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.