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.