All films I saw in January (listed in order of preference) - Eastwood tops the list

I have finally posted every film that I saw in January; they are listed below in order of best at the top and working down through my preference. This is something I have been meaning to get on with for about a year. I don't want to pick and choose films to look at in depth; I would rather skim over every film in order to give a sort of well rounded view of my film consumption and opinions. Plus, the whole reason I do this is to stay sharp and make sure I am thinking about everything, rather than selectively paying particular attention to some things and letting others wash over me.

If anything, I have been a little too thorough at times, though it cannot be helped when a film is worthy of discussion. May have to find another device to limit the time it takes to get posts up though. I imagine this will come in the form of bullet points for the 'what it did particularly well' and 'missed opportunities' headings, which I will be changing to 'what I liked' and 'what I didn't' or somethig, in order to reflect the fact that these are strictly my opinions rather than objective truths. Something that should be obvious anyway, but just to show that I know this and openly welcome disagreement.

Any problems with the list, let me know your thoughts.

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

Rope (1948)

Control (2007)

The Man Who Knew too Much (1956)

Black Swan (2010)

127 hours (2010)

Buried (2010)

The fighter (2010)

Princess and the Frog (2009)

The Mechanic (2011)

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)

Arthur and his Great Adventure (2009)

Hereafter (2010)

The Last Airbender (2010)

The Seven Year Itch (1955)

Heartless (2009)

Observe and Report (2009)

Sweeney Todd (2007)

30 Days of Night (2007)

The Producers (2005)

Marketa Lazarova (1967)

Hurt Locker (2008)

Rope (1948) - Flawlessly choreographed, cinematic spectacle

Viewing context:
Third film from my Hitchcock boxset, but not watched at my friend's house this time as he had already seen this one.

Creators:
Hitchcock directed, with the screenplay coming from Arthur Laurents. It is based on the play by Patrick Hamilton

What Happened:
The film opens with two men, Brendan (John Dall) and Philip (Farley Granger), murdering another. They hide the body in the apartment and prepare for a dinner party that had previously been arranged; a dinner party that the murdered individual was invited to. The guests include the victim's fiancee, her ex (also an old college friend of the two murderers and the victim), the victim’s parents, along with the victim's and murderers' college housekeeper; the intellectual, calculating teacher Rupert (James Stewart) who unwittingly sewed the seeds of the boys' idea of killing.

What it did particularly well:
Mise-en-scéne, scripting, pacing, choreography on and off screen were all breathtakingly brilliant. The fact that these things were almost flawless anyway is amplified by the fact that they were all completed in ten minute chunks, as the film only cut to another shot when the camera had ran out of film. Had the technology permitted, I am sure it could have been achieved for the film's duration (That really would blow my mind). Not only was this sheer spectacle in its most impressive form, due to its sophisticated setup and captivating cat and mouse routines, but it constantly commented on wider issues; on morality, art, the nature of mankind and other such philosophical quandaries.

What could have been improved:
The way the camera zoomed right in on somebody’s back when the cuts occurred was jarring, but I understand why it had to be done that way. Also, considering the whole thing took place in real time, the prospect of such a great party - or any party for that matter - lasting less than an hour whilst never seeming unduly rushed is a little far fetched.

Themes:
well it was as subtle as a brick in it's interrogation of certain philosophical principles of morality, rolled up particularly in Nietzsche's concept of the superman, or the superior being. This concept was then combined with a bourgeoisie concept of art and of the idiotic lower classes, or lower beings, just not understanding it. The way that this belief can manifest itself in complete disregard for the humanity of others and can therefore lead to this sort of amoral killing; this cold, calculating 'death as art' that was seen through the character of Brendan. This was reinforced through his complete disregard for the maid, in contrast to Rupert's concession that he would ‘talk to her all night if he could’, which symbolised the difference between the two. Rupert could know all the same things that Brendan does, and share many similar thoughts, yet still has his humanity intact enough to understand where the boundaries lie.
The reference didn't stop at Nietzsche; there was much reference to Freudian psychoanalysis, which is to be expected considering the themes of the unconscious and the death drive, wrapped up in Brendan’s almost sexualised admiration of Rupert.
The theme and emphasis of art and perfection are reinforced by the film itself; the spectacle of the choreography and the meticulous construction of the screen on every single shot was breathtaking and embedded you firmly in Brendan's perfection obsessed, artistic consciousness.
Finally, this idea that Brendan took the knowledge that Rupert imparted within him (perfect murder, or murder as art) and took it to the extreme, following through with it, seems reminiscent of the fact that it has been widely documented that Nietzsche was Hitler’s inspiration for the ideal race and his justification for ethnic cleansing. Again, taking some well thought out, balanced theory and twisting it, taking it out of context and driving it through with blind conviction.

Performance:
For this one I’d rather just say that it was an all round collective performance. Every single cog in the wheel made it go, including every single performance. But having said that, at a push, I guess I would say that I was most impressed by Stewart. this might be mainly due to the fact that from my limited experience of James Stewart, this role was against type. I have seen him this charismatic, but never quite so wise, in control and infallible.

Scene:
The scene where Brendan loses it about inferiors is very revealing. It reveals his feeling on the matter; it reveals why he has committed this murder and it reveals that he has done it in a desperate attempt to impress Rupert.

Final Word:
If this was done the whole way through with no cut at all, it would be the most perfect piece of film ever made.

127 hours (2010) - This premise should not be able to be so engaging, well executed and easy to watch, but it is

Viewing context:
Cineworld on a weekday evening. Wasn’t going to bother (despite my Danny Boyle love) until I watched a few bits at work and felt it really deserved a look-in.

Creators:
Directed by Danny Boyle; as diverse as ever, going from Slumdog to this is quite a leap. Screenplay also by Boyle, which is new for him, but supported by Yorkshireman Simon Beaufoy who has history with Boyle from Slumdog.

What Happened:
Cocky fella goes off to refine his climbing skills, completely alone without informing anyone where he’s off to. Miles away from the vaguest form of civilisation, he dislodges a boulder as he falls down a fissure, only to find his arm crushed and trapped by the rock. With only a backpack full of supplies, tools and materials, how long until he has to do the inevitable - or die.

What it did particularly well:
Very personal. Thought it would be an issue that it lacked buried's contemporary socio-political commentary, but it really didn't. 1. Because the character was so much more engaging than Reynold's in Buried and 2. because it did have plenty of cultural commentary, but less focused on one aspect like post invasion Iraq and more generally on western individualism.
The sound was great; it built up everything that the visuals couldn't or that the visuals would have let down.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
If I have any gripes, I would have liked it to be more obvious that he had to break his arm. I got that he knew that the knife couldn't go through the bone so had to break it out of the way to cut around it.
I also thought that it suffered from the fact that i knew he got out and was ok. I thought that the film would have done enough in just showing me that journey and to an extent it did, but it just lacked a little suspense and therefore did drag on a little about two thirds in.
The really trippy bits I bought, but the gameshow just seemed like a pretty convenient way for getting some exposition in and to give him a reason to talk about how he was feeling. Same goes for talking into the camera.

Theme/Message:
It was a critique of the solo, individualistic lifestyle that erodes the soul. This man is one of the most individualistic, hedonistic, 21st century, western archetypes, though without being crude, horrible or too unlikeable. He can therefore quite easily represent that prevalent individualism throughout society without being an over-the-top greedy banker type that shits on everyone below them. This way he can represent all that is wrong with individualism, whilst still being real and so the viewer can find it easier to identify with him; to project themselves onto him. It is his individualism and his complete disregard for anybody else in the world that has him stuck there, slowly dying - alone. By beginning and ending with the scenes of busy crowded places, there was a real contrast created against his self-imposed isolation. The thing that just tops this off is the fact that he literally has to shout for help; he has to break down and fully admits that he needs other people; he needs to be part of society.


Performance of the film:
Not only because he was pretty much the only person in the film (don’t think that you could give it to the inflatable Scooby Doo), but Franco really does put in a mature performance to hold up the whole film. I would much rather a performance such as this garner the Academy’s attention rather than the inevitable Colin Firth win.

Scene of the film:
The end, as he has to actually shout and concede that he needs help. This was the moment that convinced me he had learned what he needed to. Had it not been for this scene, or that if it wasn't executed the way that it was, I think it may have lost a little of its point.

Final Word:
This premise should not have been able to be so engaging, well executed and easy to watch. It took great scripting, directing and acting to even make it possible.

The Seven Year Itch (1955) - Not the best Monroe vehicle, but some interesting commentary on consumerism

Viewing context:
The third film in Tasha’s picks’ Marylin Monroe season.

Creators:
Directed by Billy Wilder (Seen Double Indemnity and Some Like it Hot, not seen - but want to - The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard. Screenplay also by Wilder, along with George Axelrod (Manchurian Candidate and Breakfast at Tiffany’s) who also wrote the play on which the film is based.

What Happened:
The film opens to the native people of Manhattan, shipping the women and children up river to where it is cool, in order for the men to stay and work (well... get distracted). Fast forward to 1950s and same ritual is going on. Richard Sherman (Tom Ewell), an individual with the wildest imagination, is left to torment himself, trying to resist smoking, drinking and most of all, the ditsy but beautiful Marilyn Monroe (whose character remains nameless) who has moved into the apartment above for the summer.

What it did particularly well:
The initially unassuming Sherman, who seemed a far cry from the charming, smooth talking, wise cracking lead of the usual Monroe vehicles turned out to be the main crux of the whole thing. His rants; the explanations and justifications he came up with in order to carry on attempting to lure Monroe to his apartment, and then the lengths to which his imagination stretched, foreseeing what trouble he would be in if anybody so much as suspected this was going on, worked as great entertainment.

Unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It seemed better suited to the stage. Not that this made it less watchable, but it seemed a little uncinematic at times. It also took me a little while to warm to Sherman, although, as I lay out above, once I did he was great.

Message/themes:
It was pretty blatant in its explanation of being about a combination of middle aged suppression, psychoanalysis/the unconscious, and then how this ties in to marketing and branding. One humerous (yet true enough) statement mentions how 'this soda' - reads long list of ingredients - 'can be better for me than some simple scotch, water and fresh lemon'. Another example is how Monroe's character herself was used to advertise tooth paste. Yet another example was that something as ludicrous as calories can be a unique selling point; this was highlighted as something a little pedantic that was obsessed over. Add to this, the metanarrative function of Monroe herself; a brand, intentionally used to sell the actual film, which can be read as a self acknowledging feature ratifying the film's principles. Note that we never even know the characters name; another indicator that the film intentionally acknowledges Monroe as a brand.

Performance of the film:
Once I came round to him it was Tom Ewell. Monroe was simply playing ditsy here, whereas I have much preffered her in those roles where she appears ditsy, or plays up the fact that she is, whereas she is actually scheming about something.

Scene of the film:
The scene in which he is trying to be sophisticated and speaking to her about psychoanalysis, yet she is paying no attention whatsoever and simply musing on how she can replace or improve the performance of her ineffective fan. It was really funny and spoke volumes about the characters; his belief that he neeeded to appear sophisticated and worldly, and the fact that she was so vacant minded that all she could do was concentrate on the most immediate problem at hand.

Final Word:
The dialogue, and the ability to create a fascinating character and put him in a situation that heightens everything that is enjoyable about his eccentricities made the whole performance aspect of the film really enjoyable.

Heartless (2009) - Once it stopped trying to take itself so seriously, it really grew into itself

Viewing context:
LoveFilm; Heard about it during a very limited release. Sounded intriguing, low key and genuinely indipendent.

Creators:
Written and directed by Philip Ridley (always happy to see something written and directed by the same person), who also wrote and directed the star studded, yet seemingly underwhelming The Passion of Darkly Noon from 1995.

What Happened:
Young adult Jamie Morgan (Jim Sturgess) has a severely diminished self confidence due to the birthmark taking up half of his face. When offered to make a deal with the devil in order to remove the mark, he has a renewed self confidence and appreciation of life, but was it worth the cost - dum-dum-duuum.

What it did particularly well:
Attracted some relatively big names for such a small indie Brit flick, particularly Eddie Marsan, who has been in some right crackers recently. The characters of Daddy P and the Weapons Man were both over the top touches that the film needed to give it the weight it required as such a high concept film.
The film also looked great (Cinematographer was Matt Gray). It was no accident that the lead character was a photographer; the director clearly empathises with the character and shares his photographer's eye.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Seemed reluctant at first to cross a 'twilight zone' threshold, but when it eventually did, it became much more interesting. Up until that point the acting was a little wooden and the characters were quite two dimensional. It needed an extra dimensiona and when Jamie made a deal with the devil and saw the imaginary indian girl, it became much more interesting.

Theme/Message:
The blatant, 'be careful what you wish for' and 'if something seems too good to be true, it usually is' tropes exercised here. Although there was more to it, especially the backdrop of Jamie dealing with losing his dad at such a young age and what a vacuum this can leave in a young boy’s life; thus, justifying why the character would be motivated to accept such a simple route to a different life, without considering the consequences.

Performance of the film:
The Weapon Man by Eddie Marsan (was superb in Happy Go Lucky). After Daddy P had already been quite strong, he just came in and give it that stamp of class.

Scene of the film:
The scene when he first met Daddy P is what really kickstarted the film.

Final Word
It really seemed like a labour of love for somebody with a good photographer’s eye and a decent twilight zone feel to it.

The Man Who Knew too Much (1956) - Alfred Hitchcock, there's a reason the man has a reputation for excellence

Viewing context:
Second film into my Hitchcock box-set and first one to watch with an old friend; a Hitchcock evening that we are going to make a regular occurrence. The main thing about seeing these films at said friend's house is that there is a certain amount of herbal wisdom added to the viewing.

Creators:
Directed by Hitchcock. Screenplay by John Michael Hayes, who also worked with Hitchcock and Stewart on Rear Window. Written originally for Hitchcock’s own 1934 version by Charles Bennett.

What Happened:
Ben McKenna (Jimmy Stewart) is on holiday with his family in Marakesh when he is told about an imminent assassination attempt due to take place in London. He cannot relieve any of his intel to the authorities mind, as the assassins-to-be have kidnapped his son and are pulling his strings. Stewart and his wife Josephine (Doris Day) go to London to find a way to foil this assassination and retrieve their (really annoying) son.

What it did particularly well:
Intrigue all the way through. Vertigo was a little different, as there was a reveal followed by a different kind of intrigue; this was much more straight forward, as the first half was all intrigue and build up, whereas the final section was pure suspense as we knew what was coming but had to sit through it all (in a good way).
The masterful way that Hitchcock speaks to the audience through the characters is so clever; it is obvious yet not jarring. The scene where the kidnapper is explaining the point in the performance where the hired gunman can shoot, is done in such a way that is practically speaking straight at us, so our suspense is built to maximum throughout the final scene as we constantly listen out for the musical cue.
The framing of characters (and objects) throughout the whole film is always clear; there are so many times that the camera leaves about four things layered in importance on screen, and has just a little pause to show exactly how the power structure is being constructed; it is again, obvious without being jarring. The same can be said for the harrumping score; it is really hammered home, and though it does not go unnoticed, it doesn't seem out of place at all, nor does it detract from the immersion; rather, it does the exact opposite and locks you right in.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
The kid was really fucking annoying.

Theme/Message:
There was a great deal of exoticism, as the very American family traverse the foreign lands of Marakesh and London. Both places are alien to this settled unit; the unfamiliarity with certain customs can be used for humour, yet more importantly to build a sense of unease or lack of protection for the central characters. The second foreign area, London is a little more unsettling as it is somewhere that should feel more homely, especially as Josephine used to sing here, yet the authorities still treat them with some trepidation and frustrate with their unhelpfulness. It therefore evoked a sort of uneasiness in international relations; it made the world small and easier to traverse, but showed how this can cause a certain amount of tension or misunderstanding.

Performance of the film:
Big Jimmy of course - what a legend

Scene of the film:
The scene described above, when the assassin (and the audience) are told precisely when in the performance he should shoot. Excellently obvious exposition, and just cheekily, cockily even, nodding at that fourth wall, without actually breaking it down.

Final word:
Masterful display of first, pure intrigue, then having everything revealed in order to see and feel the suspense of the last act play out.

The Producers (2005) - was shallow and a bit dull for the most of it, but did feature some enjoyable set-pieces

Viewing context:
Tasha’s pick from LoveFilm. Would have been one that I’d have not been bothered about, but it was one of those nights where i didn’t have the physical or mental ability to do anything; so just enjoyed veging out on the couch with the missus.

Creators:
Important to note that it was a film adaptation of the theatre production, itself an adaptation of the 1968 film of the same name. This version was directed by Susan Stroman, the director of the stage production. screenplay by Mel Brooks, writer of comedies such as Dracula: Dead and Loving it and Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

What Happened:
Leo Bloom (Matthew Broderick), an accountant with dreams of becoming a Broadway producer, is going over the books of an eccentric, financially challenged Broadway musical producer Max Bialystock (Nathan Lane) and makes a funny quip about how much money you could make out of a flop, as the tax man wouldn’t have much incentive to look into it. The next thing you know, the producer takes advantage of Bloom’s Broadway dream, roping him into going ahead with this hair-brain scheme.

What it did particularly well:
The most fun and enjoyable feature, was that the film can be experienced in bitesize chunks. It lacks the sophistication to be an entire narrative, but taken as many small events or set pieces it can be quite enjoyable.
Max, the original producer was hilarious and really seemed as though he stepped straight out of a 1940s Hollywood comedy, fitting the setting perfectly. Will Ferrel was jarring at first as I didn't know he was in it, but managed to force a few chuckles out of me.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There was nothing about the characters, the interplay between them, or any sort of grand message that really mattered at all. although the individual song and dance numbers were at times thoroughly entertaining, they were also at times dul and lifeless.
Similarly, some characters completely failed to make any kind of impression, including Matthew (Ferris Bueller) Broderick and Uma Thurman's Swedish character Ulla.

Theme/Message:
I don’t think there was a great deal of sub-text to be read here, just its blatant message of greed, leading to downfall. If there was anything deeper in there, the film certainly didn’t rouse me to dig into what it might be. I was content to just watch the funny bitesize song and dance numbers.

Performance of the film:
The best performances and characters were without a doubt the camp director and his assistant. Roger Bart played the assistant and he stole every scene he was in; the pair of them lit the film up just as it was becoming a bit stale.

Scene of the film:
Make it Gay - The song and dance piece that introduced the above mentioned Camp duo.

Final Word:
Shallow, yet perfectly enjoyable (if you like a song and dance).

Observe and Report (2009) - Darkly comic, but just not comical enough

Viewing context:
Was recommended by a friend after having watched, and really enjoyed, The Other Guys. This was nowhere near as good, so not happy with the recommendation. Friend fails.

Creators:
Written and Directed by Jody Hill, who was behind a film called Foot Fist Forward, which looks like something similar, but featuring a Karate instructor -hmmm, intriguing.

What Happened:
Ronnie Barnhardt (Seth Rogan) is a shopping mall security guard who takes his job very seriously (vicious understatement). His pledge to catch a flasher takes up most of his concentration as the police force's arrogant detective Harrison (Ray Liota) antagonises Barnhardt regarding his insignificance as a mere security guard.

What it did particularly well:
Seth Rogan's character was surprisingly complex and was convincingly sympathetic as the depressed and deluded bi-polar sufferer.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Considering you couldn't take any of the supporting characters seriously, it really could have done with being funnier. There were a few flashes of being really funny, but on the whole didn't make me laugh much. Yet, despite having a little connection with the lead character, there wasn't enough substance to justify it not being funny enough.

Theme/Message:
Underneath its silliness, the film had a pretty grim point on the fact that some people are a little unhinged, or that they don’t really have the mental aptitude to achieve what contemporary society leads them to believe they can achieve. He never wanted to be a cop, he just thought that he should want to; that he should aspire for the greatest. This insatiable need for the individual to rise, to be all that he can be is born of the same American dream sentiment as western consumerism, which as a defender of a mall (the temple of western consumption), he has been surrounded by his entire working life.

Performance of the film:
Ray Liota comes close, as it is his character's interjections that elevate Seth Rogan's performance, but ultimately it is Rogan that carries the film, and as mentioned above, he was the only thing to form a genuine connection with here.

Scene of the film:
Got to be the one where he kicks the shit out of the guys on the street corner; cracked me up and showed a more competent side to a character that you were led to believe was completely inept, thus giving him that bit more depth than just the lovable cluts.

Final Word:
Considering I was recommended this after having seen The Other Guys, I was a little disappointed that it came nowhere near the quality of Ferrel and Wahlberg's shinanigans.

Buried (2010) - the second best 'man stuck in one place' film of the year

Viewing context:
The classic, got it off some bloke from work routine. There were two reasons for wanting to watch it. One, that I had just seen Hurt Locker and had been underwhelmed at its commentary on America's involvement in post invasion Iraq; I knew that Buried had something to do with Iraq and hoped it would succeed more competently. Also, I had 127 Hours lined up to watch that week and wanted to see how the two films compared in their ‘one guy stuck in one place’ plot.

Creators:
Written by Chris Sparling, who has since written a film called ATM that I will be looking out for. Directed by Rodrigo Cortes.

What Happened:
American truck driver wakes up in a coffin, buried somewhere in Iraq. He is contacted, via a phone that was buried with him, by his kidnappers and was given a fixed amount of time to organise ransom money, otherwise he will be left there.

What it did particularly well:
I am always interested by films that take a chance or do something different. They are often epic fails, but still worth it for taking a leap of faith. Well this film took a chance and executed with precision. The originality and the inventive scenarios presented are what made the film stand out, but this had to be - and was - supported with a great central performance.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There were possibly two scenes that seemed to just go on a little too long, which was my worry about the film in general going into it, but it was easily within acceptable standards. Plus, who knows, had they been shortened, the film may well have been missing the tension that it created.

Theme/Message:
American contractor (representing the American public, the everyman, not even a member of the armed forces) stuck in Iraq and paying for things that his government have chosen, and continue to choose. He cannot choose the consequences, but inevitably is the one that suffers them.
Critical of many aspects of contemporary western culture: deference of responsibility via the company he works for; putting material and trade interests above that of people; even the impersonal, ineffective and just plain depressing nature of call centres, created through the American invented principle that Henry Ford and Frederick Taylor pioneered in the 1920s: deskill employees in order make them as replaceable, uninvested, unintelligent and amoral as possible - ah the capitalist dream.

Performance of the film:
Well it would be pretty strange to give it to one of the voices on the phone, so it has to be Reynolds. I thought he did what he had to do perfectly well. He still had a little of that ‘everyguy’ feel that he had in Two Guys and a Girl; he was convincingly real in there. Not particularly calm, yet not ridiculously freaking out and dealt with the call centre conversations convincingly.

Scene of the film:
The claustrophobia was at its height when he had to turn around in the coffin. Ooh that really had me tensing up.

Final Word:
The script writing must be commended here. To inject the narrative with just the right amount of obstacles at just the right intervals was essential in a narrative like this. Tense film with great allegorical commentary on America's involvement with post invasion Iraq.

The Last Airbender (2010) - Underrated

Viewing context:
Movies For Juniors screening (£1 a film) on a Saturday morning at Cineworld with Corey. Benefited from the direct opposite to Hurt Locker in that it was so undervalued and underrated that I went in there with very low expectations. Although, it should be acknowledged that I was looking forward to the possibility of it bucking this horrid reputation.

Creators:
Written and directed by the controversial M Night Shyamalan. Only controversial because of his meteoric rise with the likes of 6th Sense and - the fantastic - Unbreakable, but has been on a pretty steady downward trajectory, particularly in the eyes of the critics.
Obviously it's worth pointing out that the film is an adaptation of the much celebrated (and deservedly so) children's animation Avatar: The Last Airbender.
Shyamalan wrote but did not direct Devil earlier this year, which is yet another film that I really rated but nobody else seems to like.

What Happened:
Set in some sort of fantasy, otherworld realm, which in many ways resembles earth, but just not quite. The world is separated into four regions, each region with only a very narrow ethnic group. There is the Middle East/Sub Continent based Fire Nation, the Far Eastern based Earth Nation, the Tibetan monk-looking Air Nation and the seemingly Anglo-American mixed with a sort of Inuit looking Water Nation. Certain individuals from each of these nations can ‘bend’ their nation’s element, yet once in a generation one is born who can bend all the elements, he is known as the Avatar. The Fire Nation pretty much rules the world and is determined to stop this Avatar from fulfilling his prophecy of destroying their empire.

What it did particularly well:
The dialogue was enjoyably terrible as far as I was concerned, and it was obviously a non issue for Corey. The simplistic, yet epic setup made for a great kids' adventure. These four different nations, all containing masters of different elements and abilities along with the idea of this unprepared child being sent as their protector, their saviour and their leader is quite charming and a lot of childlike fun.
The action was tremendously dazzling; particularly the martial arts, which is often done so wrong in Hollywood, who cut too frequently and make the whole thing really choppy. This for most of the time let the action flow with extended shots of action, increasing appreciation of the technical ability and heightening the spectacle.
I only wish that I could be a child again to appreciate what an impact such a film-world would have had on me. It definitely worked on Corey, as for the rest of the day he was dancing round the street doing martial arts gestures in an attempt to bend the air and the water around him.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Despite how much I loved its cheesy nature, I do think that there is a missed opportunity to make the same thing, but just a bit better. Keep some of the cheesiness but just make it a bit cooler; even a bit more over the top may have done it - as crazy as that may sound.

Theme/Message:
I thought the film dealt with the Avatar's problems of accepting such a fate at such a young age, whilst not getting too into it. There was also really obvious commentary on what it's like for an empirical nation keeping the rest of the world in a state of fear, and how that leads to inevitable revolution.

Performance of the film:
It is quickly becoming apparent how much I love villains in films, as I thought that Dev Patel playing the outcasted son of the Fire emperer, Prince Zuko was the performance of the film, albeit in a film where a certain type of over the top performance (as opposed to real acting) is needed. There was a lot said about him coming off the back of Slumdog Millionaire and doing something pulp-trashy like this, but he was nowhere near what made that film good; he was wooden and lifeless, well he used that in this, but just ramped up the villain-cheese style.

Scene of the film:
When the Earth benders stood up and joined the revolution was uplifting for naive child-minded individuals like myself.

Final Word:
Have to remember that this is a kids' film, and as such it was a great adventurous narrative, with some of the best martial arts I have seen outside of Hong-Kong or Luc Besson films. It created a an big, big world and Unapologetically (and possibly prematurely) set up the sequel.

Hurt Locker (2008) - Epitome of overhype

Creators:
Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (still haven’t seen Point Break but have only heard good things), written by Mark Boal, who also wrote In the Valley of Elah.

Not doing the usual lot of questions because it was a bit of a fail film for me. Just gonna ramble on a little

Finally came through LoveFilm despite it being one of the first films on there (about a year ago). It obviously came with all the baggage of having won best film at the Oscars. I should disclaim that even having not seen it, I wanted Avatar to win, as it just seemed a bigger movie event, which will be remembered for decades, whereas Hurt Locker just seemed it would be forgotten, as much more sophisticated texts dealing with the Iraq war obfuscate its significance. Already I would say that something like the TV series Generation Kill is much more apt to deal with the subject matter. It's one of those things that reinforces my taste for films that are either trashy, pulp genre, with all the mythic pop-culture significance, or at the other end of the spectum, pretentiously obscure. Films in the middle rarely get me as hyped, which is where I think the Hurt Locker sits; not big enough to be cool, not real enough to be genuine. The Iraqi kid was by far the most interesting element, but for a genuine look at post invasion Iraq, I would rather watch Mohammed Al-Daradji's Son of Babylon or Bahman Ghobadi's Turtles Can Fly.

The characters all seemed so obvious and wooden. The British characters in particular were so cliched, typecast and unengaging. I really cannot see how it was awarded best film.

Rant over.

Skeletons (2010) is Britain does Inception in the same way that Misfits is Britain does The X-Men

Viewing context:
Saw it at the monthly event, Minicine, which takes place in the Leeds Industrial Museum in a tiny 26 seat cinema. Free tea, home made cake and a DVD swap box. I knew nothing about the film at all except that Jason Isaacs is in it and that he has been doing some big time promoting for it. Glad he did.

Creators:
Written and directed by Nick Whitfield; this is his feature debut and I will be looking out for more from him.

What happened:
Two fellas, Davis (Ed Gaughan) and Bennet (Andrew Buckley) go about extracting people's metaphoric skeletons from their literal wardrobes. They set up lo-fi scientific/paranormal detection-looking equipment, then literally enter the wardrobe and are subsequently transported into the memories of those who own said wardrobe. The bulk of this film is spent on one particular case where a mother of two wants our mind wandering protagonists to enter her families' wardrobe/memories to see if they can locate her husband, who has been missing for eight years, but one of these extractors has been conducting his own trips into his own memories, hence the Inception link.

What it did particularly well:
The dialogue was captivating; it was incredibly inventive and funny at the same time as giving insight and depth to the characters.
It struck the right balance for me; it somehow managed to be ludicrously funny and far fetched whilst still convincingly dealing with sincere, weighty issues of loss, death and bereavement. One thing that helped prop up the gravitas of the subject matter, despite the zany setup, was the powerful powerful score, which maintained its own balance of being big, but non intrusive.

What unimpressed or missed potential:
The only loose knot was that the first example couples, that introduced us to this peculiar occupation, were really overacted and didn't capture the balance I mention above, of being unconventional yet still believable; they just seemed disingenuous. This got it off to an uncertain start (despite the fantastic opening conversation), but when they were out of the way, every other performance got it right.

Themes/message:
It stressed the need to let things go; that you cannot - and should not - hold on to things that have gone. Holding onto falsified notions of how things are, based on what they were, can only damage the soul and cease any personal progression. Things can start anew, but they cannot do so until it can be accepted that some things must stay in the past.
There is a related sub-theme, regarding being true to your decisions rather than following what you are told should be. Further, that you will not be in a position of self worth, in order to achieve this level of self-confident decision making with skeletons in your past.

Scene of the film:
The scene when Davis wakes up Bulgarian is a contender, as is the very opening scene; the line of dialogue wherein Davis explains how, due to grounds of moral ambiguity, Rasputin cannot be deemed an assassination in the sane vein as someone the likes of JFK. Rasputin was straight up, rather than leading a double life of being one thing in public and another in private, so therefore was a different entity altogether. This comedic opening scene immediately sets up the theme of being true, honest and accepting responsibility.

Performance of the film:
Tuppence Middleton was great as the detached twenty one year old Candy, but the leads are what makes it what it is, particularly Ed Gaughan. It is worth inserting this link, that I stumbled across whilst checking up on who they are and what else they have done, only to discover that they aren’t actually film actors, but a comedy duo.

Final word:
Funny, yet weighty. Well paced, with great music and even better performances.

Control (2007) Visually breathtaking throughout, with great characters, capturing a time and a sentiment.

Viewing context:
Rcorded off of FilmFour. Wouldn’t have bothered, had I not seen The American about a month prior. Still had it on the +box for a while before watching it and only put it on because I fancied something that I could maybe watch a bit of, and if I get tired leave it for the next day, but this commanded my attention from start to finish.

Creators:
Directed by Anton Corbijn, who directed The American, which was the reason I watched this film in the first place. Clearly I rated The American but this is a far superior film. Matt Greenhalgh wrote the screenplay by adapting the book by Debora Curtis. Greenhalgh went on to write last year’s John Lennon biopic, Nowhere Boy, which I am yet to see.

What Happened:
Follows the (short) life of Joy Division front man Ian Curtis, starting with his daydreaming days in upper school, through his time forming Joy Division and becoming the phenomenon he had always seen himself becoming, then his Rock & Roll induced, inevitable and self destructive decline. The basic model for a musical biopic, but like Gainsbourg earlier in the year, one that did things just differently enough to make them really engaging (I am not usually a fan of the long, drawn out biopic).

What it did particularly well:
Great performances that transcended the real life characters they were playing and spoke about society of the era by using their story.
When he was on stage before it let on to his epilepsy (I had no idea, prior to watching, that Curtis was an epilepsy sufferer), I already had some kind of impression just from that stage performance that he looked like he was about to have a seizure. This anecdotal example just goes to show the attention to detail that went into the acting and the camerawork in order to capture the essence of what was going on in Ian's life. The epilepsy suffering girl in the job centre may have contributed to the laying of these seeds which, is genius scripting.
Most importantly, the visuals were breathtaking, despite the complete lack of exoticism. Funny that The American was vibrant in aesthetics, but emotionally numb, whereas Control, shot in black and white and without the large expansive visuals was full of passion, life and the importance of caring for somthing. Both of these visually captivating films were shot for Corbijn by Martin Ruhe.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
This is one I will be leaving blank.

Theme/Message:
It was no mistake that the film showed the sign/poster on Ian's wall of Jim Morrison and his years of birth and death. It is something about these artists; the same thing that makes them great is what causes them to struggle to fit in, to ever feel right and therefore leads to their young demise.
Debbie seemed to embody macclesfield, or home; what should be right, but what is also simple, easy and expected. A mind as great as Curtis' felt it needed more, so Anika embodied the different, the exotic, the foreign, the other, the wider world, but ultimately this pursuit of something to fill his 'lack' only contributed to his downfall.

Performance of the film:
Great supporting cast, particularly Toby Kebbell as the manager, but I guess in such a film it has to go to Sam Riley's Ian Curtis performance, particularly considering the actors performed all of the songs.

Scene of the film:
The fact that he told his wife he didn't love her when they were just walking home in the middle of the street. Something that would be so dramatic in a simpler film rang volumes by being set in such an unlikely situation and with no fancy work from the camera. It summed up Curtis and where his head was at; how he just didn't know what to do, what he wanted to do, what was the right thing to do, or how to do it, unless he was on stage.

Final Word:
Visually breathtaking throughout, with great characters, capturing a time and a sentiment.

Marketa Lazarova (1967) - Beautiful, but a bit dull and pointless

Viewing context:
LoveFilm - watched it over a couple of nights as it just wasn’t gripping me; gave up in the end. I have limited spare time in an evning and didn’t think that the rest of this film warranted that time.

Creators:
Directed by Frantisek Vlacil, who - despite having quite the negative reaction to this - I would like to see more of.

What Happened:
Follows a band of native, pagan czechaslovakians as their land is being taken over by the Prussian empire and the Christianity (grand empirical ideology) that goes with it. Along with the conquering Christians and the native pagans there are the native converts, who accept this Christianity and the order it brings. Can't say what happens past the first half as it was so dull and unstructured that I didn't think it was worth the time. Which is a shame as it was breathtaking to look at, but this cannot stretch over two and a half hours.

Theme/Message:
A confused or conflicted nation. The setting of this medieval period was allegorical for the kind of changes that were sweeping through Eastern Europe post World War 2 and the film seemed to be dealing with that. The tensions that can arise between new ideologies entering the fold, old ideologies that wish to conserve their heritage, those that are of the established culture but willing to change and a final group that don’t want to change but aren’t fussed enough to do anything about it.

What it did particularly well:
Looked absolutely beautiful; the photography was sublime. Had I not seen Control this week then it would have been the prettiest film of the year. There was one particularly beautiful sequence near the beginning, a sort of dream sequence; if the whole film would have been more of that, then I would have liked it more.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
I think the thing that let it down the most was the acting. Half the actors seemed like they were in a school play and destroyed any sort of atmosphere created through the visuals. the sublime cinematography cannot carry a two and a half hour film that has almost no structure yet is also not quite abstract enough to warrant being so incoherent.

Performance of the film:
NA nobody particularly impressed

Scene of the film:
The dreamy sequence with the nuns and the doves = sublime.

Final Comment:
Really beautiful in bits, but in the bits where it wasn’t so beautiful, there just wasn’t enough going on.

Best picture nominations in order of my preference

I must admit, until I came to list these I wouldn't have thought they would come out in this order; I quite shocked myself.

It seems really harsh having something like 127 Hours so low down, as I really did like it, but there are just some stronger films above it. The only film on here that I whole-heartedly do not like, is The King's Speech, but even that I recognise the technical quality of the strength of the performances; I just hate what it has to say about society (supporting that 'honour thy duty and know your place, stiff upper lip, the empire (or any dominant ruling ideology) needs you' bullshit).

1. Black Swan
2. Toy Story 3
3. Inception
4. Winter's Bone
5. True Grit
6. The Social Network
7. The Fighter
8. The Kids are Alright
9. 127 Hours
10. The King's Speech

Arthur and the Great Adventure (2009) Kids' film with a Luc Besson spark

Viewing context:
Took Corey down on a Saturday morning. We hadn't seen the first film to which this is a sequel, nor had I read anything about it, so I was going in pretty blind

Creators:
Directed by one of my favourite people in cinema: Luc Besson, who has a hand in pretty much anything that has action in it and is any good, including Fifth Element, Ronin, Leon, The Transporter films, The Taxi films, and the District 13 films. I didn’t have a clue about him having anything to do with this (as I said, I went in pretty blind) until the credits rolled. Besson also wrote the film along with the writer of the book on which it is based.

What Happened:
Some kid wants to go visit the tiny little pixie-like creatures that live in the garden. This is a sequel and Arthur (Freddie Highmore) has already been acquainted with all these little fellas and is very much looking forward to being reacquainted with the beautiful princess Selinia. The thing is though, if Arthur can get small and go visit the little people world, then the sinister Emperor Maltazard, apparent lord of the underworld reckons on that he can get big and enter the real world.

Theme/Messge:
Pretty basic reinforcement of good vs evil, along with the ‘leave the natural world alone, it is beautiful’ sort of eco-message. But the more subtle touches were the father/son acceptance themes, as Arthur’s parents were so distant from him; not terribly parents or anything, just didn’t get him. In this absence, the boy develops a solid bond with his grandfather, a theme that seems quite prominent in children’s narrative (most notable at the minute being Ben 10). What added a little more depth to this relationship is how there was a mirror version of it going on with the antogonists as the loutish, loveably naive brute Darkos is constantly seeking approval from his maniachal father Maltazard.

What it did particularly well:
Wonderfully adventurous and whimsical family adventure film. Loved the mix of CGI garden world, real life house world and the combination of the two as the film progressed. A nice visual way to emphasise the differnece between the two worlds.
Really interesting, fleshed out and charismatic villains. Not only were they everything that villains should be, but as mentioned above, they really added to the depth of the father figure/acceptance themes running throughout.

Unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There really were elements that made it seem like it had beeen hurridly adapted from a book or that it scratchily referenced the previous film. There were tiny inconstencies, but they were all completely forgiven due to it's ability to capture a really adventurous spirit.

Performance of the film:
Once again, gotta go with the villain, Lou Reed as Maltazar

Scene of the film:
All the monster things wreaking havok in the ‘human world’

Final Word:
Great sense of adventure and whimsical, epic childrens’ storytelling. Corey loved it.

30 Days of Night (2007)

Viewing context:
FilmFour - Saturday evening with Tasha

Creators:
Directed by David Slade, who directed Hard Candy, which was leagues better than this. He also directed Twilight: Eclipse.
Screenplay by the writer of the comic on which the film is based, Steve Niles. He seems to be making a habit of adapting his comics into films with him writing the screenplays, which I would much rather see than somebody butchering it. He was helped by Stuart Beattie, a genre film writer who has been involved in the Pirates of the Caribbean films as well as Collateral and G.I. Joe

What Happened:
Up in Alaska, the period of 30 days without daylight is coming up, so only essential personel stay to work while the rest of the townspeople migrate south. Wouldn’t this be quite the perfect scenario for a pack of Russian vampires to roam free from the fatal rays of sun for an extended period; enough time to devour all the workers who have stuck around maybe?

Themes/message:
Not a great deal really. In the genre rules of variation and repetition, this was much more repetition than variation, hitting all the correct notes. It tried to hammer home the need to do whatever is necessary to save your loved ones and in doing so, save our own humanity, but it didn’t quite come off as the ending sort of capitulated.

What it did particularly well:
Inventive deaths and other such related spectacle. Plus, it really was a good looking film and captured the atmosphere of the diminishing light and then the town gone dark.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It never became anything more than OK. Never challenged anything, had any interesting ideas or characters, yet was never particularly bad either. The ending though, did completely unravel.

Performance of the film:
If anything I would give it to Ben Foster for his little role (was in Six Feet Under, has The Mechanic coming up with Jason Statham and played the villain in Hostage).

Scene of the film:
One of the kills; probably the one where the man, half turning into a vampire, gets all tangled up in the swings, then hacked up by Josh Hartnett’s character

Final Word:
It looked pretty good

Gentlement Prefer Blondes (1953)

Viewing Context:
Tasha's LoveFilm pick. I wasn't even going to watch it, but having caught the first five minutes or so, I got sucked in.

Creators:
Directed by Howard Hawkes; Director - amongst many other films - of The Big Sleep, which I really want to watch, but at the minute I only have the colourised version and would prefer the black and white one. Might even try read the book first for this one. Screnplay by Charles Lederer (His Girl Friday)

What Happened:
Two friends who couldn't be much more different; the blonde, textbook materialist, Lorelei Lee (Marilyn Monroe), only interested in men for their wealth, is contrasted against Dorothy Shaw (Jane Russell), the hard nosed independent woman who is not bothered about wealth and status in the slightest. The two girls are singers and Lee’s fiance pays for them to take the boat to Paris. Shaw, as chaperon for the trip, is instantly distracted by a team of athletes allowing Lee the freedom to seek out even wealthier men, whilst trying to set up Shaw with a real (in her terms, meaning rich) man.

What do I believe it was thematically about:
Commented - though without harsh judgement - on the state of materialism. It made Lorelei out to be a shallow gold digger, but one that wasn’t vindictive; she was in fact quite sweet and charming and though wily and cunning, never particularly manipulative. By contrasting her against Dorothy, who was the yin to her yang, we see two very different, but very assertive and well rounded women. Both have their own issues, but relatively in control of their life, making their own decisions. The fact that they both make very different decisions yet are both treated the same within the narrative just shows how the film does not put forward any kind of ideal vision of womanhood.

What it did particularly well:
Scripting: Not only was the dialogue captivating, as characters knocked about the witty banter effortlessly, but the pacing of the whole film, the placement of any set pieces allowed the film to just seamlessly flow through. The sing-song set pieces were smoothly woven into the rest of the film, whilst still being big and spectacular (Sweeney Todd could learn from this).

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Although I do like the fact that the film was never preachy and that Dorothy weighed up any shortcomings of Lorelei, I still cannot get passed just how much it accepted, condoned and promoted a rampant, hedonistic, materialistic consumerism.

Performance of the film:
Jane Russel did sort of blow me away, but it was Monroe that impressed me the most, with her ability to convincingly play on the beautiful, yet ditsy and helpless blonde routine so convincingly, as if she has no idea what is going on around her, yet she is in fact at least two steps ahead of pretty much every other character.

Scene of the film:
Building on from what I said above about Monroe’s performance and how strong the scripting was, the best scene for me was when she convinced the waiter to ensure that a certain rich individual would be at her table for dinner. In this scene, the audience was shown just how well she could not only play the game, but make the rules up as she goes. She is so wily.

Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The double act of the two leads; the way they both play off of each other, which is thanks to the script writing, creating these characters and crafting the situations they find themselves in. The performances from the pair of them had to be at this high level to carry the sophisticated script. Finally, the choreographers/musicians were responsible for heightening the spectacle and the grandeur of the couple.

Sweeney Todd (2007) - At least it isn't as bad as Alice and Willy Wonka

Viewing context:
Film4. Had it on the +box for a while, but was a little resistant to watch it after feeling so emotionally numb after seeing both the Willy Wonka and the Alice films.

Creators:
Directed by Tim Burton who has me viciously divided internally. I still have a lot of love for Beetlejuice, Mars Attacks and the Batmans. I LOVE Corpse Bride (definitely spurred on by my son’s love for it and incessantly repeated viewings). Yet, I really cannot stand his newer films - Willy Wonka and Alice. Haven’t yet seen, but fully intend to watch Big Fish. Screenplay by John Logan, who has written the upcoming Rango, which I am keen to see with Corey. He also wrote The Aviator and had a hand in the Gladiator screenplay

What Happened:
Johnny Depp’s Benjamin Barker returns to London under the alias of Sweeney Todd after a life in exile. He intends to exact revenge on the crooked judge Turpin (Alan Rickman) who raped his wife and was the reason that Barker was sent away. Teaming up with Helena Bonham Carter’s Mrs Lovett, he supplies the fresh meat that she needs to liven up her pie shop.

Themes/Message:
Although it was mostly spectacle, it did have some thematic points. Mrs Lovett and Todd represent the skilled working classes: a baker and a hairdresser; both representing entrepreneurial sensibilities and have to work for a living. In the period in which the film is set, anybody well-off enough to pay for their shave must be part of the middle classes, most clearly embodied by Todd’s original inspiration for this killing spree, judge Turpin. Therefore Todd has no qualms with dispatching these individuals to the meat grinder, whilst biding his time for the judge himself. The song when they hatched the plan was inspired by seeing these social types (Lawyers, Vicars, Bankers, etc) outside on the streets, walking around as if greater than the common man.

What it did particularly well:
Once it got going, the spectacle of some of the scenes was entertaining. Bonham-Carter’s character, I actually really like, which quite surprised me.

Where it may have fallen short, unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Couldn’t help going in biased against the Depp-Carter-Burton triangle after severely disliking Alice and Willy Wonka. This prejudice was not helped by the sterile opening and Depp’s first song, which was the most uncinematic of a pretty uncinematic bunch of musical numbers. Although there were a couple of good numbers, most were too static and seemed forced. Considering I had just seen The Princess and the Frog and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, both films where these things came across much more fluid and organic, I was pretty disappointed on the whole.

Performance of the film:
Sacha Baron Cohen as the fraudulently uber-Italian rival barber

Scene of the film:
The introduction of Sacha Baron Cohen as the rival barber was the point that injected life into the film, which it managed to maintain up until the final act where it unravels a little.

Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The couple of songs that it got right were great (they were just too few)

The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) - Clint really does not like governent

Viewing context:
Part of my Clint Eastwood Box Set binge for my last birthday. None have let me down yet. Ones like this, that both star and are directed by Eastwood are just a class above.

Creators:
Directed by the man himself Clint Eastwood. Screenplay by Philip Kaufman (who wrote the story for Raiders of the Lost Ark) and helped by Sonia Chemus. Interesting that it has a female influence, considering how strong the female characters in the film are.

What Happened:
Josey Wales (Clint Eastwood) appears as a humble family man living off the land. Caught up in the civil war, his family is killed in the opening scene by a particularly feral unit fighting for the Union. His journey of vengeance leads him to enlist with the confederate until the war is over, at which point he refuses to turn himself in; he refuses to live in society. The unit that killed his family are sent to hunt him down, but this only works in his favour, as his vengeance has still not been exacted.

Theme/Message:
The film was so clearly about myth and reputation; of the ability to write a future out of half truths. The western, itself a mythic creation of history (In my humble experience, Eastwood both gets this and exploits it better and more consistently than any other filmmaker). On top of this meta-level of mythology, it is supported in the text when everyone tells differing and excessive stories of Wales.
Eastwood used this mythic quality to attack his conception of the intrusive, overbearing and immoral government, favouring what he sees as society that without government, naturally operates in much more a peaceful and harmonious manner. I.e. the culturally diverse social concoction that the film depicts near the end, away from government, greed and profiteering. They weren't the staunch businessmen that he had previously spat on and left. They had ran out of commerce (symbolised as booze) long since and still enjoyed that emblematic social chronotope of the saloon. This society was somewhere between what had developed as established western culture, yet had ethics associated with the native American: self sustaining, take only as much as you need and contribute fairly. An ideal (I would say naive) idea of individual liberalism.
As the film was made just after the Vietnam war, a war that is part of America’s attempt to write history by force, in favour of their values, then the American civil war was an appropriate allagorical setting. It shows how a war is no way to crush opposing ethics and ideologies; these things must come together (or fall apart) organically as Eastwoods rag-tag outlaws do in this film.

What it did particularly well:
There were small details that were so succinct and took up so little film time for what they conveyed; it was masterful direction. Small touches, like when Wales is taking his son to be buried, his arm falls out while he's dragging it; such heartbreak in such little time. There was another example that quickly and simply conveyed how elite Wales was in his field and how in tune with nature he was, he used a little trick to lay their horses down in order to stay hidden.
The film featured some interesting and non-passive women. Though the women did appear to need his saving, they were far from passive and more than willing to defend the home. I understand that this point can be read as reinforcing the need for women to support the home, whilst Wales, the man, can come and go as he chooses. Although having even said that, at least the women seem sure of themselves and confident in what they choose; it is wales who is in any way fractured.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
I’m not even going to answer this.

Performance of the film:
Chief Dan George as the aging, wandering native American who was a real, multi-dimensional person. A human being, not just a native American stock typecast character, nor a direct opposition to this. Just an interesting character.

Scene of the film:
The scene that really embodied what Wales was all about, including the emphasis on myth was his one on one conversation with Ten Bears. It was so honest and genuine, cutting through the sort of bullshit that can be so often be taken for granted in established western culture; the type of bullshit that embodies the idea of government that Wales was trying desparately to escape.

Final Word:
So knowingly steeped in mythology and able to play around with all the motifs that go along with this. On top of this it is beautifully shot to capture all the spectacle involved in the western myth. The characters were varied and interesting and there were some heavyweight performances with both grandeur and depth.

The Princess and the Frog (2009) - the return of real Disney

Viewing context:
Disney Cinemagic on New Year's Day, hungover with kids running about.

Creators
Written and directed by Ron Clements and John Musker - The team behind Aladdin and The Little Mermaid, amongst others

What Happened:
Set in New Orleans, this is an inversion of both the Princess and the Frog tale along with he Disney Princess mythos. The frog-based inversion comes as the Princess is turned into a frog after her reptilian kiss, rather than revealing the frog as her prince. They then commence their journey to try and regain their human forms, foil the vilain's plot to acquire power and wealth, all whilst finding a great deal about themselves, each other, the world, etc, etc. So nothing structurally outside the box, but it doesn't need to be; it does what it needs to do strcturally and creates all the interest thematically

What I read as its theme/message:
As stated above, it was primarily about admitting to some of the wrongs that Disney may have been guilty of in the past - reinforcing dominant ideologies, marginalising difference and the likes (Note that these features of Disney have in no way affected my enjoyment of some of the greats). Therefore not only was the lead the cultural other, the black working class daughter of a maid, the friend of the - to be expected - Disney Princess archetype, but she at no point showed the ‘need’ for her prince, her knight in shining armour to save her. She embodied what would be expected of the empowered, yet still proudly feminine figure. The balance was struck by making her not ‘need’ these things but still to ‘want’ them, ultimately making the ‘right’ choice after believing she didn’t have her prince. This balance ensured that the film charmed in a way that Disney manages to do, was full of passion and whimsy, but the emphasis on want rather than need took her away from being a ‘passive’ female, yet not too far to be wooden and preachy; she was a well rounded individual.

What it did particularly well:
It was as charming and as fun as a Disney romp should be, whilst making the blatant concessions to Disney’s past that I mention above. The songs were mesmerising and the deep south setting was really brought to life.

Where it may have fallen short, unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
It never reached more than just very good. The songs were all enjoyable, but made no lasting impression. Similarly, the supporting characters were a little underwhelming (except the villain who was great). I liked the crocodile but he was no Timone and Pumba.

Performance of the film:
The villain voiced by Keith David, really over the top sinister

Most outstanding or memorable feature:
The setting: as a post Katrina film, this does a lot to justly glamorise the deep south vibe through the animation, the music, the characters, the food and the emphasis on passion.

Black Swan (2010) - *Definite spoilers*

Viewing context:
Thanks to mother in law Sunday babysitting, me and Tasha went to see it together.

Creators:
Directed by Darren Aronofsky, who has barely put a foot wrong with the only film of his that isn’t breathtakingly brilliant being The Fountain. I aren’t in any way against this film; I loved the ideas behind it and its contemplative nature, but it isn’t the masterpiece that all his others are (The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream and Pi). Screenplay by Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz and John McLaughlin

What Happened:
Nina’s (Natalie Portman) life is nothing but ballet. The film opens just prior to the new season, as the theatre’s producer/director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) is choosing a successor to his aged (well aged in ballet standards) former star, Beth (Winona Ryder). Given the opportunity to fill this role, Nina must show that she can be more than her natural state as the White Swan; she must be able to undertake the metamorphosis into the Black Swan.

What it did particularly well:
The entire film was intense. A lot rested on Natalie Portman, and she didn't half pull it off. She was a little irritating/frustrating, but that was the character more than it was the actress; a character trait that was essential for last act to work so well. It wasn't until the final scene that this could be fully appreciated, as Portman shifted up a couple of gears for her metamorphosis. I had wondered throughout, how she would convincingly change, but having seen those eyes looking so fragile and scared throughout, all of a sudden full of confidence and a sense of control really convinced.
From pretty much the opening scene focusing on the battered feet of a ballerina there were numerous points that centred on the physical intensity of this punishing lifestyle and the amount of punishment she herself was willing to go through. This combined to have me on edge, responding to the characters, as well as displaying how an utterly unflattering lifestyle this is. Portman somehow looked simultaneously horrible and physically tortured, yet graceful and beautiful.
Her relationship with Lily (Mila Kunis) is amazing; I was frequently as tricked as Nina was regarding what was happening with her. The fact that she could be winding Nina up in order to get her role, or that it could all be in Nina's head were both as convincing throughout most of the film (whilst most likely being a little bit of both). Nina simply saw whatever she needed to in order to push her into becoming this other person, the Black Swan. She would find any hook, any key, any way to convince her mind to change.

Theme/Message:
It was about as subtle as a brick in its Freudian themes of the ‘other’; of the subconscious; the unquenchable lack, leading to the death drive, and all kinds of other such psychoanalytically related notions. I wish I was versed enough in my Lacan to have the confidence to tuck into all these points, but it is an area I need - and intend - to be brushing up on this year. I may even use this text as my frame of reference when reading up on the main points of psychoanalytic theory.
Framing the film in the feminine world of ballet, a stark contrast to Aranofsky's last film, The Wrestler, set in the uber-masculine world of professional wrestling, could be read as an intentional comment on femininity. Additionally, consider the eternally infntilised feminine world her mother has kept her in; her room looks akin to a child's room, pink everywhere and littered with teddies.
The other major difference between this and The Wrestler is the age. The wrestler was about an aging (fading) star, whereas Nina is yet to even become a star when she begins her descent. Perhaps a comment on just how little a life women can have to enjoy before being crippled by the weight of expectation (of others, but more importantly of them self).
The film also plays with ideas of what is important to different people. Was the end a happy one? What was important to Nina was being perfect, and that performance was perfect; possibly as perfect as she could get. She had reached the pinnacle of what she loved and we saw no signs that she could have any kind of life outside of ballet. In fact, the scene in the bar just showed how she can only even engage in conversation when it is about ballet and cannot grasp that other people don't get it. Further still, we see - and Nina sees - what happens to aging stars by showing us how badly Beth is dealt with by Thomas and the rest of the ballet community.

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
Nothing really, fine just as it is.

Performance of the film:
No doubts, Natalie Portman.

Scene of the film:
Final act. The whole performance and transformation is an amazing payoff.

Final Word:
Worked on many fronts: Perfect genre film, whilst still getting in real character depth. It was beautiful to look at; the dancing was exhilarating; the spectacle and the thriller/horror tropes worked really well and it had great performances. It is a brilliant allrounder.

Tangled (2011) - A great addition to the Disney princess myth

Viewing Context:
After the opening weekend may have been too busy for us all to get in for free down at Cineworld, we went down the following Saturday (all being me Tasha and Corey). We were also joined by my sister and her kids, so it was a real family viewing. Corey had been seeing it advertised plenty and was really looking forward to it. Unfortunately, he’s also been getting excited about the Yogi Bear advert - curses.

Creators:
Directed by Nathan Greno and Bryon Howard, who have both worked in the animation department on a number of Disney films. Written by Dan Fogleman, writer of Bolt and Cars, neither quite as good as this.

What Happened:
The queen is very ill in the later stages of pregnancy, so her empire searches for a legendary flower that can heal any ailment. They find it, but the selfish woman who has hidden it from the world for centuries, using it to maintain her youth, is not right chuffed about it going. The flower heals the queen and its magic goes into princess Rapunzel (Mandy Moore), so the old woman nabs her as a baby and locks her in a tower, raising her as her own. On her 18th birthday, she has finally reached the point where her curiosity cannot be held back anymore; this coincides with the dashing Flynn Rider (Zachary Levy) stumbling across the tower. Rapunzel convinces this charming thief to take her to where the lanterns fly once a year. Unbeknown to her, these are let off intentionally for the princess to be led home.

Theme/Message:
Above anything else a Disney film's message delivers, I always have to consider the state of the Disney princess and how she fits into the Disney princess canon. Rapunzel can stand up as another great example of how Disney has completely left behind the passive, pointless, negative (in my view) figure in the Snow White model. Disney are really striking the right balance between on the one hand having a beautiful relationship build up genuinely, with the male lead earning the princess' love and affection rather than naturally gaining it just by being their knight in shining armour. Balanced though, by the fact that Rapunzel never wishes for him, certainly wasn’t simply waiting for him; it never even figured into her plan until it naturally occurred. Her focus was solely on her own self discovery and self worth rather than missing that magical prince. Similarly, in the inevitable 'princess in distress' section of the narrative, she didn't need her prince to save her, yet he still tried. It was the right balance between showing how committed he was and how great his feelings for Rapunzel were, without ever implying that she ‘needed’ him to save her. The film puts them both in situations of jeopardy, where they can both be saviours of one another.
There alse featured themes of knowledge; the dangers and manipulative nature of knowledge not being fully disclosed. How this can be bent so wickedly to distort the world views of those that are not in the position to control the information. I'm not implying that this is any Dogtooth (The Greek Oscar nominated film), but the same implication (albeit watered down Disney version) is there.

What it did particularly well:
Everything that you would like in a whimsical Disney kids' film. The songs were particularly enjoyable and well placed.
the way it was so bright and pleasant was a joy to watch, without being sickeningly pathetic. This helped a great deal towards building that connection between the two characters, which is something it needed to do more than competently in order for the final act to pay off as well as it did - and it really did, as I had no idea which way they were going to go (signs of my child like naivete more than anything).
I loved a lot about Disney's last offering The Princess and the Frog, but I was never as engaged in the connection between the two leads as I was between Flynn and Rapunzel; the characters separately yes, but not them as a couple.
Finally, it had a great supporting cast, in the horse and the lizard.

What unimpressed or missed potential:
The evil mother was good, but could have been played up a bit more. At least when Rapunzel inevitably found out that she wasn't her real mother, it could have been a little more emotional. It happened a bit quick; she had just found out that her whole life had been a lie and that this wasn’t the mother that she had thought she was. It must be said that the rest of the film convincingly portrayed how conflicted Rapunzel must have been, as the evil mother sinisterly switched between terrifying Rapunzel, then offering her protection. It was a Disney version of the kind of sinister mental torture that Nina in Black Swan seemed to be subjected to.

Scene of the film:
The final payoff was excellent; I really didn't know what was going to happen. I admit that I really am turning into a soft-ass as I get older but the tears were building.

Performance of the film:
I never know what to say about this in an animation. Maximus the horse was really cool, but can't really give it to him so I'd say that Moore did the lead act really well. She seemed naive at times, confident at others; I know that the animation is a lot of it but the voice counts too. Plus, she really topped it off with the singing.

Die Wellen (The Wave - 2008)

Viewing context:
Initially added it to my LoveFilm list after hearing Nemone (the 6Music radio presenter) talking about it to a film cricic they had on through the day.

Creators:
Directed by Dennis Gansel, who directed a film in 2004 called Napola, which looks inteesting. What is more impressive though, is that he also wrote it (although it is based on a book) along with Peter Thorwart. The writing credit is important for Gansel as it was a better written film than it was a directed one.

What Happened:
A teacher, introduced as quite the punk rock loving, self figured anti-hero teacher, Rainer Wenger (Jürgen Vogel) gets stuck teaching autocracy for a week rather than his favoured Anarchy. After ten minutes of the students’ indifference to the subject and their complete disregard for the power of a dictatorship, flatly refusing that it would even be possible that the circumstances in modern day Germany could create a dictatorship, Wenger gets creative and begins to introduce themes and concepts that get the kids’ attention. His ideas begin to gain some traction as it transforms into a movement, aptly called ‘The Wave'.

Theme/Message:
The upperschool setting situates it as an issue for Germany’s youth, who are arguably more settled in the western dogma of consumerism and individualism than their previous generations. Yet the setting can easily be seen as a convenient way to tell this story that could be allegorically projected onto society as a whole, with different students representing different social types.
The film shows just how easy it is to get caught up in a movement; for the seemingly apathetic and aimless to so quickly attach themselves to something, to anything. It was less a comment on whether autocracy or democracy was better, but more on how people will so easily have their will bent for an easier life and to fit in, whether this will is being bent by a dictator like Stalin or by brands like Adidas. It managed to be critical of both sides of the coin, which I always believe helps any argument; it never came across as a preaching statement, it just feltnatural, which was precisely Wenger's intention in the first place. What is left for society? A space between apathetic nihilism and of sheep-like drones following the masses.

What it did particularly well:
The main thing I would like to highlight is how aesthetically youthful the film was. The seemingly petty adolescent problems (I say seemingly because from the hormone fuelled, unwisened mind of the teenager, these things really are life and death - god I wouldn’t be a teenager again) were interjected with the more grand politics in a way that not only made it seem much more plausible, genuine and less preachy, but I would imagine that it also makes the film accessible to that social group; those that think it doesn’t matter, that aren’t already engaged in these sorts of debates or discussions.
I expected the film to be much more mature, much more nuanced and sophisticated, both in the aesthetics and in its handling of the subject matter. When it wasn’t this at first, I was a little jarred, but had it been, it would have missed that connection with the social type it was depicting. If only the typical privileged, middle aged, middle class people were going to watch it in their local art cinema then it would have been a complete waste. (This is clearly a crass exaggeration, but there is truth in the fact that had it been more pretentious seeming, it would have disinterested many in society. An unfortunate fact).

What unimpressed or didn't quite reach potential:
There was one slight gripe, but this could come from my knowledge-gap of the average German teenager. These kids all seemed pretty smart and quite politically engaged already. There was a point when Wenger says ‘at least I am getting through to them’. Well, I was never fully convinced that they were the kind of kids that needed getting through to. Compared to kids at my school (myself included), these lot were pretty much political geniuses to begin with.

Performance of the film:
I would say Frederick Lau as the unhinged Tim gave the best performance. Mostly for the early part of the film when you begin to see the signs that his trajectory is inevitably going to carry this too far; that he is so genuinely dedicated to, and excited about this because he has nothing else. He was enough his own character, but also enough of that type of character, that you could see how this type of individual would be very typical in this kind of movement.

Scene of the film:
Although the end scene was really tense; the whole film had built up to a final payoff and the film, despite the potential pitfall, did not drop the ball at the end, I still think that the scene where the students bomb around town putting stickers up and tagging all the walls, restaurants, buses, police cars, etc was a great way of showing you the sort of youthful energy and sense of change that is at the heart of this type of movement. It was entirely plausible, none of those caught up in it became majorly political, which is what was great. It was a very genuine depiction of how a group of high school kids - and then symbolically by extension the whole of society - could get so wrapped up in something

Final Word:
It seemed genuinely anchored in the perspective of the youth, which is what made it so plausible and allowed me to get caught up in the wave (I have no willpower, that cheesy line was just irresistible).