readhassanvawda:

The Impossible, a film that ever since I heard about it has made me uncomfortable and sad by seemingly epitomizing the condition of mainstream Western perceptions and representations of tragedy of the other. I am not arguing or questioning at all about the films technical credentials or artistic…

This is the best thing I’ve ever read on tumblr, from a friend of mine. 

I now think its wrong to gather your favorite books or films or albums or plays or paintings or whatever, strap them onto a tiny raft, and hunch over them as you rage against a heaving ocean of culture. We should dive into that sea, and catch all the fish we want. 08/01/13

Since everyone else appears to be doing it, I’m going to review the most memorable films that I saw in the cinema in 2012, simply because I didn’t get round to it when I did see them. There may also be other articles and reviews of other films and stuff that I didn’t get round to as well… If I get round to them. 

I have also included this picture of me fighting the giant wooden duck of doom just to make this post more interesting. This may have been one of my bravest exploits of last year, as well as having the unruly hairstyle cut off that I had for nearly six years. I am a new, duck-fighting man. 

I’m tempted to invite a caption competition for this picture. The winner gets a hug. 

Seen 06/01/13

Sometimes, you’re sure that you’ve seen a good film, and the critics say it’s good.  You just can’t see why.

Toby Jones plays a British film sound technician named Gilderoy, who arrives in an Italian sound studio in 1976, where they’re recording the soundtrack for a horror. Tensions among the crew rise, and Gilderoy becomes increasingly alienated and disturbed, though he doesn’t show it, since Jones gives a great reserved performance, communicating isolation with as little emotion possible.

This film works best as a tribute to ‘70s Italian horror and the art of film sound effects. Watching the sounds of mutilation being provided by hacking up vegetables, and demonic screaming being produced by weirdly talented vocalists are the movie’s most fascinating elements. Technically, the film is impressive, with great lighting, sound, and shots, all creating suspenseful atmosphere.

Unfortunately, the film only offers suspense, which never builds up to much. It felt like an experimental indulgence in technology that shunned sense, confusing and excluding the average film-goer  Some scenes questioned film violence and expectations of the horror genre. Overall, however, it tried to say something without saying it, which annoyed me.

Though original and inventive, it felt atmospheric and menacing just for the sake of it. As much as I applaud cinematic strangeness, a film is only threatening if it shows what it’s threatening you with. The fact that the film tried to say lots through the exclusive setting of a sound studio just felt (though I hate using this word) ‘pretentious’. 

I don’t care what anyone says about Family Guy, American Dad or any other cartoon Seth MacFarlane’s involved in. These shows have displayed an incredible streak of savage satire combined with crude and surreal humour. So even when I saw the trailer of Ted, I felt a little let down.

Some of the MacFarlane ingredients are still there. There are moments of humour on pop culture, celebrities and mild racism, always flirting with controversy. But if you’re expecting a continuous stream of laughter or something unique and challenging, stick to the TV shows.

It is charming how much MacFarlane got involved with his first film (he directed, wrote and voiced the funny but not very outstanding character of Ted). However, for someone who has been pushing the boundaries of television comedy so far, his first step into the movie world has been extremely disappointing. The story of a thirty something office worker (Mark Wahlberg) trying to balance life between his walking talking teddy bear best friend and his girlfriend (Mila Kunis) feels too much like every other romantic comedy we’ve seen and which MacFarlane himself mocks within the film (in this case, Bridget Jones).

There are laugh out loud moments but there’s much more room for comedy instead of the endless tiring clichés attempting to depict a romantic relationship. Is this MacFarlane trying to prove there’s more to him than toilet humour? If so, with dull characters and plotting, this is not a promising start to his film career. 

There’s one event connected to this film that highlights the danger of hype. When a Rotten Tomatoes reviewer gave The Dark Knight Rises a negative review, he received death threats from people who haven’t even seen the film. However, when the reviewer compared Dark Knight Rises to Transformers, I was inclined to agree; not that it’s that bad.

I guess the important question is: is this as good as its predecessor, the now classic Dark Knight? I’m prepared to say no. In fact, I’m not even a big fan of director Christopher Nolan’s second instalment in his Batman trilogy. The only thing I really liked was Heath Ledger’s creepy performance as the Joker, and even the scariness of that has been overrated.

The intensity and the scale of the events in this latest film have been stepped up somehow. The new villain is satisfactorily unnerving and Anne Hathaway surprisingly sizzles as the latest Catwoman. However, all the film seems to offer is intensity. The audience is bombarded with dramatic events that take place and are resolved so fast they have little time to leave much impact.

Like the other Nolan Batman films, Dark Knight Rises attempts to be smarter and darker than the average blockbuster but there are still the old clichés and questionable politics. Although the film looks good and the action is enjoyable, I think too much is trying to be said with an unbelievable set up and story. So unless you’re a comic book fan, don’t believe the hype. 

A friend of mine declared that if all films were racially categorised (like Spike Lee films are classed as black cinema) Moonrise Kingdom would be labelled in the white middle class genre. He does have a point, as this is a Wes Anderson film and most of his films would fit this label. Certainly his latest work, like all his films, glows with that warm, quirky, indie character of his which both annoys and charms me.

Set on an island off the coast of New England in the 1960s (when the island doesn’t even have proper roads or towns yet), the character and quirkiness of the island’s peaceful, close-knit community is exaggerated to place the audience in their comfort zone, along with the warmth and colour exuding from the unusual shots and soundtrack.

But a storm is brewing (the worst to hit the island in history) and the community is thrown into chaos after two young adolescents (Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward in impressive performances) both considered ‘emotionally disturbed’ outsiders, run away together. The hunt is organised by the exasperated parents of the girl (Anderson favourite Bill Murray and Frances McDormand) and the well meaning chief of police (Bruce Willis in a surprisingly gentle role) and an order-obsessed Scoutmaster (in a funny turn from Edward Norton).

The film is full of charm, comedy and emotion but it is a little too quirky to the point of being annoying and unrealistic. If that matters little to you though, it’s an enjoyable ride.  

This film should have been called Liam Neeson vs. wolves. Neeson portrays yet another overly serious central role as a tortured, sad eyed action hero, who, after whispering monologue over the film’s long depressing intro, ends up on a plane with some manly oil workers, which crashes in Alaska.

Once the bunch of disaster film stereotypes (including the negative idiot who annoys everyone, the black guy and the ordinary, sweet natured men who clearly have no chance of survival compared to Neeson’s rugged experience) band together for survival against the freezing snow, they start getting picked off one by one by a pack of wolves. Neeson decides to lead the men away from the plane crash to try and find civilisation. However, despite the fact that he is trying to keep everyone alive, a lot of his ideas do end up in the deaths of the other characters.

It would have been nice if all this was rendered realistically. The wolves were presented as CGI monsters and any attempt at realism regarding them and the men’s behaviour was sacrificed for dramatic plot.  

I was told that the film was existential, which excited me. However, although the film did have a go at some Naturalist elements, such as man rendered to animalistic behaviour by his surroundings and the merciless power of Nature in order to survive, I was disappointed that the film boiled down to silliness, despite being an exciting and original idea for a thriller with some moments of exhilaration.

,

This film reminded me of Reservoir Dogs and not because of any violence. The deceptively simple plot takes place in limited settings with a limited amount of nameless characters, all men in suits. These restrictions only served to increase the film’s intensity, along with superb acting and gripping dialogue.

A boy is being tried for the murder of his father. The twelve, all male members of the jury retire to a stifled room to decide the verdict. Eleven are convinced he’s guilty. One isn’t.

The characters arguably represent different figures of society. The dissenter, played by Henry Fonda, is the ‘do-gooder’; willing to stand against the majority and stick to his opinions to the end. He is not convinced that the boy is innocent. He is just unsure on sending him to his death on what he perceives as doubtful evidence and he is willing to sit out and point out the evidence’s defects. His main opponents are ignorant, crack jokes, shout at, insult and bully everyone if they show disagreement with the guilty verdict, through personal reasons such as prejudice against the boy’s background or simply because they have other places they’d rather be. The other characters either sway with the majority or are open to arguments.

This film serves as a powerful, relevant warning against holding blind confidence in the death penalty or treating the subject lightly and attacked outdated social ideals that demanded respect but encouraged hypocrisy and prejudice, in a manner that moves and angers you. 

This is the first film I’ve awarded zero stars since I started this blog. It seemed to do everything wrong. The only good things about it were the music performances to a degree but the fact that the performances were there still annoyed me, particularly the choice of bands, all of whom seemed to be ‘hip’ bands of the era.

All it seems to consist of are footage of rock concerts, explicit sex scenes showing warts and all and seemingly unrelated documentary footage of Antarctica. Let’s talk about the sex, which made this film notorious. I was expecting to get some pleasure from the film’s sex scenes but not even that. My mind even wandered while they were happening, which is not a good sign. Winterbottom seemed to believe that by sticking repetitive piano over clumsily shot sex scenes, they could be rendered romantic. They just bored me, even repulsed me. If the film was trying to show sex as natural as possible, fine. But don’t think that just by showing shots of penises you can break boundaries.

The film tried to show a relationship, but the dialogue and acting just felt unnatural and you were left with no emotional impact. This film could have worked, maybe, with more emotion and character development. As it is, it’s a case of style over substance, except there wasn’t any style! Winterbottom was trying to do too much with too little. It’s unsatisfying, unimaginative and thank God it was only an hour long.