amongst the industry as to what to expect from him next and this brings us back to "The Town".

Set once again in his native Boston, "The Town" embraces a typical narrative yet Affleck electrifies it with character developement and an emtional story at its core. Not only do you like these characters, you want them to survive the dangers they face despite their criminal outlooks. Enter Jon Hamm, star of TV's Mad Men (Check my other blog posting), playing the FBI Agent on the prowl to take Affleck's crew down. Once again, all very familiar. FBI Agent tracking a group of robbers. Hamm's character is unusual. He doesn't behave like a real agent. He's aggressive, an authoritarian but expresses techniques to catch them that aren't exactly by the book. You don't like his character. So you shouldn't. You're not in any way aligned with him; it's all about Affleck and Renner. You spend time with them and there the good guys. It's spectacular stuff; an great piece of ensemble acting and yet its amazing how often this fails in the movies. With the right cast, you've got the right film.

Technically, Affleck chooses a traditional use of camerawork with continuity editing, 180 degree line rules and shot types to connote a character's feelings. There isn't much to see in his camerawork; its all very conventional. But let that not subtract you from the story. The camera is your eye into their world. Its important that it stays simple.

I doubt this film will get the awards buzz that Affleck's previous effort received or even the heights he hit with "Good Will Hunting" but it is once again a solid addition to his aspiring directing career. Its much more accomplished than "Gone Baby Gone" and as a result, I look forward to his future releases.

One of the best of 2010. Thoroughly enjoyable and well worth the watch. A fabulous 4 out of 5 film. Please take the time to watch it!

Peace out!

Tragedy: Oh no, the snow has stopped things once again!

I was supposed to be seeing the King's Speech yesterday i.e. Friday but unfortunately, could not due to a strange onslaught of snow. I only just managed to hand my assignment in to University so I really didn't wanna strand myself in the cinema although that would cool.... to an extent.

This is just a short message to say I am going next Friday to watch The Green Hornet and Blue Valentine so hopefully within the next few days, I can see the King's Speech. That means 3 glorious reviews (good or bad) will be posted within the next week.

Enjoy your weeks guys! I'm bored at home. Uni doesn't start for another fortnight. This is weird.....

Buhbah!!

We've Got A Situation Here: My review of 127 Hours.

Massive awards buzz has been surrounding Danny Boyle's latest since late September when it was at the Toronto International Film Festival to standing ovations. With 4 months to wait for its January 7th UK release date, I seized the chance to see it on previews two days early. I've gotta tell you it was the best decision I could have made. Here's my review for 127 Hours.

127 Hours is based on the true story of mountain climber Aron Ralston's quest to save himself after he becomes trapped in a isolated canyon in Utah, having his lower right arm clamped against the rock face by a boulder. He spent 5 days trapped before, delirious and dehydrated, amputating his arm below the elbow with nothing more than a blunt knife. 

Tricky subject matter even for cinema. Step in Danny Boyle, Oscar winning director of Slumdog Millionaire and modern classics such as Trainspotting and 28 Days Later. The technical issues surrounding the filming means that tight spaces and hand-held camera work is utilised at a great effort and expense. It also makes for a more realistic portrayal of Ralston's ordeal; especially the personal recordings he makes during the event to his friends and family explaining the situation, even going so far as to record a makeshift will, adamant he will die. The other major difficultly is creating a film that features only one character for a large portion of the film. How do you market or attract an audience for such a title? 127 Hours is very much along the same lines of last year's Buried, which features only one on-screen character in the form of Ryan Reynolds, trapped six feet under. That film worked very well and was on of my top ten films of 2010 as it showed not only could the one man show work but that Ryan Reynolds can act.

Well, 127 Hours hits the jackpot in the form of James Franco. Fleshing out his acting chops in recent years, he's become very much in demand from high profile directors and made appearances in Oscar winning films such as Milk with Sean Penn. He's more than the kid from Spiderman; he's a big talent. Franco plays Ralston with the right amount of distress but at the same time light-heartedness. Its hard to believe but the film intentionally plays to the humourous side of the situation or how Ralston sees it since its his story. In his delirious state, he utters ramblings that often made me chuckle and this aspect is retained in the film. The soundtrack adds the cause as much of the score features pop songs of an upbeat nature, juxtaposing the situation at hand. This is testament to Boyle's brilliant filmmaking style which leads me onto my next point.

Ever heard of surrealism? I'm sure you have and if you're a fan of Boyle, you will know he regularly includes sequences that are often out of the ordinary with the rest of the film (the toliet sequence in Trainspotting and the dance sequence at the conclusion of Slumdog Millionaire come to mind). Here, he takes advantage of Ralston's delirious state to bring the surrealist element to the foreground with Ralston hallucinating many characters as he remembers the best times in his life. The surrealism also enhances the on-screen humour such as a sequence with a Scooby Doo inflatable (Go watch to see what I mean).

Now many of you will want to know about the amputation scene since its generated a lot of discussion. It is indeed gory. Very gory. I was surprised myself and Boyle makes extensive use of sound to create viscerally damning images (he uses static sounds when Ralston hits nerves to conform the feeling of pain). But don't think its not neccesary. 127 Hours would be nothing without this scene. Its what eventually sets him free. So, whilst there are many graphic images shown during this sequence, stick with it because in the end it is life-affirming stuff!

Overall, as a huge fan of Danny Boyle's filmmaking and a fan in the making of James Franco, this is a marvellous achievement of both a technical and acting nature. It takes alot to make a film like this and the subject matter has been handled with care and conceived into an Oscar contender for 2011. A strong 4 out of 5 for me. The first great film of 2011 has arrived!

Next up for (should be) The King's Speech. More laters!

Derezzed: My review of Tron: Legacy.

This is my first review on my blog. There is going to be many more like it. They are going to be simple reviews. I don't intend to delve deep into the film's story as that would lead to spoilers. More like give an unbiased opinion on the film's quality. Sound good?! AWESOME! =D

Today's first review is on the latest installment in the Tron franchise, Tron: Legacy.

Right, where to begin? Well, 28 years ago, back in 1982, the original Tron was released and quickly developed a cult following. At a time when technology was greatly changing the way in which the population communicated and lived, Tron was something of a gamechanger for cinema in that it had state-of-the-art CGI. Whilst its story was often conceived as preposterous and sometimes ludicrous, most critics were of the opinion that the film was loaded with visceral delights. Fast forward 28 years to 2010 and with Tron: Legacy we have yet another gamechanger.

It delivers an entirely different and more realised vision of Tron than seen previously and since CGI has come into its own in the last few decades, with notable examples such as Transformers and Avatar using the format to create new worlds and creations, Legacy is no exception. 

Honestly, I was not expecting much from this. Its safe to say that I shut up after the first 30 minutes. I was engrossed and the visual world of Tron is simply stunning to look at. The fight sequence on the Grid is so well done, you feel like you're actually a part of it. And on that note, the 3D aspect must be mentioned.

Unlike more recent 3D installments that have the pleasure of being absolutely dire as a result of using the format, I can actually say that Legacy benefitted tons from its use. It really brought to life all the colour, glamour and action of the visuals which made for a more satisfying experience.

However, like its predecessor, the story is flat. Very flat. The acting is surprisingly good, especially Jeff Bridges who uses his Dude persona every now and then to ignite the film's story with a much needed spark. It seems a shame for such a talented cast to be given such a mediocre story but then again, it is science fiction and anything is possible. Yet this still doesn't excuse it: Many sci-fi films are made fantastically. I guess it all comes down the execution of the screenplay but not in the case of Legacy.

A final word on the musical score of Legacy. It is without a doubt one of the best soundtracks I've heard and its all due to the producers hiring renowned French dance duo Daft Punk to score it for them. Out of their depth you might think but go see the film and believe me, it adds a great deal of fun and excitement to the visuals. Look out for their cameo as the DJs in the bar. That scene in particular features some of the standout tracks such as Derezzed (Notice anything?) which is an absolute monster of a tune, it makes the fight sequence it plays to all the more fantastic!

So, overall, I would give Tron: Legacy a good 3 out of 5 based on the fun I had from watching it and Jeff Bridges being the Dude once more. Imagine that though. The Coen Brothers directing the Tron sequel.....messed up! 

Next up, 127 Hours! Laters!

2nd Sucks....

Holy shit guys!! Happy new year!! May 2011 bring lots of happiness and all that jazz!
Right now that's over, let's get down to the knitty gritty!

I just watched the latest How I Met Your Mother episode since the Christmas Break. Gotta tell you, I'm still reeling from it. Saddest episode of TV I've watched in a while. The show continues to impress me and absolute kudos to Jason Segel, who is very much more than just a funny face. Excellent show!! :D

Tomorrow I see Tron: Legacy and 127 Hours. Heard some excellent things about both actually, especially the latter. Look forward to seeing James Franco throwing his acting chops around and since its Danny Boyle, can't miss it for the world! I'm asking myself the question of whether or not to see Tron in 3D or 2D....3D probably since it will look better but to be honest, I ain't a fan of the format. Stupid Cameron! :(

Anyhoo, there will be an update on Twitter of their quality and with these films, comes many others in the next few weeks since buzz is generating around the Oscar nominations which is only a couple of weeks away. If Inception doesn't get nominated, I wish to stage a boycott. No shit either. It deserves all the awards as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully the Academy will take into account the deep story, complex narrative and finally phenomenal performances from each individual in the cast. Also, Chris Nolan for Best Director please. Would make my day cause if it were me, he'd have one for each of his films. Pure brilliance!

Anyone guessed the song title yet by the way?!?! I'll leave that one with you! :D
Off to complete Force Unleashed II. I'm so close!!! If you have a 360 and fancy a game of Black Ops, add me on IngloriousTward! Always looking for new buddies! :)

Peace out!