Green Lantern - Action blah blah

Christ this film is so depressing I can barely even muster the strength to write a review. Only the fact that it's 4pm on a Friday afternoon and I've lost the will to even pretend that I'm working is getting me through this.

So, Green Lantern, part two of the brace of 'Green' films that came out last year. The other was the blatantly pointless comic book adaptation 'Green Hornet'. That bored me so much I was actively relieved when the DVD broke mid-film. Of course the films actually had nothing to do with each other, I'm just lumping them together cos they're rubbish and have the same colour in the title.

Well I'm wasting both our time with this rambling so we might as well press on with a review. Imagine if you will that Ryan Reynolds is an ace fighter pilot, surrounded by identikit Holywood hotties and with his personal nerdy mate who fixes and upgrades his planes. Ryan then randomly gets chosen to be a 'Green Lantern', a sort of pan-galactic policeman who can fly around outer space catching criminals and saving the fate of the universe. Can you imagine how much I hate this character?

Ryan as the Green Lantern has to go through some unimaginative training scenes with one of the other Lanterns, then immediately becomes the cop who doesn't play by the rules but gets results when he decides to fight the current big evil against the advice of his immortal advisers. So he saves a bunch of rich people at a party and forces the evil whatever (played by Peter Sarsgaard) into a final confrontation in which he defeats it obviously. The end.
This is a film that's so dull I can hardly bring myself to write anything substantive as to why. For one thing, it's truly divisive in its characterisation, the 'evil' character is ugly and becomes more and more mal-formed the eviler he gets. The 'good' character is iron-chested with rugged good looks and a dream life. The 'evil' character lusts helplessly over the girl while the 'good' character has her fall into his arms. Who writes this stuff? Someone who has only ever watched Thundercats I suspect.  Even the special effects aren't as good as a Holywood action film these days should aspire to have.

That's enough of that. I should be off to see The Avengers at some point soon, Joss Whedon hasn't let me down yet and better not start now!

The Awakening - an intelligent if unlikely thriller

And now a treat for my parents! I know they read this and since they've been bugging me for ages to see 'The Awakening' - it's time for a review!

For the uninitiated - the handful of other people who'll read this who aren't my Mum and Dad - my folks live in London and occasionally operate under the traditional London delusion that what goes for London goes for the rest of the UK. Cinema is one of the many areas of life for which this really doesn't work. Many smaller films that are released in London may never see the inside of a screening anywhere outside the west end, and when they do it's sometimes for a week only at an obscure cinema in Henley. 'The Awakening' is a case in point. Despite getting a heavy release across inner London locations, it was briefly available in some non-London cinemas - but not at a time when I was paying attention. So when my parents asked me if had I seen it, the answer was no - I'm not going to pay £13 and spend an hour on a train to London for one film.

Last week I was saved by the DVD and eventually able to watch this atmospheric thriller / ghost story set largely in a Cumbrian boarding school post WW1. Rebecca Hall plays Florence Cathcart, a ghost-hunter who doesn't believe in ghosts. We are introduced to her as she exposes a group of charlatans ripping people off and pretending to be able to speak to the dead. Each time she reveals a so-called medium to be a fraud though, she gets a little further from what she really wants. You see, Florence's sweetheart was killed in the trenches of the western front; so at the heart of everything she does Florence harbours a secret desire that the paranormal will be real and that she can speak one last time to her beloved. When she takes on the job to prove that the 'ghosts' at the Cumbrian boarding school are little more than naughty boys playing pranks, at first she finds no difference between this an other jobs she has taken. Soon though she finds herself drawn back to places and events in the school that she cannot explain. Perhaps there are ghosts here after all? Perhaps her dead sweetheart will finally be able to give her the final message she craves so much?

Before I get into the film's good points - some criticism. Is the main character in any way realistic? Did independent, intelligent, Cambridge-educated single women exist in the early 1920s? Wasn't this the age of the Suffragettes throwing themselves under the king's horse to get voting rights? By pretending that an inter-war Dana Scully could have existed, the film doesn't do any service to the memory of the women who fought to be accepted into a male-dominated world. Admittedly many of the characters who meet Florence express mild interest in her independent success, but no-one has outright incredulity. And it's not just the characters that make the film less believable, should a film really be able to get away with an opening caption that says basically: "The first world war just happened, so there are lots of dead people and therefore loads more ghosts - get over it." If you're going to have a ghost film then just get on with it, there's no need to conduct a dubious historical justification!

Despite these small points, 'The Awakening' is a film that does a fair job of juggling several ideas at the same time and maintaining a tension that goes right through to the end. A perennial problem with horror films is that it's difficult to generate tension after you reveal what's causing the horror, but that if you never actually show anyone anything it can get tedious. 'The Awakening' gets around a lot of these problems by creating a personal tension between the characters, and also having a lead in Florence who is in the unusual role of rejecting the concept of the paranormal while desperately hoping it's real (it's hard to get away from the Scully comparison isn't it?). Florence's vested interest in everything she does makes her simultaneously strong and fragile - she might have all the answers, but you feel she's permanently on the verge of cracking up.

'The Awakening' has a lot of nice touches, several scary moments and very disturbing dollhouse theme; but I was left at the end of the film thinking - does this really hold together? I still have a nagging doubt that there is a plot hole somewhere I'm not seeing, and that it would all unravel if I were unlucky enough to spot it. Despite the film's many good points, in the end I thought most of its plot reveals were too much of a convenience to be taken seriously. I also thought that the collateral damage of the big 'reveal' spoiled Florence's emotional journey and got in the way of her search for closure.  Disappointing that after investing so much in developing the characters, the writers felt happy to let their stories slide away at its conclusion.  This is a film that had a huge promise and was great for the most part, but ultimately I felt let down its viewers.

Hunger Games

Note - fairly obvious spoilers are coming up in this review. But then this film is the first in a series so why don't you take a wild guess as to how the main character gets on in gladiatorial battle to the death...

I feel like I'm the last person in Western Civilisation to see 'Hunger Games', but after being away from the cinema for several months I could hardly stay away any longer given the epic reviews this film has been hoovering up from across the media. Tales of box office records being broken are hardly novel in an age of inflating prices, but there does seem to be something different about this. With a relatively unknown story (except to teenagers apparently) and a relative newcomer in the lead role (Jennifer Lawrence was Mystique in the recent X-Men prequel), there was either something special to this or it's teen fanbase have been turning out in their droves.

I cycled up to an almost deserted Bracknell Odeon on Easter Sunday for the matinee showing knowing very little about the story. From what I had been told, I was in for a westernised version of Battle Royale. What I was presented with though was a much less gory yet hugely more subtle story of politics, deception and control versus emerging human spirit. Jennifer Lawrence plays Katniss - a girl from a mining town in the '12th district'. The 12 districts of the future USA are the areas of that nation that once rebelled against the union and have ever since been reminded of their place by being forced to annually supply 1 boy and 1 girl to the national 'Hunger Games'. The games are a fight to the death in which only one can emerge a winner, a winner who will be paraded through the nation as a hero, a winner who gives hope to the downtrodden peoples of the 12 districts. Through an act of immense selflessness, Katniss is selected as the participant for district 12. She is whisked off to the glamorous capital city where she and 23 other participants are turned into superstars and prepared for their encounter.

The first thing to say about 'Hunger Games' is that it is a hugely powerful story. Its main character Katniss becomes a powerful warrior, but her real strength lies in her empathy. Where she wins, she does so by building alliances, winning friends and only striking out when struck - not by projecting power. It's a story of how a downtrodden majority can be controlled by a cloistered elite, simply by providing them with enough entertainment and hope in the form of winning the Games. It presents an interpretation of the classic Brave New World view of civilisation's demise; in which a vapid culture can be built on a structure of brutality, propped up by a calming drug for the masses - entertainment.

Better still, the film doesn't have its head up in the clouds. I initially wanted more from the film's resolution, but since Sunday I've come to believe that the writers of the film understand realpolitik. Rather than Katniss emerging from the Hunger Games as a modern Robin Hood, she is advised to not stick it to the man, to claw back her rage against the system and bide her time lest the powers that be crush her.

What with all this politics going on it'd be easy to forget that there's some enjoyable science fiction in 'Hunger Games' too. It's set in a near future world complete with 3D virtual screens, miracle healing gels and genetically engineered wasps(!). Like all good dystopian science fiction it portrays the haves and the have-nots in this world, Katniss' friends and family in District 12 toil in terrible conditions while the people of the capital city are living in futuristic opulence. The haves harbour little compunction over the X-Factor style gladiatorial contest they insist the have-nots participate in for their satisfaction.

I can forgive the slightly flat ending to 'Hunger Games' on the basis that this is a series of books and they're going to want to make more. With the amount of money this has taken I can hardly see them failing to do so. I really hope that later books/films don't focus on the potential love triangle hinted at as the film reaches its final scenes, but that rather they emphasise the politics of what's going on. Two things are clear though, Jennifer Lawrence is destined to be a star and I have an early contender for my films of the year list.

Zodiac - a killer mystery

This 2007 film about the Californian police's attempts to apprehend a killer know as 'Zodiac' is a tense and frighteningly real portrayal of an enduring mystery.  The mystery of the Zodiac killer - for those who don't know - goes as follows:  In the late 1960s / early 1970s a series of unsolved murders took place in the San Fransisco Bay area of California.  A person calling themselves Zodiac sent letters to the police and newspapers taunting them about the killings, claiming nearly 30 murders over a period of about 6 years.  The police only officially pinned 5 murders on Zodiac, who was never officially identified.

This film follows the story of Robert Graysmith - played by Jake Gyllenhaal - who was a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle at the time of the murders.  He becomes obsessed by solving them and ends up going to extreme lengths to try to collate and piece together evidence that the police lack the resources to follow up.  He initially works with a reporter at the paper (Robert Downey Jr) and a sympathetic police officer (Mark Ruffalo), but soon his obsession overtakes his life and family. At several points in the film he becomes convinced that a number of different people are zodiac, but though the evidence finally stacks up against one individual it is never more than circumstantial.  As the film skips forwards through the years, we see the case becoming forgotten about, right up to the current time when it remains open and the main suspect dead of natural causes.

It's a fascinating look into the world of crime investigation in the 1960s and 70s, and the story of the Zodiac killer specifically.  The fact that the case was never conclusively solved adds to the mystery and turns what could have been a history lesson into an engrossing 150 minutes.  Jake Gyllenhall plays the reclusive nerd very well, excellent casting here as the cartoonist who loves puzzles and becomes obsessed with the killings.  Similarly Robert Downey Jr plays erratic obsessives quite well, so he is well cast too.

Good source material, historical accuracy, good casting and a well-paced narrative make Zodiac an excellent film.

Right, I'm off to panic-buy stamps...

The Skin I Live In

On the surface, 'The Skin I Live In' is a film that should have my name written all over it.  I'm sure my housemates have said things like that in the past.  The reason is that this is a beard-stroking art house film, in Spanish, with a slightly near-future science fiction sounding premise.  I try to do my best to shake of my reputation of being the kind of person who is naturally drawn to such films, but then I do keep being drawn to them so it's quite hard.

'The Skin I Live In' came out last year and is a film by Almodovar (he has a first name, but like a Brazilian footballer he doesn't have to use it) - the legendary Spanish director who brought you Volver, Todo Sobre Mi Madre and Bad Education.  If you've never heard of any of these films then don't worry, most people haven't.  I tend to watch this stuff cos it's Spanish, but they generally star some well-known people they're well within the  mainstream of the Spanish-speaking diaspora.  'The Skin I Live In' stars Antonio Banderas as a twisted surgeon, who keeps a woman willingly locked in his house as a human guinea pig for a new kind of futuristic skin grafting experiment.  Who this woman is, what her relationship with the doctor is and why she allows herself to be held captive are all mysteries - mysteries that will be solved the the film eventually jumps back in time to fill in crucial gaps.  We then come to a huge and non-sensical twist.

The film is deeply pretentious and rather than inflaming some kind of inner realisation about the nature of gender roles (as I assume was the point) it just made me sigh and think 'is this it?'.  Does Almodovar really think he's making some kind of clever statement about sexuality with this film?  Most of his films do something to challenge gender roles or sexuality, but - and I'm trying not to give the twist away here - does he really imagine that homophobes across the land are going to be re-evaluating their opinions as a result?  I found the film to be trying far too hard to obliquely make a point that I struggled to fathom, but one that I'm sure isn't as radical as the director thought it was going to be.

Cinematography and art aside (the film has a fantastically clean look that hints at an upper-middle class setting in a world that is slowly going wrong) I didn't really think too highly of 'The Skin I Live In'.  Plus then there's the weird bit the the woman's son who turns up and is suddenly a rapist.  What was the point of that?  I'm not telling you not to watch this, just beware that it was too pretentious even for me.

Captain America - The First Avenger (apparently)

I'm struggling to fathom why I didn't believe all the evidence that told me not to watch this film. The only reason I even rented it was because of the up-coming 'The Avengers' movie, which will feature a huge crossing over between several recent Marvel films - one of which is this. I didn't bother to see 'Thor', and 'Iron Man 2' wasn't much cop - so quite why I felt the need to watch this I cannot remember. Since I already telegraphed the general sentiment of this review it seems a bit redundant now, but let's dive into it anyway - I'm just killing time before I go into London to watch football.

Imagine if you will a re-hashing of a classic science fiction trope, that of the Nazi who is obsessed with the occult. It's not enough in one of these films that you're a Nazi, to be really evil you have to be a Nazi who's trying to bring about the apocalypse by tapping into some kind of ancient power / ring / ark of the covenant delete as appropriate. This time it's Hugo Weaving using genetic engineering to make himself immortal and create an army of worse-than-Nazis soldiers to rule the world with.

At the same time Uncle Sam is running a similar program to make an army of cardboard cut-out, clean-shaven all American heroes who can be airlifted into Germany to kick Hitler's butt. Sadly for them, the designer of the program is killed by a spy and only one solider is produced. This is very good for the film though as it re-enforces individualism and shows that the American genetic engineering project is - though the same as the Nazis one - a good thing. Hollywood never passes up an opportunity to subtly re-enforce pro-US stereotypes. This solider is Captain America, and he spends most of the film charging around a series of underground bases battling with all sorts of hooded Nazi goons saving the day from I'm not really sure what and blah blah you know where this is heading.

Even as brainless films go, this is fairly tortuous. Tommy Lee Jones has a role as the hard-nosed colonel who's orders Captain America must disobey to get the job done. At most one dimension there. Hayley Atwell plays an utterly unnecessary character who is introduced as the super soldier project's British liaison. She fails to liaise with the British at any point and exists purely to fall for Captain America and punch a one of the recruits in the face. You see how this means it's a pro feminist film? You don't? Me neither. More like she exists to convince the target audience of brain-dead, male teenagers that watching a film about loads of strapping young athletic soldiers isn't going to turn them gay. Cinema's first ever zero-dimension character.

I'm assuming that the reason this was such a bad film is that in the rush to bring this out before 'The Avengers' they hashed a script together in record time. Even the special effects look ragged. Don't watch Captain America.

We need to talk about Kevin

This was Mark Kermode's 'film of the year' for 2011, so in settling down to watch 'We need to talk about Kevin' I was filled with very high expectations. Aside from that though I had absolutely no idea what to expect, having not read the book upon which it is based or having any idea what it was about. In fact, I wasn't even sure that the film had a character called Kevin until well over 20 minutes in!

In basic terms, this is the story of a boy called Kevin and the strained, manipulative relationship he has with his family. The film is so much more than that though. It's a psychologically disturbing amalgam of fractured scenes that happen at unsignposted moments in the history of Kevin's family. This style of non-linear story-telling creates a collage of scenes that set up a family steeped in unspoken truths, lies and a painfully poisonous mix of love and hatred. The film never looks like it's a story being told in retrospect or in flash forwards, rather it's a collection of events that make up a character's life, all happening at once like a life flashing before someone's eyes.

Tilda Swinton plays Eva - Kevin's mother - and gives a masterclass in the most intense style of acting. It is perhaps through Eva's emotional state that we get insight into the film's timeline. The more Swinton looks like she's in the verge of a breakdown, the closer to the present a scene lies. Her joy at having a child is slowly tempered over the years as he continues to treat her with suspicion, a suspicion that boils into occasional outbursts of shocking contempt. In Kevin's teenage years he continues to act with a chilling detachment that culminates in a series of shocking scenes, finally revealing the reason for Eva's present day emotional mire.

This is an extremely interesting story. There are a lot of themes in the film about parenting, upbringing, the origins of personalities and nature of evil. It seems crazy that there was no mention of the film at all at the Oscars, and though I don't agree with Kermode's film of the year accolade I recommend people watch it. Even if the story wasn't interesting and told in an exciting way, Tilda Swinton's performance is worth your 90 minutes investment alone.