Titanic - About time too

It took me a long time to get there, but give me a lazy Saturday evening in and a Netflix subscription and I'll end up watching anything.  For the first time in my life last Saturday, I watched Titanic.

Titanic is of course James Cameron's 1997 critically and commercially-acclaimed blockbuster.  The film launched the careers of Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio into the A-list, from which they have never come down.  At the time of production it was the most expensive film ever made, and remains in the (inflation-adjusted) top three 20 years later.  Adjusted for inflation, Titanic is the 4th highest grossing film of all time.  It won 11 Oscars, and has been watched repeatedly by my girlfriend, my mother, my sister and I imagine by most of the rest of the world multiple times before I finally got around to it last weekend.  In short - I am going to assume you know what Titanic is.

You will know the plot too of course.  Kind of like Towering Inferno meets Romeo and Juliet, Titanic tells the story of high society's Rose (Winslet) and free spirited ne'er-do-well Jack (DiCaprio) meeting and falling in love aboard the doomed passenger liner.  Her family don't like it, but they don't care.  Then the story almost comes to a head with Rose' evil betrothed trying to kill Jack, then a massive iceberg tries to kill them all.  For 3 hours.

It's a strange film to watch.  Mostly because you know what's going to happen, and the fact that this knowledge renders large portions of the second act's plot irrelevant.  The film's third act is when the ship actually sinks.  This starts after 105 minutes - still over 100 to go.  The tone here is very strange.  On the one hand the film feels like Towering Inferno on a boat, with crashing waves, exploding windows, plates hurtling down from shelves and people falling to presumed far away deaths.  However on the other hand the film tries to remember that this was a real disaster, and upon its release survivors were still alive.  The cutting back and forth between genuine heartfelt tragedy and tragicomic disaster schlock is off-putting.

20 years on and the special effects still look amazing - the huge budget was not wasted and the strange tone does nothing to detract from one's ability to marvel at the technical achievement on screen.  Aside from a few moments of CGI early on when the ship is in harbour, the fact that real sets were used is a lesson to film makers of the current and future eras.  Cameron famously pushed the envelope with the creation of his movable replica of the ship, hundreds of extras, gallon upon gallon of water and his furious temper asserting that everything should be exactly the way he wanted.  The result is a technical marvel that in the current era of cheap CGI will rarely be attempted again.

The plot's main driver is Jack's fate.  We know that Rose survives the disaster as the whole story is told from the point of view of old Rose in the modern era.  Does Jack survive and live happily ever after with her?  Nope - but then you and everyone else in the world already knew that.  I'm not going to be a cynic here.  The love story is genuinely touching and well put-together.  Add in two incredibly charismatic actors, one insanely popular song layered over the soundscape, a huge great 'heart of the ocean' necklace metaphor, end on marriage in death, fade to white - bank $2 billion.  Easy right?  Well no, no it isn't.  Whatever you might of James Cameron, he is one of the most technically innovative film-makers of the last 30 years, and with Titanic he deserved his successes.

Well that's that gap in the film knowledge patched up.  Next?

Goldeneye - Watching it again is weird

My girlfriend and I have recently over the last 6 months or so been rewatching all of the Bond films.  It hadn't really occurred to me that I had anything interesting to write about this before last week, when we finally arrived at the first Bond film I actually remember coming out.

Goldeneye was released in late 1995 after a hiatus of 6 years during which time various legal wranglings and confusion over who would take over the production of the Bond franchise stalled any filming.  Bond was successful then as it remains now, and after the quick-fire production of the Bond movies during the Moore / Dalton era it was considered quite a set back that it took so long to transition to the next actor to play the iconic role.

However from my point of view at the time this wasn't the case.  License to Kill was released in 1989, when I was 10 and before I was really aware of grown up films.  By the time I was aware that James Bond existed, the films that were already out seemed like an ever-present canon.  Time stretches forever when one is in one's teenage years, and since no Bond film was released for my entire secondary school education (Goldeneye was released just after I started my A Levels) it felt like something otherworldly.  A new Bond film?  But Bond films are a thing that were made in the past, not now!  Weird how a teenage mind world isn't it?

Of course it wasn't just this.  There are other reasons Goldeneye felt so different.  Looking back and re-watching the series it is even more clear.  This was the first Bond film to be made in the post-Soviet era, the first film with Judi Dench as 'M', the first in which someone uses the internet.  It really feels like Bond films were entering a new era.

The other thing I noticed when watching Goldeneye for the first time in probably 15 years last week, is just how much the plot doesn't really make any sense.  We open in Monaco with Bond being tested by an MI6 stooge, he races a mysterious woman in a Ferrari who he then flirts with in classic Bond trope stylee.  Bond then follows this woman for no reason other than that he's a bit of a stalker, and then she's involved in the theft of a helicopter, which is then used in the theft of the 'Goldeneye' device.  There's no real reason for Bond to be involved in any of this at all.  It then comes to pass that the ultimate point of having this device is to steal money, which is sort of a bit small fry really.

Notwithstanding this though, Goldeneye is a well-made film.  We have memorable characters, well-directed action sequences and exactly the right balance between danger and tongue-in-cheek.  The product placement is there, but not out of control. It checks off the Bond tropes nicely and does very well to handle the transition into the post-soviet era.  Making 'M' a woman is a nice way to encapsulate Bond's dissonance from a world now not sure what to do with its Cold War era spies.  Where does Bond fit in now the Russians are on side and casual sexism isn't considered acceptable any more?

Plus on top of all this, Goldeneye was one of the first films to ever involve a video game tie-in.  Talk about making a giant leap into a new world.  Goldeneye definitely isn't the best Bond film, but it is none-the-less a classic.

Get Out - comedy / thriller / horror. All that and more.

Took a rare trip to the cinema back in April (and rarer still these days that I am blogging about it - even if it is 5 months later).  I had a free weekday evening and so I did that thing that I do enjoy doing, watching a horror film in the dark at night.  Better still when one has to walk home at midnight in the dark.  All about there scares innit.

Get Out stars Daniel Kaluuya as Chris, a guy who has been going out with Rose (Allison Williams) for a few months.  Naturally Rose wants Chris to meet her parents.  However he is reluctant.  She is white, he is black; Chris is cautious about how they will react.  Rose's reassurances about her parents' ludicrous liberalism put Chris mostly at ease, but his nagging doubts aren't about to vanish at any point.  This is America after all, and race is as much an issue today as at any point in its history.  What could possibly go wrong?

The film continues into 3 acts, each with a very distinct tone.  We go from borderline cringe-comedy, to spooky mystery, to slasher horror, with the end of each act clearly signalling the transition to the next.  Everything is tied together with a playfully comic undertone as Chris stays in touch with his friend (comic relief) Rod throughout his entire time with Rose's parents.  From this we pretty much know that nothing can really happen to Chris as he navigates his way through the minefield of parental hyper-liberalism - Texas Chainsaw Massacre this is not.  One could criticise this as undercutting the horror elements of the story, but I think it actually helps create a playful tone that reminds us that horror films are meant to be entertainment.  Carefully done, it is possible to create a light tone around sinister ideas.  Black comedy is after all a thing, and Get Out is nothing if not that (but with a lot more horror).

I distinctly remember Kaluuya starring as the lead in the best episode of Black Mirror's original run back in 2011, but I can't recall seeing him in anything else.  A strong performance in both these roles surely sets him up for more work in the future.

My opinion is that this isn't quite the game-changing thriller is was billed as in some parts earlier this year, but it is an extraordinarily good horror / thriller.  Of particular note is the film's tone, which is shifting but well-crafted to great effect.  I await with great interest to see what writer / director Jordan Peele gets up to next.

Moonlight - a story waiting to be told

Took a bit of time to get around to it, but I have now kept up the record I try to maintain - that of making sure I see the Academy's Best Film award winner as soon as possible.  You may recall that Moonlight was eventually awarded this year's top prize at the Oscars after an envelope malfunction in which L A Land had originally been read out as the winner.  Cue the internet going wild for about 90 seconds as accusations of white washing were slung at the Academy on social media, and then going wild for days afterwards as everyone struggled to work out how something as well-co-ordinated as the Oscars ceremony could have managed to get the wrong name into the hands of the person doing the reading.

Whatever.  We are where we are.  Moonlight won the Academy award for Best Film this year, and rightly so.  It presents a story that feels like it has been waiting to be told for some time, a story of sexual awakening in the unforgiving world of the inner city druglands of urban America.

The film shows us three vignettes from the life of Chiron, at first a young boy, then a teen, and finally a man grown.  As a boy he is timid, confused by his sexuality and in yearning for a role model.  As a teen he is isolated, insecure and picked-on.  As a man he is physically powerful but deeply unsure about who he is and how he fits into a world that isn't sure how to react to him.

Marshala Ali won an Oscar for his performance in the first of the vignettes, when Chiron in a small boy living with his drug-addicted mother in the rough end of his home city.  Ali plays local drug dealer Juan, a character that on the surface we think we know from endless portrayals of people like him in the media and film.  The reality is that he is confused and powerless as everyone else trying to find their place in the world.  One particular scene sees Chiron join in with dinner at Juan's place, a scene that makes a curveball out of our expectations of the characters.  It's perfect in its simplicity, able to completely hold our attention through the power of words.

The film's themes are mutli-layered but perfectly woven.  For me the main thrust was about role models and expectations of ourselves and out lives.  We may have role models who are good, bad, right or wrong, but ultimately we become our own person as a result of everything we see and feel.  And crucially we might turn out to be someone no one ever would have expected - witness the dramatic change in Chiron from skinny kid to muscled young man by the final act, no one meeting him for the first time could hope to guess at the timid and confused upbringing he suffered through.

Yes it is slow, yes the camera lingers on at the end of scenes, yes the silence tells a story - all reasons many people might find Moonlight boring.  But I think this is what makes the film perfect.  It isn't an easy thing to use silence to your benefit, but here it is like an extra character, bringing development where dialogue would just muddy the waters.  A worthy Oscar winner.

Prevenge - novel, gory, comic, brilliant

Catching up with my Lovefilm DVDs recently left me in possession of a rather odd film I couldn't remember adding to my list.  Prevenge comes with a synopsis that should have most people rolling their eyes: Ruth is a heavily pregnant woman who's unborn baby is telling her to kill people.  Gotta love High Concept.

Rather than being simply an excuse for B-movie gore, Prevenge is surprisingly satirical, while being every bit as darkly comic as you would hope.  Amongst the people Ruth murders are a pet shop owner, fitness fanatic, two potential flatmates and DJ Dan - the most disgusting excuse for a man to ever have lived.  Dan acts in just about the most outrageously sexist, childish and vomit-inducing way around Ruth as she pulls him in the shit bar where he's plying his trade.  The audience is encouraged to have little sympathy over his murder as he shouts at his elderly mum in his flat while throwing up into his wig.  Yup - that.

Therein lies much of Prevenge's satire and appeal - what woman hasn't endured horrible sexist 'banter' in a bar and wished they could stick the boot in (ok well Ruth uses a knife - but metaphors innit)?  When women get pregnant they change right?  We are told a mystical connection is formed between mother and baby right?  Well who says that has to be loving and caring - maybe the baby is the next Charles Manson in wating?!

The one person Ruth can't quite seem to kill is the person intrinsically linked to the implied reason for her homicidal rampage, and the reason the father of the baby isn't around.  The story-line veers wonderfully close to the heartwarming towards the end, as Ruth comes to see how her pregnancy is impacting her mental health.  However the film cannot quite bring itself to shift the focus back into the real world (we assume that in the real world Ruth would have been caught many months ago - such is her disregard for covering up her tracks), preferring instead to remain in the bafflingly surreal world of Ruth's actions.  It's a difficult story to wrap up after all, and by letting this bonkers world hang around until the final shot I think the writers did it extraordinarily well.

Alice Lowe stars as Ruth.  She was outstanding in Sightseers, but here she is also the writer and director.  The film was apparently shot in on a short timescale on a tight budget, a triumph for Lowe who's work I will be looking out for the in future.  I fully endorse Prevenge.  It has a tight and engaging script, and is comic, dark and satirical in all the right amounts.  It's exactly what you want to discover when you watch a small budget film from an unknown writer / director.  Go and see it.

The Inbetweeners - it's all great, apart from the second film

The second movie based on the cult TV classic The Inbetweeners was available on All 4 over last weekend, as such me and my girlfriend in our hungover states settled down to a very weird double bill - the first of which was David Lynch's much-lauded Mulholland Drive.  Quite a double bill indeed.

The Inbetweeners is a cult classic for good reason.  It hit the popular zeitgeist back in the mid 2000s when it attained popularity for its cringingly realistic portrayal of teenage boys and their disgusting foul mouths, foul minds and even fouler behaviour.  Nothing was considered taboo.  The show even invented its own swear word that somehow manages to be even more wince-inducing than any actual profanity.

Of course any successful TV show needs a film, and so it was that in 2011 the original writers of the show penned a feature length episode in which the lads go wild on a classic 'lads on tour' holiday to a Mediterranean island.  The second film followed in 2014, this time in Australia.

The transition from small screen to large is hard to pull off, and where the first film managed it quite well the second struggles hugely.  The point is that you need to have a story to tell, and your characters have to go on a journey.  In 25 minutes of television you can restrict yourself to a short gribly tale of teenage poo and vomit.  However to sit through 90 minutes you need a lot more.  The first movie manages this by having its characters come of age.  They spend their time being themselves and carrying on as they always have, but each end up with the girl they didn't originally lust over, learning along the way that sex and relationships in real life are a million miles from the screwed up fantasy land of their hitherto teenage experiences.  It's called an arc innit.

The second film doesn't seem to even attempt to tick this box of script-writing 101.  Instead we head off to Australia and have crude visual gags about poo and nobs and pissing.  Then each of our characters ends up in the same place as they started at the first film.  The funniest part of the film is a series of digs at fake new-age traveller types who have gone abroad to 'find themselves', but are in fact on a gap year paid for by wealthy parents in Surrey.  Aside from that, the poo-gags you can either take or leave.

It's a classic tale: popular TV series goes on to the big screen to make some money and fucks it up.  Just so happens that in the case of The Inbetweeners got the first film right, and so we had to wait for the second one before they fell back on toilet humour and forgot to tell a story.  The appeal of The Inbetweeners is fairly universal, my Dad enjoyed it when I showed it to him and as far as I can tell there are people between the ages of 20 and 30 who cannot watch it as it's too cringingly close to the realities of their teenage years.  It is a genuinely funny cult classic of its era that I would recommend to anyone who can abide the relentless smut.  Just don't bother watching the second film.

La La Land - is it a musical?

To say that La La Land has generated a lot of hype is to hugely understate the excitement that followed the release of this film earlier this year.  With 14 nominations and 6 wins at the Oscars in February, Hollywood agreed (though perhaps not to the extent some were initially predicting - the clean sweep did not happen and Ryan Gosling got no award).  Every year it seems which ever film is the big release is predicted a clean sweep - never ever happens though.

The film's title is a neat play on words - the telling a tale set in Los Angeles in a whirlwind of excitement and pastel-colour flourishes that's dizziness-inducing for its doe-eyed wannabies.  It's a story that's as old as the film industry itself, Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) are Hollywood hopefuls looking for their big break.  She wants to create her own stage show.  He wants to run his own jazz club.  It's a story and a style of film making that harks back to the Hollywood golden age, with set-piece song-and-dance numbers, bold colours and a love story between forged out of the fires of Singin' in the Rain.  One can see why the Hollywood establishment loved it so, its opening sequence revels in the outlandish prospect of choreographing a full-on dance number amongst the motionless traffic of a Californian freeway.

Though I don't want to burst its bubble too harshly, I was not taken in by La La Land anywhere near as much as I was hoping.  It's a film with a very distinct split between its acts.  The opening act is 100% musical, but the second half drifts in a very different direction.  It's hard to discuss this too much without spoilerising everything, but the story drifts into territory that's a bit too real for my liking.  It's very difficult to come to terms with a shift in tone that sees us go from spinning dresses and outlandish choreography to the harsh realities of seeing a romantic relationship come under real world stress.  Is this meant to be a fantasy or not?

You could argue that the film is an indictment of the Hollywood dream - that's it really is completely 'la la' in its unrealism, of course there can be no real happily ever after when a relationship is based on singing a song together once under moonlight.  But I don't remember this happening to Gene Kelly and Debbie Reynolds, so La La Land isn't really a throw back to the golden age of 1950s Hollywood musicals.  It is something else entirely.  Is it more a 21st century reboot of that genre?  Well maybe - but you kind of have to end on a curtain close and a kiss or the audience wants its money back.  You don't go to a musical for the realism after all.  When you come around to this way of thinking the film has much less of a gloss attached to it.

Director Damien Chazelle has very quickly become a Holywood darling.  His directorial and writing range extends across a wide range of genres in a very short career to date.  He could take his talents anywhere and into any field.  This I guess was his attempt to do a stage musical.  The results are enjoyable in the extreme, but as a viewer you will either go with the 21st century spin or you won't.  I didn't and I was left feeling rather flat by the entire final act.  Given the film had so much Hollywood hype I could hardly believe to see it end on such a misstep.

I'm not upset, just disappointed.

Don't Breathe - Don't hold your breath

A recommendation from my favourite youtube film reviewers RedLetterMedia - Don't Breathe is billed as an independent American horror / thriller in which a band of burglers rob the house of a blind man.  But he isn't as helpless as he seems, this blind man is an ex-army soldier with exceptional other senses that compensate for his lack of sight.  Let the thrills commence.  Probably.

To be honest it is a little difficult to write this review, because there isn't a huge amount that actually happens in this film.  Our three burglers break into the house, avoid a dog (Chekhov's Dog obviously), then disturb the guy and then for some reason don't just run out of the house immediately and cut their losses.  There's some stuff about how the fact that one of them brought a gun to the house means that this is armed robbery and therefore so bad that they can't just leave (why?) and then the plot does branch out when they discover someone else in the house - but still the solution to all this is just to use the fact that you're not blind, turn the lights on, and run the hell out of the house before the old guy has a chance to realise what's happening.  Guess what - he ain't going to pick you out of an identity parade!  Then call the cops anonymously and send them into his house to deal with the 'plot branch'.  Couldn't be easier?!

Not really understanding what RedLetterMedia saw in this.  Perhaps they're just trying to big up independent American film-makers as opposed to the huge studios, which is fair enough I guess.  Don't Breathe isn't really that bad, it's just a bit too much of the same thing for 90 minutes.  Which would still be ok if it wasn't that the thing that's the same couldn't be resolved very easily by just doing all the things I already said.

Anyway, would still rather watch this than the new Alien remake.  Ridley Scott has remade one of his own films.  And he didn't choose to remake Kingdom of Heaven, you know, one that wasn't very good, make it better and all that.  No - he has remade Alien.  For.  Fuck.  Sake.

The Neon Demon - Hollywood will consume you

This - the most recent film to emerge from the mind of writer / director Nicolas Winding Refn - is a bonkers film.  Refn's work to date (Drive and Only God Forgives) indicates he is a writer eager to layer up textures and oft-baffling metaphor, and a director eager to play around with the stylistic opportunities provided by the cinematic medium.  The new film by Refn is not one to take someone on a first date - not unless that person's favourite film is Erasorhead.

The Neon Demon is at its simplest the story of Jesse (Elle Fanning) and her attempt to inveigle herself into the Holywood fashion / film industry.  Jesse comes - like many before her - from a rural background seeking the bright lights and fame of the big city.  She is taken under the wing of Ruby, Gigi and Sarah, barely older than her but bitter beyond their years and jaded about the industry that has given them the fame and style Jesse now craves.  As Jesse moves closer to an inner circle that she desperately wants to be part of, what will she find there?

Refn's style is unique has needs to be experienced to be understood.  He uses colour, shape and lighting to create a style that's brutal, unsettling and predatory.  Jesse is the bambi trying to become the wolf, and yet the wolves circle her, all the time fearful of her youth, innocence, and the fact she represents their eventual decline.  On top of this the sound track adds layer of sensory discombobulation, the relentless dance rhythm beats play over an opening scene where Jesse meets her 'mentors' in a club.  The tension in the room is there for all to drink in.  The comparisons to Susperia are easy to make, which in itself is plenty enough to recommend a watch.

At its heart the film is a critique of the fashion industry.  It is an industry that idolises youth over everything, while at the some time fearing the very same youth that represents the downfall of its established stars.  The careers of those who have 'made it' last only as long as it takes for the next youngest prettiest thing to emerge out of the desert into Hollywood's bright lights.  In parallel, it is a critique of those who go in pursuit of that world.  It talks about the dangers of letting unknown forces into your life.  How so you know these people are your friends?  You keep your friends close, but your enemies you keep closer right?

As to if what happens in the film is to be taken literally or not... well to ask the question implies that you might not be a fan of Refn's oeuvre.  It doesn't really matter if what Refn puts on screen is a literal depiction of a story he has come up with, or a weird metaphysical construction that deconstructs the horror of the fashion industry and reconstructs it as an all-too-real horror, Refn's work speaks for itself.  His constant use of image, music, colour, form and fashion as a way of building tension and meaning may leave some behind, but his horrific metaphors for the dangers this industry impose upon young wannabies aren't particularly dense.

To conclude, I thought this was a superb film.  Refn is one of a very small number of film-makers these days who has a very singular and recognisable artistic style, but who's work still pierces into the mainstream.  Beware kids, Hollywood will eat you up.

Lights Out - a TV horror movie

Watched this little US horror film tonight.  My rule of thumb for films is that longer than 150 minutes is too long, but shorter than 80 minutes is too short.  When you get down to something that's fewer than 80 minutes, I start to wonder why this is a feature length film at all and not some sort of made for TV movie.  Well Lights Out is a good case study in this.  It's 77 minutes long, and though modern film technology allows it to look like a proper film, the story progression, direction and acting occasionally make you wonder if this should be on the SciFi channel.

Lights Out starts with a suitably horror opening.  We are inside a warehouse with the night shift.  As they turn the lights out the silhouette of a woman appears in the distance.  The worker flicks the light on and it's gone.  The light is flicked on and off several times, with the silhouette appearing each time the lights go out, until the light is turned off one last time and THE SILHOUETTE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US!  A nice opening.

What should be the prelude to a mystery ready to unfold soon turns an X-Files episode with a family secret, a medical experiment gone wrong and a nice moral ending.  The film doesn't give enough space to the plot to allow the mystery to linger and get under your skin before it becomes normalised and our heroine finds a box of exposition that explains everything (this literally happens).  In a TV show you have to get things moving quickly, in a film - not so much.  The film's creators didn't seem to realise that they had 90 minutes to play with, and that they didn't have to immediately reveal who or what the dark silhouette is.  Horror fans are happy to enjoy an opening act of gore and jumpiness before we get into the whys and hows.  Also horror films need to abide by their own set of rules.  Is silhouette-girl actually gone when the lights are on, or is she just invisible?  It she tied to the mother or not?  It isn't really clear what the rules of engagement are here, before everything comes to a conclusion that could have happened years ago in the film's timeline, then everyone lives happily ever after.  Have these people never seen Carrie?  They always come back!  If they don't come back then your average horror film fan is going to feel let down - as I did.

Bit of a disappointment to be honest.  Only watch if you are a genre fan.

The Hateful Eight - Tarantino goes too far again

In the list of films in which Quentin Tarantino seems hell-bent on climbing inside his own arsehole in the pursuit of postmodern perfection - The Hateful Eight certainly has a place.

The Hateful Eight tells the story of two bounty hunters who take refuge in a cabin during a snow storm.  One bounty hunter (Kurt Russel) is transporting his prisoner (Jennifer Jason Leigh), while the other (Samuel L Jackson) is simply on his way to collect a reward.  The cabin where they end up stopping is populated by a group of nefarious loners, some, none or all of whom might be interested in stealing the bounty hunter's reward.  What could possibly go wrong?

The major issues are 1) there is no way this should all take over 3 hours to resolve, 2) the fact it is all set in one location and 3) to be honest it isn't really that interesting anyway.  Tarantino's signature tropes across his films are his dialogue, use of music and non-linear storytelling.  His work is synonymous with American postmodern cinema.  These elements are all present in The Hateful Eight, but he lays everything on so thick that any intrigue in the actual story is lost in his insistence on dragging yet another long and heavy look out of Kurt Russel.

I lost count of the number of times I wanted a scene to cut before it went on for a further 30 seconds.  The outdoors locations Tarantino's team found for the film's setting are undoubtedly beautiful, but a film has editors for a reason.  Three hours for a film with so simple a plot is far too much, especially so for one set for two thirds of its run-time in the same poorly-lit location.  As ever Tarantino's direction is flawless, with a couple of little flourishes chucked in to show that he's still out there on the cutting edge making interesting films in interesting ways.  But I just can't get over how long and simple the finished product is.

By one count this is Tarantino's 8th film as a director (geddit? his 8th film has an 8 in the title!).  It baffles me to see this cited online as an example of why The Hateful Eight is a good film.  If it was an hour shorted I'm very sure I would have a different opinion, but the final cut is just too long, just too smug.  It's cinematic onanism.

Arrival - hard science fiction meets mainstream

It is really good when you trawl through so much crap science fiction, and finally (finally) there stands before you an absolute gem.  Though that apparently didn't spur me on to write this review any quicker.  I saw Arrival in November of last year, and only now am I getting around to talking about it.  Busy lives innit.

As simple as simple plots for films go, Arrival is up there.  Mysterious alien ships arrive and the world has to work out what to do next.  However this is about as far from Independence Day as it is possible to get.  Arrival comes at the question of how the world reacts with the calm inquisitiveness of a director interested in returning science fiction cinema to science fiction's roots.

Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are the scientific duo who end up heading the US government's race to decode the alien signals.  Adams leads as Louise Banks - the language expert struggling to build a communication handbook from absolutely zero.  The process of discovery, of scientifically piecing together elements of information to form a whole, is utterly engaging and surprisingly realistic.  The scientific process is one of sudden leads rather than incremental steps, and so it is here with Banks' various bouts of inspiration, depression, uncertainty and shocked wonder.  By layering Banks' hinted-at past against her very haunting present, Arrival slips into the realms of hard science fiction in a way that mainstream cinema often struggles to get right.

The film never lets this dedication to precision go.  As progress is made in communicating with the aliens, Arrival takes a turn for the political and looks at the wider world's reaction.  Will the world sit and wait for the scientists to work?  What are the motivations of the aliens, who continue to hang there motionless and silent?  Where science delays in providing reassurance, the political void creates its own narratives to fill the airwaves.

In short, Arrival is the stand out science fiction film of recent times.  You need to watch it.

Director Denis Villeneuve appears to have tried his hand at most film genres already in his as-yet short career.  IMDB tells me that he has now directed the remake (reboot - who knows) of Blade Runner.  Now while the existence of Blade Runner 2049 makes be sad, given that it exists we might as well hope for it to be well-handled.  With luck Villeneuve is the man for the job.

The Lobster - the artsiest art film you will see this year

I do enjoy seeing a Holywood A-lister take on a slightly left-field project, and that is exactly what Colin Farrell took on when he accepted the role of David in this utterly bizarre dark drama / dark comedy / dystopian science fiction film.  It's a film that pretty much defies attempts to easily categorise it.  In fact it pretty much derails any attempt to actually enjoy it too, such is it's insistence on adhering to a flat tone that's initially intriguing but ultimately distancing to anyone but the most patient of audiences.

The premise is simple but utterly weird.  In some sort of dystopian near future, everyone in 'the city' has to find a partner.  That partner has to be 'compatible'.  If they cannot find a partner then they must go to a hotel where the other singles all gather.  If they still cannot find a partner within 40 days at the hotel, then they are turned into the animal of their choice.  Colin Farrell is one such singleton - having seen his wife die recently.  The animal he wishes to be if he dies - a lobster.

As if this wasn't weird enough, the world of the near future is populated with people who speak without inflexion, in a monotone and with an autistic appreciation of how their words will be heard by others.  Because of this The Lobster is a very hard film to watch, with any charisma or verve that the actors might bring to their roles hidden behind the insistence that everyone is monotone and - well - just plain dull.  Colin Farrell has the lead role, but the film also stars Rachel Weisz, Olivia Coleman, John C Reilly, Leia Seydoux, Ben Wishaw - all fine A-list actors who seem stunted by the film's tone.  Not to say that this doesn't mean there's no good acting or that the cast don't have to work their craft, just that it's extremely taxing to watch them do it.

It isn't hard to argue that The Lobster is a criticism of modern dating, the insistence on finding the 'perfect' match by ticking off a list of attributes you want your chosen partner to have.  David is allowed to be with one woman because the owners of the hotel perceive them to both be rather heartless.  David's friend is allowed to be with a woman because they are both short-sighted, though David insists this shouldn't be allowed as he thinks his friend is lying about needing glasses.  We then contrast the people in 'the city' and hotel against the rebels who live in the woods.  The second half of the film sees the action shift towards this hermit-like band, their rejection of the norms of coupling up has gone to such an extreme that they permit almost no friendliness at all lest it be perceived as flirting that might lead to a relationship.  Society has been distilled into two binary camps that have moved to such extreme positions that they cannot see the other side's point of view.  Just like much of the politics of our world today.

The film ends on a scene that is almost unwatchable (because it has the potential to be so nasty) and then we are left to make up our own minds about what might happen next.  I was left feeling that this is a film I am happy to have seen, as I know I will be able to bring it up in conversation some day and sound really clever about films.  But I would be lying if I said I enjoyed the experience.  Overall it is just making a series of fairly simple points about the disconnection that modern society is creating for itself from what romance, love and relationships actually are.  Did it needs to be quite this impenetrable?  I don't think so.  But like I said, I'm always happy to see big famous stars making weird artsy films.

Only watch if you're feeling really artsy.

T2 - no not that "T2", Trainspotting 2

Is there nothing left that can't be set aside from a film studio's obsession with making money?  It seems not.  The latest (well - 2 months ago now nearly) classic cult film to get the remake / revision / re-imagining / sequel treatment is Trainspotting.  Sigh.  Anyway, the studio know people like me are going to go and see it, if only just to check if it's terrible.  That's why they make films like this.  One of these days I'll stop dancing to their tune.

The new Trainspotting - T2 - is set 20 years after the original.  Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor) has been living in Amsterdam since the events of the original and for reasons has to return to Edinburgh.  Cue a story about getting old, being old, and trying to work out what it is that went wrong.

The thing to remember about Trainspotting is that its place in the annals of British film came from two different angles.  Firstly, it documented a time and a place in British culture.  If you were in your late teens / early 20s in the mid 1990s and you wanted nothing to do with 'Cool Britania' and 'Blair's Babes', then you existed on the fringes of popular culture.  These were the fringes that Trainspotting did so well to record for posterity.  Secondly it brought Danny Boyle into the mainstream.  His eclectic and energetic style of direction is still copied by film-makers to this day.

I am not interested in nostalgiac wanders down memory lane.  I do not want to see parodies of scenes from an original film.  I don't want to watch Frances Begbie (Robert Carlyle) reprise his famous taunting of a crowded bar.  I don't want to hear Mark Renton update his "Choose life..." monologue for the 21st century.  I don't want to see callbacks to scenes that tick fanboy-boxes.  Enough of that goes on in the endless remakes and soft reboots spewing out of Holywood (Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Ghostbusters, Spiderman - they're all at it).  The only reason to make another Trainspotting film is if there is a story worth telling.

Thankfully - and you will understand that this was a very big sigh of relief for me - Trainspotting 2 does have a story to tell.  Rather than offer just a montage of throwbacks to the original, or crave for the nostalgia of the mid-1990s, T2 is about ageing and choices - you know, those things we do every day of our lives.  It's about waking up and discovering that you're suddenly 40 years old when your mind still thinks it's 18.  It's about wondering where time and opportunities have gone.

The film doesn't completely eschew the desire to provide fanservice and nob vigorously towards the classic scenes of yesteryear.  Am updated "Choose Life..." monologue is a particular low-point.  As is Robert Carlisle delivering a reprise of Begbie's most famous of lines.  In Trainspotting Renton's monologue broke the 4th wall - he was talking to us.  It shouldn't exist in the universe of the film.  Begbie's blood-soaked fight in the bar was portrayed as par-for-the-course event back in the day.  Why would this particular fight be memorable enough for him to remember it 20 years later?  We remember it because we watched Trainspotting.  There is no reason Begbie would attach any specific significance to that particular time he started one of many brawls.  These scenes shouldn't be in there, however they fact that they are short and noticeable by their contrast to the rest of the film is a positive.  These minor moments of fan-services I can abide - but I still cringed a little inside.

Given that they decided to make this film, I will admit that it was much better than I could have hoped or expected.  Minor criticisms aside, it tells a new story, largely avoids fan service and is rather touching.  British film fans of the 1990s can rest easy, and with luck Danny Boyle can now go off and create something new.

The Witch - an original and creative 'horror' movie

What an absolutely joy it was to watch this stripped-back supernatural thriller.  Written and directed by the completely unknown Robert Eggers, The Witch is set in 17th century rural New England and tells a tale of a puritan family who are expelled from their community and try to live off the land by themselves.  The family are a God-fearing bunch, typical perhaps of the time, with patriarch William (played by Ralph Ineson - who was also Finchy in The Office) opening the film admonishing the elders of their exiled village for being insufficiently pious.  Notions of religion, righteousness and fear are foreboded to be strong themes throughout.

The opening scene of the family going alone shows eldest daughter Thomasin (Anna Taylor-Joy) playing with her young baby brother.  She closes her eyes for a moment, and when she reopens them baby Sam has vanished.  She looks to the woods beyond as the autumn air blows eerily around her, what force could have taken her brother?

For the next 70 minutes the film tells a story that's almost-but-not-quite a straight horror thriller with a devilish coven of witches preying on the innocence of these pioneers.  Almost, but not quite.  The overt super-naturalism of the film is expertly portrayed so as to always permit rational explanation to the outside observer.  Much much more so than a traditional horror thriller ever would.  We are shown a witch luring a teenage boy in the woods.  But are we?  Teenage boys' minds do think in a certain way.  Certain creatures are possessed and act as if supernaturally powerful - but are we seeing this, or are we seeing this through the eyes of a witchcraft-obsessed 17th century peasant?  Seen like this the film is as much exploration of 17th century attitudes to religion, fear of witchcraft, fear of sexuality, repression and stress as it is a horror movie.  Even the film's final 5 minutes - which when seen as a straight depiction of events surely confirms the horror of what has passed before it - are only seen from one point of view.  This is the point of view of a repressed 17th century peasant convinced of the existence of witches and their own piousness before god.  Why wouldn't they see the world like that?

I hope you can tell that I really enjoyed this film.  If it was just the story thought it wouldn't quite be enough to rave as much as I am.  The experience of the film comes from so many elements coming together.  Everything is beautifully lit with natural light.  The framing is as much a part of the storytelling as anything, as we try to separate out what we are being told through the eyes of the characters and what is 'real'.  Even the soundtrack works.  And it really shouldn't when you think about what it is.  If you were ask you to make a slightly lame ghost noise, I bet you would make a noise that's not far from the sound the carries over many of the otherworldly shots of the barren New England forest.  It shouldn't work, but in the context of everything else it works perfectly.

Though the film deals with occult subject matter and is on the surface about witches and demons and the like, it only has a 15 rating.  That's reasonable as at no point are there any jump scares and blood is kept to a minimum.  It's all about atmosphere, lighting, space, mist, austerity and fear of the unknown.  As a non-traditional horror film I would recommend it even to people who perhaps shy away from scary movies.  Really quite happy to have kicked my 2017 in film off with this little gem from 2016.

Rogue One - Star Wars episode Meh

The new reality of the Star Wars 'franchise' is upon us.  Staying true to the mission they set themselves when they first acquired the rights from Lucasfilm, Disney have delivered a second Star Wars film in as many years.  Just as they promised, rather than continuing the narrative arc set up in last year's The Force Awakens, they have dipped into the back story of Star Wars to tell a one-off tale.  Rogue One tells the story of how the plans for the Death Star (that what they used to know how to blow up the Death Star in the original film) came into the possession of the Rebel Alliance.  Could be interesting.  Is it though?

The honest truth is that I am struggling to find anything to say that's hugely positive or negative about Rogue One.  When I heard that they were going to focus on the story of where the Death Star plans come from, I was wondering if we might get some sort of spy thriller.  But instead they put together the most basic of passable action films, with a whole bucket load of fanboy-pleasing nods to the original trilogy.

The Follows Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) on her quest to recover the Death Star plans.  Her father is a scientist who created the Death Star, and out of some remorse for what he's done he gets information to the Rebels that the plans are ripe for stealing.  The story then goes from Point A, to Point B, then to Point C, following a group of bland characters who's past histories and relationships are talked about but never shown, who's motivations are assumed but not established, into action sequences that are technically excellent but rather soulless. It then ends in a way that's hardly in keeping with a 12A certificate.

It's a film that feels like it was made by a committee that wanted to check just enough Star Wars boxes to make the fanboys happy while at the same time telling just enough of a proper story to keep a general audience on board.  It's a very well made film, it's well shot with some nice action scenes, sparse comic moments and a story that moves with a good pace.  However the characters are paper thin and the plot absolutely linear.  More than any major film release I can remember, this feels like it was made primarily for the money rather than primarily to tell a story.  It feels like it was scripted by a bunch of fanboys sitting in a coffee shop in one afternoon, who wanted to heave in as many Star Wars references as possible while counting the cheques for Disney.

Two points here.  One is that I am a Star Wars nerd.  So I do notice things like how when the X-Wings are shooting at the Star Destroyers and the dialogue says they would target their shields, that they're actually shooting at the bits of the ships that generate the shields.  I accept your sympathies.  However that kind of stuff doesn't make Rogue One a good film.  It's the sort of icing on the cake that they should be including as a little Easter Egg for the total nerds amongst us, whereas it felt like that sort of thing was meant to be the whole point.  Second point is that "This is a Star Wars film - of course it should have Star Wars references, what's wrong with that?" - you might say.  On one level that's fair enough, but if that's the focus of the film  then that's extremely limiting on what can be done and everything suffers as a result.  In the end the production team spend too long working on CGI recreations of Grand Moff Tarken and not long enough developing Jyn Erso's character.

What will the next one do (because this time next year the next episode will have been and gone)?  Can they keep harking back so strongly to the originals?  The Force Awakens was a remake of the originals.  Rogue One is a story set around the originals.  Has anything else ever happened in the Star Wars universe other than the force and this bloody Death Star?! There is plenty of Star Wars fan fiction out there that doesn't revolve around the original trilogy, why not mine that for story ideas?  There's a lot of galaxy out there to explore.  C'mon Disney - take some risks!