Monsters (2010)

Scoot McNairy

Watch the Monsters trailer

Writer: Gareth Edwards (story), the cast (diologue)
Director: Gareth Edwards
Notable Actors: Scoot McNairy, unnamed ferry-ticket seller

Monsters was a film which, I confess, for a majority of it…held half my attention. Every now and then I’d look up from the cinema magazine I was casually flicking through and I’d catch something which stole my breath, such as the casual yet incredibly effective CGI or the abilities of the non-actors in the cast.

That’s what this was – a film full of actors who weren’t. That concept alone, for a film shown in mainstream cinemas, is incredible. The performances even more so. The entire thing couldn’t have been more naturalistic if Mike Leigh had been at the helm.

But Mike Leigh wouldn’t make a film like this. Leigh makes films about the normal, and here, the normal is the terrifying. The parallels for reality, for politics and terrorism, are astounding. But forget all of that, forget every last pore. This sort of story could only come from youth, from both the inexperience and joys of it. From the free will and determinism; straight through the bar glass from one human spirit to another.

It can’t be expressed how normal this society is. It can’t be expressed how monsters are just something that walk among us; just another entity; just another war. That normality which confirms casual attention is the exact same which demands it in quick bursts which make things far scarier than they would be if you were completely enraptured. This way it permeates into your normality. This way things are even scarier.

You know, I spent a majority of this film trying to like the lead characters. Took me a damn long while ‘til I realised that wasn’t the point. They were a symbol, not a deformity. That made the same moronic mistakes we all would. Even if one was a rich girl and the other stupid enough to abandon their direly needed source of warmth to a carcass. Why? Because this made things scarier. This proved humanity.

Any other film would have the leads be smart, would have them be ruthless. But this isn’t a film. This is true life; just another eschewed version of it. And in that final scene, when a moment comes similar to Christmas of 1914, when you realise being human is not a necessity for humanity…that’s when things really blow you away. That’s when it captures your complete attention. That’s when it ends, and your Machiavellian traits end to.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part A (2010)

(L-R) Daniel Radcliffe, Bonnie Wright, David Thewlis

Watch the HP7A trailer

Writer: Steve Kloves (screenplay), J.K.Rowling (novel)

Director: David Yates

Notable actors: Jason Issacs, Tom Felton, Daniel Radcliffe's pale naked abs

A/N: I know it's 'part one' but to me that sounds stupid, so ner. This is the review of a man with a shaken mind. Please tread carefully.

It’s the end of an era! It’s another midnight premiere! (Save where I live, naturally) Its weird 26-year-olds are so into this crap, even though they were thirteen when the first book came out! Harry’s tiny! Hermione’s hot! Snape’s in exile but he’s got a fat face! Wait, where’s McGonagall? Did she die in the last one too? I’ve never read the books as it would mean I’d have to read books…I’M SO CONFUSED!

A lot of complaints about Deathly Hallows Part A are that it’s not a movie in its own right, that you can’t suddenly walk into the cinema having never read the books or seen the previous films and understand it. Worst of all, it’s truly not a movie – there’s no beginning, no end. The entire thing is jammed somewhere in the middle and that’s all there is to it.

Well, speaking as one of the self-named Harry Potter generation, of course you can’t make sense of it on its own. If that makes it a bad movie, then what do you say of the Star Wars? I’ve only ever seen Phantom Menace and parts of Attack of the Clones (I fell asleep), and I didn’t understand so much I was bored out of my mind. Just because the early books have been amazing at allowing the reader to enter at any year does not mean the films will be the same. That started with POA when they were all running around in muggle attire.

This is my rather ranty point: this film puts the reviewer in a weird position, as a majority will be old enough to have never been caught in the phenomenon. Sure, they may have kids who have devoured the stuff, but otherwise it’s been an irritant for over a decade which they wish would pass them by. Even those who enjoyed previous films complained of the endless camping. There was endless camping in the book too, and yes, fans complained about it then.

In retrospect it’s a brilliant piece of plotting from a standard author – defuses while heightening the tension. I know this because I am primarily a bibliophile. I know a truly great author is made by mixing those vital elements of plot and writing skill. I know the majority feel Rowling cannot do the latter, and she may be no wordsmith but the ability to write the same characters into adulthood while carrying the readership with them is an incredible feat. The movies never tried to do the same. There just was never that expectation.

And so, we’re back at the complaints. There’s no way, I believe, to objectively review something like this. Those who don’t get it will call the whole thing a ‘franchise’, and those who do will frown and pity those who don’t while tying a European knot in their Gryffindor (Slytherin for me, sorry) scarf. So I’m not even going to bother. Instead, I’m going to – shock horror – tell you the impact 7A had on me.

If you squint you may be able to believe the film was meant to stand alone. It was not. If you like you can rally at Kolves for OOC moments, such as Ron’s ability to do the warding on the campsite; Harry’s a powerful wizard and, fair enough, would get it with practice. Ron? Hell no. And I love the Weasleys. Even Percy, the great prat.

For me, the most important aspect of this film was Lupin. For the first time since POA the casting made sense to me; I’ve always raised a brow at movie Lupin, who acts and looks nothing like my Lupin. Of course, it’s easy to say that of everyone (Alan Rickman’s Snape especially, although the only other actor I could see in the role – Benedict Cumberbatch – was a far too young 24 back in 2000).

That’s not to say the actors don’t make the roles their own – again, Rickman especially. But here David Thewlis’ Lupin really comes into his own. So does, incidentally, (hello to) Jason Isaacs’ Lucius Malfoy. Both age and distance – the last book was released in 2007 – have allowed me to see just why these people at the crème of British talent, instead of complaining that Julie Walters isn’t fat enough to play Molly Weasley.

No, 7A doesn’t stand alone as a film. If it did, it would only hinder it. Yes, 7B will make little sense to those unfamiliar with the source text as well, although hopefully my sister won’t be asking me why Hermione had clear her parent’s memories next time round. There’s danger, people. There’s a series close to the hearts of almost every Westerner who had their childhood in the past fifteen years. There’s the impossibility to be objective.

And there’s a film carried by three kids, (if I'm a kid so are they), one a teen at filming, which doesn’t do half-bad. Although I’d of liked a bit more of Draco Malfoy – Tom Felton seems in line to prove himself as the best Potter child actor yet. 

Zombieland (2009)

(R-L) Woody Harrelson Jesse Eisenberg

Watch the Zombieland trailer

 

Writer: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Notable actors: Bill Murray (in clips of Ghostbusters)

I’m coming to realise movies are made of many more elements than I’d previously considered, and it’s harder to have a ‘good film’ then I’d ever thought. Everything has to be spot on – as well as the main four; acting, directing, story, script; there needs to be consistency in lighting, justified cinematography…and, of course, so much more.

And so we come to Zombieland, a film better viewed in its previous incarnations of 28 Days Later and Shaun of the Dead. That’s not to say it’s not a fair-enough waste of a couple hours, but it will leave you with the notion your time would have been far better spent re-watching either of these modern classics. Viewing Zombieland becomes a mental game – that’s from Shaun, that’s from 28, that’s just plain Hangover Humour…that’s also, by the way, the most enjoyment you’ll get out of little-miss-predictable here.

OK, Woody’s grown up but he’s still quirky as ever (Twinkie, anyone?). The decision for the character’s only to be known by state names adds the element of fear of connection. That is, until, Woody’s ‘dog’ turns out to be called Buck. Really? Oh, yes, I agree, it’s all so awful; but Buck? Perhaps I’m a little too English sometimes. I also have no idea what a Twinkie is, save gay slang, so I’ll thank you to not enlighten me on the subject. The unintended comedy was fantastic for a moment until I twigged it was some sort of ‘candy’.

So, what else? Bill Murray’s cameo is well-done but gives us a chance to see the characters, him included, as so fucking stupid there’s really no need to feel sympathy at all. The funniest part in the film is when Columbus, played by Eisenberg, insults Facebook. The creator of Facebook invented Facebook and thus may insult Facebook. Or something.

There’s about a thousand things this movie is not. What it certainly is is aimed at boys. Boys my age, much to my disparity. The sort of guy who looks fondly back on Atari even though it had been eliminated years before his birth. The sort of guy who gets pissed off with ‘smart’ horror because there’s just not enough blood, damn it. The sort of boy who is mentally fourteen. I’ve close friends who love this film, who laugh hardest at the gore. Believe me, I love my gore. But it has to be justified, and you can’t even attempt to consider the rest when those main four have been so carefully ignored.

Burke and Hare (2010)

(L-R) Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis

Watch the Burke and Hare trailer

Writer: Piers Ashworth, Nick Moorcroft

Director: John Landis

Notable actors: Andy Serkis, Ronnie Corbett, and every single damn cameo, from Christopher Lee to Michael Winner to that bloke off Horrible Histories.

I didn’t see the trailer for Burke and Hare. Indeed, all I knew of it was that Dan Ackaroyd (hereforth known as Dananackaroyd), Bill Nighy (henceforth known as older-Michael-Cera-how-is-he-so-respected?) and David Tennant (hereby known as fuck you, NBC), had to drop out before principle photography began. Whatever the hell that means. All I know is their presence would’ve probably made a better film. Because Burke and Hare is a bit like The Killers’ first album – half of it’s awesome, and the other half is so bad you’re jealous of the disabled.*

The other day my drama teacher, who trained as a theatre director, pointed out that the level of your acting ability is only as good as that of whoever it is you’re working across. Acting is, in essence, a team sport. And so we must feel very sorry indeed for poor Andy Serkis, stuck here with Simon Pegg. Pegg’s funny in his witty slapstick films, but Burke and Hare isn’t this. It tries to be at odd points, certainly, but it’s simply not. Burke needed a proper actor in the role, someone with whom the audience can sympathise. Fuck you, NBC in Pegg’s role would have been perfect.  Depressingly, the film wouldn’t have been any better with Fuck you, NBC, after all; Pegg’s the problem here.

To be putting things mildly...good lord the shape of his head with his hair slicked back. It’s the sort of head that makes men despair their inevitable baldness. I never lower myself to personal attacks unless something about an actor’s appearance makes the entire thing distracting, eg watching any film of any American actor before they had their teeth surgically mangled in a way which makes them lose their sex appeal forever once you discover the process involved. Also known as ‘getting their teeth fixed’.

I realise my second issue isn’t with Pegg, but the script, but as it’s his damn role he can feel the pressure. What in the name of Stephen Fry’s left nipple (which is Neville, by the way) is the Macbeth subplot. Seriously. Trying to get women into a story where they served as little more than sex toys or murder victims in reality is an irritant. Think of the time period, boys. Is women’s lib really necessary? Can’t we all agree Mary Poppins covered that pretty well?

OK, so for whatever reason you found your script lacking and had to find a way to stretch it out to 90 minutes. You had to find a way to make two vicious murders seem likeable, and so Burke does it all for love for another rather than himself. Because that wasn’t the driving reality in an age and class where every single action meant life or death.  There’s such a damn good film lurking under here. There’s two, actually – a spectacular horror film. All you’d need to do was take the facts from reality and put them on the screen and Bob’s your uncle.

The sad part here is that there’s actually an amazing comedy under this, where not so much compromise is made to the sourced story, where the film is advertised as it is so fans of Judd Apatow movies aren’t hideously disappointed as small references to historical and medical fact go over their heads. I was pissing myself at Greyfriers Bobby, and quoting the Lister line to whoever would listen. Those in my screening met these genius moments with a deathly silence more annoying than the girl who felt the need to shout ‘THAT’S ERIN!’ during his short cameo in The Social Network.

It may seem as if I’m being unfair – to poor old Simon Pegg, certainly – but even though I say all this I cannot understand why it’s got such bad reviews across the board. I can only put it down to the trailer which advertised it as a film with silent-movie slapstick proportions. Or maybe it was down to John Landis’ inability to do any research whatsoever. I’ve never seen a John Landis film before, I admit. But, and I do ask a serious question, why is he so revered?

Someone should’ve taken them aside before filming began. Goodness, anyone. And so, a little late perhaps, I volunteer to provide a not-so-quite whisper in Landis, Ashworth, and Moorcroft's collective ear: 17 murders does not mean 16 murders, even if you do casually overlook the back-breaking of a young child; Burke and Hare were Irish; Hare did it (re film's climax) to get off alive; funeral parlors and amateur Shakespeare do not good subplots make; the mystery of the dolls a good subplot doth make so why the bloody hell is it completely ignored. Did you really do that little research?

Don’t fuck up the best cast in recent history by giving Pegg more than he can chew, you may as well have cast Noel Fielding (henceforth known as irritating unfunny twat); keep that last shot exactly the same. Both in direction and mood were perfect. Strange how the best cast member in an explosion of a cast list wasn’t actually alive.

And, finally - the spectacular niche that is medical-geeks-with-a-predominating-interest-in-history-and-anatomy-who-are-also-big-British-comedy-fans-and-have-man-crushes-on-Andy-Serkis-post-Sex-and-Drugs-and-Rock-and-Roll** are, whatever you do, going to love (at least parts of) it. Try not to worry so much.

And so, which reach my advice to the reader. Which, somewhat depressingly, is thus: get the DVD, and keep your finger poised over the fast-forward button. Is Isla Fisher on anything which could be described as a stage, a table included? If so press the button. If not, sit back, relax (though not too much, keep that finger poised) enjoy the best half-movie out this year. If you're going to be foolish enough to watch the whole thing get a pad and paper out to see how many names you get right in the long list of 'where do I know them from?' cameos.

*I’m a cripple myself; step off.

**Just me then?

The Accidental Husband (2008)

Colin Firth

Watch The Accidental Husband trailer

Writer: Mimi Hare, Clare Naylor, Bonnie Sikowitz

Director: Griffin Dunne

Notable actors: Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Jeffrey Tedmori

The Accidental Husband has odd casting. Or maybe it’s perfect casting, all things considered. It’s an indie film which has accidentally picked up a good casting agent who’s got hold of the likes of Uma Thurman and Colin Firth somehow, but such things can be easily over looked – especially to someone as celebrity-blind as I (I could probably vaguely pick Tom Cruise out of a line up, but I’ve never seen one of his films). No, the strangest part of the casting comes in the form of the romantic lead, one Jeffrey Dean Morgan, the everyman of the actual indie film Live!, which I highly suggest you go out and buy immediately.

The aim of The Accidental Husband, at least initially, is to make you hate Uma Thurman. Or maybe it was Morgan; it all becomes rather complex yet simple pretty fast. The thing is, however, whatever happens in the story, Morgan’s character here – a good-natured yet heartbroken firefighter – is too immensely likeable for you to give a damn about anyone else.

Sure, the fact he gets revenge on someone who, despite having never met him, ruined his life, is fair enough. That he gets it by marrying her, via the hacking skills of his teenage best friend, is kooky in the indie rom com kinda way; the friend-still-in-childhood adding to it in a way 500 Days of Summer could only ever dream of. From then on we fall into the gentle slew of a smile-inducing rom com; the sort of thing perfect for a girl’s night in (or a 20 year old male insomniac fan of Firth).

The Accidental Husband is a pleasant film that makes you wonder why men with greater talents choose to act together in paycheck movies with montages dubbed by Nouvelle Vague covers of Buzzcocks classics. It just can’t make you care. Actually, I’ll rephrase that. In all likelihood you care enough to wanna go for a beer with Morgan’s character, which I’m pretty sure wasn’t what the filmmakers were going for. Why he’s interested in a bitch like Thurman – who doesn’t even look anything close to her best here – I’ll never know. Maybe it’s because everyone keeps drawing attention to the fact they’re the same height? Some men look for odd things in women.

Morgan is just too damn charming for this. He’s a damn good actor too, but in some ways he makes me see what the Americans see in Hugh Grant. It’s an ok way to kill a couple hours, Morgan is by far the standout, Firth does his usual oh-I-can-act-but-I-can’t-be-bothered-as-it’s-a-rom-com take, Thurman’s presence upon screen is annoying as usual; there’s just nothing to care about. It’s all predictable save Morgan’s tattoos. You’d think he’d be able to afford a decent artist.

A Serious Man (2009)

(L-R) Richard Kind and Aaron Wolff

Watch the A Serious Man trailer

Writer: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Director: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

Notable actors: Michael Stuhlbarg, Aaron Wolff

I don’t know what A Single Man is. Maybe I’m not old enough. Maybe I’m not smart enough, not Jewish enough. Too Jewish? Maybe it’s because I’m not American, and no matter the way it’s put, the cultural differences are, in this instance, too much.

Maybe I shouldn’t have watched it after being up all night, out of my mind from mixed medication. Maybe there’s wondrous philosophy to be found within its flickering images, philosophy I will never, no matter what I do with my life, be smart enough or experienced enough to understand.

Maybe it truly was a Mike Leigh film with none of the charisma, another tale of American’s fucking up what we do so well. Some of the taste, minimal of the magic. Or they take it out and replace it with their own, too different for me to understand.

Maybe I’m overcomplicating things. Maybe it’s just crap that I wanted to be good so badly I’ve made it too complex for my own understanding in my head.

Maybe I need to see it again?

One thing’s certain. It wasn’t worth my time, and I'd be gobsmacked if it was worth yours.