Man of Steel - 12A - 5 out of 10
Superhero films in the 2000s are a bit like what I imagine grunge music was like in Seattle in 1990; a boom inspired by some stand out examples of the genre followed by a whole heap of underwhelming nothingness.
Every comic book hero seems to have been rebooted this decade. Hell, there is even a Hercules film pencilled in for next year with Dwayne Johnson starring. I'll leave you to make pre-judgements on that one yourselves.
However, Man of Steel is the reboot of the big guy. The man. Superman to be exact.
As such, there automatically comes with a hope it will deliver a standout alternative from the general dredge and with Christopher Nolan on production, the expectation rises.
The film explores the formative years of Kal-El/ Clark Kent/ Superman, all-American hero, played by Jersey's own Henry Cavill, who kind of resembles George Osborne's beefed up cousin, only with less laughs.
We see how he grew up from a boy blasted to Earth from his doomed home planet Krypton by parents ultra-British Russell Crowe and Ayelet Zurer where he grows from a shy, retiring child afraid of his powers to a bit of a boring man with arms the size of foundry chimneys.
Dubbing him boring is of course unfair on Cavill as the role demands that despite wearing a Zorro-style cape and a suit that totally isn't spandex but might as well be spandex, some base form of dull decorum is required, a bit like a hench Spock.
Its not that he plays the character badly, on the contrary, just the character itself is so boring.
This isn't the only character issue.
Amy Adams' Lois Lane veers from intrepid, gritty reporter for the Daily Planet in the opening half hour of the film to screaming damsel in distress in quicker time than you can say “comic book style cliché".
Superman's nemesis General Zod is, however, a perfect imagining of the villain by Michael Shannon; cold, calculating, but not necessarily evil, more a victim of his own circumstances.
Man of Steel suffers from the same problem every big budget action film now has in trying to outdo the previous big budget action film by adding more carnage and explosions until it resembles a clashing of a scrapheap and a fireworks factory inside a tumble dryer.
In a similar vein, the climatic fight scene between Superman and Zod resembles the long-running joke in Family Guy of Peter Griffin fighting the Giant Chicken in the sense it is scripted, extended and essentially a oneupmanship contest for who could throw their opponent through the most amount of skyscrapers.
Its not only the climatic scene which is like this, its every scene in which Superman fights a fellow Kryptonian just this was the final scene, the highlight of the movie. Mix it up a little bit!
In that sense I suppose it was a suitable ending for the film given what had gone before, but rather aptly given the content, its only suitable crashing right through the other side of pointless and gratuitous.
Another similar recurring course it follows is looking into the backstory of the hero to find out what makes him fight for justice and all that malarkey (turns out its Earth-dad Kevin Costner and a love for the glorious cornfields and other assorted attractions of Kansas).
Every superhero film now makes their champion into a broody, sullen, world-weary individual – as well they should be what with all the pressure they're presumably under for being the world's go-to-guy– but Superman is historically the cheesiest of all the comic book heroes so it basically feels like painting him with an emotion brush for the pure sake of it.
And then he's still dull and a bit of a drone. Some work.
All in all, Man of Steel isn't a bad film. Its an interesting if not riveting reboot of a classic story and so given the current state of superhero films which it essentially apes, it is something of a monotone retelling of a story in a format audiences are now tired and cynical of unless it is truly remarkable. Which it isn't.
In a way, its something of a triumph as it leaves the audience wanting it to be longer to add some more emotional meat to the bones of the plot, but also desperate for it to be shorter as to have less interminable fight scenes where characters are basically used as wrecking balls in an amateur attempt at city planning.
Oh, and don't fork out for 3D. You shouldn't anyway for any film, but Man of Steel has about as much use for it as one would wearing the ridiculous glasses out in the real world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Reunion (American Pie Reunion)- 15- 8 out of 10
It’s back! Unless you count the three spin-offs that were made to earn some dollar off of the trademark name (which we really shouldn’t count and, if you do, feel free to leave now).
Yes, nine years after Jim and Michelle’s wedding, the American Pie gang are back in an attempt to try to wrestle back the teen gross-out comedy style of film and steer the stale, overworked genre in a fresh, different direction.
Basically, what American Reunion (or American Pie Reunion depending on where you’re reading this from) is trying to do is what the original American Pie did 13 years ago and reboot the coming of age film which the original did which, judging by the lookalike films that it spawned, was good news for a few years and then very, very bad news after that.
The original American Pie was a coming of age film about teenagers leaving high school and trying to lose their V-plates, American Reunion Pie remains a coming of age story but at a different time in life; the time in life when all those high school dreams about one’s future have been replaced by the monotony and problems of adult life but the joy and happiness that remains.
From tackling growing up and all that entails, the film showcases the issues of the next stage of a person’s life; children, partners, work monotony, sexual monotony, the nagging annoyance that it could have been better and trying to keep things “the way they were”; problems everyone will face in life.
The chemistry between the five male leads in the original film made it a charming success and this element remains in place, thankfully, to keep the film ticking along when sometimes it feels a little flat. The outrageousness of Stifler, the cringey Jim, the understated wit of Finch, Kevin the everyman and Oz’s earnestness works as well now as it did then and their relaxed, easy bonhomie makes up for a lack of real, stand-out belly laugh moments. In a way, that’s how it should be as the boys (and girls) mature and their style of humour would change as in real life.
Which is not to say that the trademark gross-out scenes have departed what with a gratuitous knob on show here and some pooping going on there as well as some leather bedroom attire that goes badly wrong, as you might expect.
But what makes the focus on this different style of coming of age film is thecontrast with the original problems of the main characters which the film provides vividly by also featuring a group of 18-year-olds (centred around Jim’s neighbour) and their growing up problems.
I’m a sucker for films with some personal connection to myself, hence why the Harry Potter films are always a must watch. American Pie Reunion has this element as, for my generation, it was probably the first 15-rated film you had seen that you didn’t want your parents knowing you had seen. Much like Reunion itself, it brings back memories of a nostalgic time where things were better (read different) to what your life is like now, releasing some nostalgia-heavy emotions to temper one’s view.
All in all, whilst the film itself lacks a wealth of laugh-out-loud moments, the original elements that made the series a success remain which is good as, after nine years, it could easily have lost these elements. It’s sweet and silly, a bit of gross-out action and leaves with you a feel good smile on your face with a very tight and humorous ending as well as a desire to see the original three films once again and regressing. If it wasn’t from the American Pie lineage of films, it wouldn’t receive as high a mark out of ten but this film reviewing lark is all subjective so there.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hunger Games- 12A- 8 out of 10
To begin a frank admission; I have not read the Hunger Games trilogy of books. Now, go straight to the bottom of this post and put the various reasons why my opinion is no longer valid in the comments section.
Done? Good, now let us begin.
The Hunger Games (the opening book and the film, not the trilogy. This could get confusing) introduces us to the world of Panem; the North American landmass in the future following what would appear to be a hugely destructive civil war. The protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, comes from one of twelve backwater districts, reliant on primary industry to get by, which lost the civil war and, as a result, are subjugated by the Capitol as punishment for their treason.
One of their punishments is for each district to offer up a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18 every year for a televised death match (The Hunger Games) with only one winner, broadcast in the Capitol and each of the districts. The winner’s district gets a reward of food, hence the name of the game.
Much like (I imagine of course) the book, the film is dripping with themes and gosh is it overt in showcasing these themes; in your face is an understatement.
A satirical swipe at reality television is an over-arching idea present as the Hunger Games is basically the X-Factor meets Love Island meets Survivor (albeit a far more violent version) in a Truman Show reality. The building-up of the back stories of the participants in the Hunger Games is exactly the same as all of the aforementioned reality shows. The residents of the Capitol (exquisitely dressed, snobbish and aristocratic) watch to see the humiliation and the inhabitants of the districts (grubby workers) cannot help themselves but watch, which sounds familiar.
Another theme, more underlying than the reality TV satire is of a class struggle with an exploited, looked down upon underclass forced to work for the Capitol, an idea exacerbated by the momentum gathered throughout the film of a rebellion and unity among the districts stirred by the actions of Katniss in the Games.
In a nutshell, The Hunger Games can be seen as Charlie Brooker’s Black Mirror’s take on reality television added to the dystopian class struggle of 1984; not as powerful and epoch-defining as the latter but certainly with a similar message for the 21st century.
Anyway, back to the film and the opening scene of the film almost set me up to dislike it from the very beginning. A three minute long sequence of the protagonist running through a forest and field shot with a handheld camera for the shaky-cam effect; a style I find difficult to focus with. However, once you get used to it, it is the best style for the film to go with the rough and tumble of the action sequences later on. Kudos director Gary Ross.
Speaking of, as impressively shot as the action sequences were, the 12A certificate left them feeling a little empty. Whilst blood is overused in modern day cinema, where the film is very explicit in outlining the vicious and merciless world that the Hunger Games produces (hell, half the players died in the first four minutes), no blood being spilled kind of makes it seem not as real. It could have been more gritty and real with a 15 certificate but that alienates the early teenagers who make up a segment of the book’s target audience. But what you can and can’t get away with in different film classifications is another story for another day.
One area where a reading of the trilogy could have come in handy is judging whether the lack of character development in the film is a similar problem in the book. Weighing in at 142 minutes,The Hunger Games is lengthy but an extra twenty minutes wouldn’t have done any harm to build more character identification with the audience. As horrible as it was when Rue was killed, as we had only really known her 15 minutes (in which she saved the protagonist twice it should be noted) it didn’t feel like a huge loss. The slow burning opening hour of the film could have been cut to alleviate this problem but, to be fair, I’m no screenplay writer. I write in my room, not at Starbucks.
The area where The Hunger Games really outstrips its rivals in the young adult book adaptations (Harry Potter and Twilight)is the performances from young actors, particularly 21-year old Jennifer Lawrence s Katniss who play the strong female lead to perfection; tough but feminine in equal measure.
Overall, an enjoyable enough film and solid enough to prompt this writer to both look forward to the next instalment of the trilogy (or four films if rumours are prove to be true) by which time I shall indeed have read all of the novels, thus making my opinion worthy of blogging about. Naturally.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2- 12A- 9 out of 10
Some eras end with a blast and a bang, like the second Millennium (hell, did you see those fireworks in Sydney?!) or the career of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, now that was a blast and a bang. Some end with a whimper after many years of slow decay, like the Soviet Union,Family Guy or the career of Jim Carrey. Well, what to make of this end of an era that defined my generation?
To start out, this is a pure, stripped out action-movie. There is little tenderness or romance (apart from THAT kiss) and, aside from a few throwaway Ron Weasley quips, very little comic relief. Hell, even Fred and George Weasley are subdued, though that maybe due to the fact they appear on screen for approximately five seconds, total, alive or dead (SPOLIER!). Thos two-hour long cinema-going experience (hype!) is one long, heavy piece of drama and action.
Because of this, it makes the film all the better as it strips out any distractions and focuses on the plot.
It gives the cast a chance to perform without having anything else to focus on and boy do they perform. Radcliffe, Grint and Watson all shine, erasing their tendency to overact that appeared in the later films. But, as usual, it is the stellar supporting cast that provides the real weight with three names in particular standing out.
Helena Bonham Carter is electric as Bellatrix Lestrange, as she has been throughout the series. Not only portraying her creepy, chilling narcissism, but also the terrific scene where she plays Hermione disguised as Lestrange, bringing together the two very contrasting characters stunningly.
Ralph Fiennes is brilliant as Voldemort, shoving the most amount of intensity, menace and fear into every single word that comes out of his mouth. Surely, if you are looking for an actor to play a villain, he is your man?
And Alan Rickman; as the ultimate anti-hero. Whilst not getting as much screen time as his character deserved, he dominates every scene. In particular, the series of memories explaining to Harry how he loved Lily Potter expressing the pain and grief he had for her loss. Although, it....does....at times...seem...like...he's...having a contest....with himself...to see...how long...he...can...make...a sentence...last.
Right, to the plot. At first, I was a little disappointed how quickly the plot accelerated to the Hogwarts castle and the final showdown. I felt more time could have been used building the tension but I suppose it is a part two so all the tension was built in the first ‘episode’. However, despite spending probably around 90 minutes of the film at Hogwarts, the action never let up and the film kept coming at you.
As would be expected from the Potter franchise, no expense is spared on special effects with the battle scenes truly glorious; a veritable feast for the eyes. The fear was probably to avoid looking like a The Lord of the Rings battle scene and this was avoided. Weaving together epic battle scenes with cutaways to the ongoing individual battles of other characters such as Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville and the others would have been tricky to time together and fit in but the balance is about right.
You could see that every single little detail had the utmost care devoted to it, from the make-up to make the goblin facemasks to the sets for the Lestrange vault and the Room of Requirement. If these things were done poorly, you would rightly feel annoyed by it and aspects of the film would feel out of place. However, every single detail is done so well that the whole picture fits together perfectly with no weak link in the cinematography, musical accompaniment and the whole viewing experience.
As a Potter fanatic (nerd alert), this review could be seen as biased so, for good measure, a few criticisms, mostly stemming from the fact I re-read (for probably the tenth time, also nerd alert) the book last week. The lack of exploration of the family history (and related torment) of the Dumbledore family is largely overlooked. This was an important facet in the book as it was the mystery surrounding it that made Harry doubt the path laid in front of him by Dumbledore. Understandably, however, time constraints means some things have to be cut and the film worked as a screenplay without it.
Secondly, the scene in which Voldemort kills Snape (SPOLIER!), in a somewhat grizzly manner for a 12A, happens in what appears to be the Hogwarts boathouse which makes its first appearance in either book or film. Surely the director could have used the Shrieking Shack from the third film again to correspond with the book?
Anyway, I’m not gonna go on about discrepancies between the book and the film; that would be tedious. Perhaps, once again, this is the fanatic in me but I would have liked to have seen a longer film as two hours seemed a bit on the short side. Never thought I’d say that about any film. This led to many characters getting little onscreen time leaving the deaths of periphery characters like Fred, Lupin and Tonks not as harrowing as they are in the book. Put simply, there was not enough time to develop a bond with the characters to feel the pain of their onscreen deaths.
However, the positives far outweigh the negatives. There are some truly iconic moments in this film that did justice to the series; both the books and films. The ending drew a line under the whole thing as neatly as could be deemed possible with the whole thing essentially going full circle. Which is what I shall be doing when the film comes out on DVD; going full circle and watching all the films together back to back. Come join me; we can dress up and drink Butterbeer and do awkward Voldemort hugs. It’ll be a blast.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First and (for reasons that will become clear) last double review: Kings Speech and Black Swan- 9 out of 10
Attempting to compare and review two films as different as one about a 20th century monarch overcoming a speech impediment and growing into an inspirational leader and another film about the mental disintegration of a ballet dancer is tricky. It's a bit like sewing together and comparing the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra at the Portsmouth Guildhall and a Motorhead gig down the road at the Pyramids; completely different audiences, completely different talents, completely different expectations and so on.
However, these two films were both nominated for tonnes of awards earlier this year (and won a ton too) so they have a point of comparison; how good are they and which one is better. In answer to the first question, obviously, if you are put forward for the 'Best Film' category at every awards ceremony from the Academy Awards to the Guildford Film Lover's awards, the film(s) must be pretty damn good.
As a point of reference, earlier this year in the same week, I watched two other 'Best Film' nominees in Inception and The Social Network. I loved them both; the former for the innovative story (yes, I'm a simpleton) and the latter for the wonderful performances from Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield. However, these two (which again I watched on the same day, maybe I'll see True Grit and The Fighter next time) and this pair absolutely knock those two of the park for quality.
First up, The King's Speech. Pretty much every possible angle of praise that is conceivable has been used for this film and rightly so. Before this film, I was already in love with the work of Tom Hooper and this just cemented that love (not an obsession, I swears!). The storyline is wonderfully laid out, the acting superb in particular Geoffrey Rush and that other bloke (though I can't really see why Helena Bonham Carter was so feted for her role as it was far too stiff for me) and the biggest bug bear of mine, historical accuracy, is remarkably good.
Onto Black Swan. Whilst the first 15 minutes left me sceptical due to the slow, plodding progress of the plot and the tracking camera angles which left me feeling a bit disorientated and sick, I soon became completely engrossed in the movie. The use of cameras that focussed on faces and tracking movement rather than a fixed vantage point helped create a feeling of intimacy which brought the story to life as it framed the isolation the character of Nina felt.
Essentially, this comparison can be boiled down to a straight out fight between Colin Firth and Natalie Portman. The result? Dead heat. Both are stunning in their respective roles. Firth's portrayal of a stammerer is perfect as you can see the words get caught in his throat as he attempts to speak and the pain this, and the pressure he is under, is clear. Meanwhile, Portman displays the descent into madness brought about by the pressure of being forced into being two different beings is frightening intense and powerful.
Overall, I just prefer Black Swan for reasons I can't quite put my finger on (cue people saying that cos I'm a bloke there is only one reason). I think I prefer the atmospheric and intimate nature of the film and just enjoy the exploration of a mental breakdown and the metaphor that runs the length of the film regarding the nature of people. Which isn't to say The Kings Speech isn't very, very good either. One second thoughts, it's like comparing a Galaxy Ripple and a lasagne, both are pretty damn great in their own ways depending on your tastes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 1- 12A- 9 out of 10
As some of you may know, I edit the Arts & Entertainment section for the University of Portsmouth's student rag, Pugwash News, duly plugged. Anywho, when the seventh and penultimate Harry Potter film came out, my deputy editor submitted a review giving it 10 out of 10 saying "Jesus would bow down to this movie."
Now for some context, at the beginning of the year, we (by which I mean the A&E team) agreed that only the Second Coming would get a 10/10 review. However, I could see where my deputy was coming from with this rating.
Harry Potter has been such a huge part of the lives of our generation for so long. From the first book to this, the second from last film, it has been the defining cultural product of the past decade. It has guided us through all of the pitfalls of growing up, first day at a new school, first kiss, first fights with friends, first relationships, first break ups. It has covered everything for us, except sex of course, despite the fact wizard sex would be absolutely awesome, no "well-that's-never-happened-before" situations with wizard sex I'll bet.
So, going in to this film, expectations were as high as a stoner atop a skyscraper and we all know the equation that expectation=disappointment. Thankfully, however, once in a while expectations can be met. This film is very good.
Of course, to anyone who has read the book, the dark plot will be familiar. This is the darkest book of the lot with our three heroes abandoning Hogwarts to go, essentially on the run. This has given the film series a much needed change of scenery as the corridors of Hogwarts are replaced with some truly stunning British landscapes, from forests to lakes to coastlines.
From the beautiful locations used to shoot the out-and-about scenes to the perfectly lighted indoor scenes, in terms of directorship, this film is just perfect. Reflecting the generally dark aspect of the book, a lot of the film is shot darkly.
The issue with many of the past films has been the acting. Not the overall cast, that has always been exception with the best of the best British acting talent being utilised. Bill Nighy is the latest big name to be cast and naturally, he is super, as Rufus Scrimgeour, under-fire Minister of Magic. Elsewhere, Ralph Fiennes and Helena Bonham-Carter put in customary excellent turns as Lord Voldemort and Bellatrix Lestrange. No, the issue of acting in the past has been the younger actors. This is no longer an issue.
Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have all come of age as acting talents, particularly Grint. The increasing tension, both emotionally and indeed sexually, between the trio is portrayed perfectly. Yes some lines over acted but that's to be expected in a film branding itself 'the most important film event of this generation'.
This Potter film combines some many different elements of filmmaking just perfectly. Witness the tender moments, such as Harry and Hermione's dance together. Witness the funny moments, the seven Harrys. Witness the action moments, from the flight from the Dursley's house to the climactic scene at Malfoy's mansion. Witness the emotional moments, Dobby's death. All effortlessly put together in a single two and a half hour package.
It says a lot when my one issue with the film is that it doesn't follow the plot line of the book to the letter but that is impossible to achieve as otherwise the film would be about ten hours long. And yes, the plot of the film still works so that is not too big of a problem.
Overall, this latest film in the series just left me incapable of waiting until July for the final chapter when not just the film, but an era really, comes to an end.
Toy Story 3D- (U) - 6 out of 10
Looking back, wasn't everything always when you were younger? Sweets and chocolate tasted better with the added bonus of not having to worry about the effect they have on your teeth and body shape. The summers lasted longer, were sunnier, full of endless hours down the park and no burdens of money bringing one down. You could accidentally brush another person's chest/ arse region/ genital region without the cheeks reddening, awkwardly mumbling sorry and not being able to look them in the eye for two weeks or so. Simpler times.
And of course, films were always better, full of innocence and colour and fun and silly characters and happy endings. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, wasn't it lovely? But alas, age is nothing but a cynicism-creating device where you come out on the other side all gnarled and cynical.
So we come to Toy Story 3 (or 3D if you really must insist). Way back in my own youth, the original Toy Story was the first ever film I saw at the cinema and thus has a very special place in my heart. I loved it and still do to this day. But this new film just feels like a horrible, exploitative piece of bastardisation.
Firstly, it may just be my age showing, but this new offering seemed largely devoid of jokes, apart from the occasional zinging one liner from Hamm (still my favourite character), the extended Spanish Buzz gag and the Ken-Barbie interactions. The one thing animated films need to survive is both jokes for kids and subtler ones that adults will get but Toy Story 3 lacks this.
Secondly, the storyline (solid but not spectacular) took at least half of the film to get going, whilst at times lacked a coherency where it appeared the writers were working ad hoc, not thinking things through, which is unacceptable after having over a decade to produce the film.
Lastly, the gimmick of 3D. So many films since Avatar have jumped on the 3D bandwagon to make a few more pounds at the box office and very few have been worth the additional two quid entrance. They have been largely shot in 3D at last minute so huge swathes of the movie is not done properly and adds nothing to the experience. Toy Story 3D is another example of this where the 3D effect was only noticeable every so often and only to show the distance between characters in a scene, hardly Avatar's sweeping 3D landscapes. Note to film makers, spend less on 3D effect and more on your writers.
Overall, whilst still watchable as a movie, I was left with a feeling that this film could have been so much more than a lame tacking on to the outstanding achievements of the first two Toy Story films. The loss of childhood innocence indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inception- (12A)- 9 out of 10
Hype is a funny thing. No matter what the subject of said hype, England's World Cup chances, a sunny summer or your first sexual encounter, almost invariably it ends with tears, soggy sausages and frustration/disappointment (in that particular order, though in some cases all four). However, there is a reason we all still believe the hype and that is the hope that hype brings. The hope that, maybe, just maybe, the next overly hyped subject will be worth and that perhaps, just this once, we will come out of the other side of it with our faith rewarded and our hope restored until the next crushing blow that life brings, you're bus being late or something like that.
Anywho, after reading countless reviews marking inception down as THE SHIZZ and that I would be blown away, it was with some trepidation I took my seat. But some 2-and-a-half-hours later (which flew by incidentally) my hope was indeed restored until the crushing blow came (it being that my favourite takeaway was shut for the night…)
The story follows Dom Cobb (Di Caprio) who is essentially a man that goes into people's dreams to steal ideas. Oh, and he has a lot of emotional baggage. A lot. Which may or may not affect the plot of the film in a substantial way. Or maybe not at all. This is me trying to be spoiler free.
To get what he wants (spoiler free!) Cobb is offered a job by a businessman where he must plant an idea (rather than steal one) into the head of the businessman's rival's son and heir. To do this, Cobb puts together a team to travel into the head of the heir via his dreams.
What follows is a gloriously put together action-cum-Sci-Fi-cum- tortured romance film sprinkled with one-liners. The fight scenes are perfectly choreographed with echoes of The Matrix in places, the relationships between characters built steadily, plot twists coming thick and fast and enough action in amongst the intellectual aspect to keep the 14-year-olds behind me interested for a whole 140 minutes.
My two criticisms would be these. First, the film largely uses Ellen Page's character as basically a plot device. Her lines largely seem to just be questions aimed at Di Caprio's character which aim to clear up any intellectual barriers for the audience (kind of a layman's approach) and makes her character seem misplaced in the 'dream team', so to speak, that Cobb puts together, an apprentice among experts if you will.
My second criticism is the ending which, without giving too much away, at first appears to be a very good idea but on reflection seems flimsy and ultimately one twist too far.
But largely, this is a terrific film full of twists, incredible action sequences, an intriguing intellectual element, solid albeit not spectacular acting, all delivered at a steady pace that allows you to keep up. Although, as a friend of mine noted, it may now cause you to question your own dreams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cemetery Junction- (15)- 9 out of 10
Let us begin with a confession. I do not like Ricky Gervais. I do not find him funny in anyway at all. Admittedly, Extras had it's moments I'll admit and I can appreciate the role The Office played in redefining the British sitcom but I just don't particularly like the man or his style of comedy. Furthermore, it seems that if you are from Reading you have to love him.
However, this is a genuinely funny, touching, moving film so my kudos must go to Gervais and writing partner Stephen Merchant, who I have always much preferred of the pair.
The movie documents the lives of three friends in a 1970s dead-end town and how their differing personalities potentially destroy their lifelong friendship. Freddie Taylor (Christian Cooke) discovers that there's more to life than shagging, drinking and fighting but then finding out there is also more to it than getting a 9-5, buying a house and wondering who the fuck you are in the morning to quote Trainspotting, which this film is very similar to, minus the heroin. Whilst another, Bruce (Tom Hughes), is very happy with what he has, basically being a big fish in a small pond, working in a factory in the week, getting pissed and laid at the weekend.
What is encapsulated perfectly is the feeling of growing up in a dead end town, whatever part of the country you are from. The fact that this reviewer is from Reading, the town Cemetery Junction is largely based on, only adds to the sense of trying to escape such a life.
Despite the stunning performances from Cooke and Hughes, the awesome soundtrack and the superb gritty, vintage style of filming, you just cannot escape the fact that the script is masterfully written and full kudos must go to Gervais and Merchant for producing something truly brilliant.
A highlight is the conversations held between the three generations of the Taylor family about racism, class, culture, identity are conversations that anyone that was 18 between the early 1970s to the present day can remember having with their own parents and grandparents.
Also, again from a personal standpoint, the characters are all very Reading, with very Reading accents, very Reading sayings, very Reading opinions and ultimately a very Reading (i.e. rather poor) sense of self worth in life.
Ultimately, Cemetery Junction has the potential to be one of the year's standout films and a springboard for a new assault on the film industry from Gervais and Merchant . If they can keep this up, my opinion of Gervais may change also.
PS. there is a place in Reading called Cemetery Junction but this of course adds to the metaphor of the title. Wonderful
No comments:
Post a Comment