Film Review: The Fourth Kind

This was the first of two horror films coming out this month that I was greatly looking forward to (the other being Paranormal Activity, out on the 25th). The Fourth Kind builds itself around the foundation that Milla Jovovich (don't worry, she pronounces it for you at the beginning) is portraying an actual person (Dr. Abigail Tyler), that the film is a dramatisation of real events, and that it is interspersed with actual video footage and actual audio recordings of interviews with people who have actually been contacted by extraterrestrial beings, actually. It works quite well as a horror / thriller, but the aspects of this "reality" are unfortunately questionable (I personally agree with Capone's review on Ain't It Cool News).

The movie follows Milla's character (and "real" person) Dr. Abigail Tyler, as she carries out a psychological investigation on people in Nome, Alaska, who have been experiencing strange dreams, and who have all woken up to see the same strange owl watching them from outside their window. Clearly there's more to their dreams than initial impressions would have it, and so Dr. Tyler puts her patients under hypnosis, in an effort to dig up memories of what actually happened to them. And what actually happened is rather frightening. The Fourth Kind is incredibly scary at times, and this is mainly during the footage that is meant to be real, such as the clips of patients undergoing hypnosis. Like Capone mentions in his AICN review of the film, if the footage were real, it would the most amazing, shocking thing you'd ever seen. It'd completely change your outlook on such things. However, it's quite hard to believe the footage is real - there's just something off about the performances of the actors. While not bad to any degree, the just don't seem natural enough to be believable as reality. For instance, the characters will often carry out that horrible technique where they do an exaggerated facial expression to convey their emotions; expressions that one wouldn't pull in real life. This is a shame, because what actually happens in the footage is disturbing, and will make you jump quite a few times. As much as the film's trailers would like to, I won't spoil any of that which happens here.

Most of the actual plot is carried by the dramatised scenes, in which Milla Jovovich and everyone else play their parts well (although the police officer seems a bit over-the-top). All the typical players for this sort of film are here: the officer who won't believe what Dr. Tyler has to say, the specialist called in to aid the investigation, and the asswipe of a son who keeps telling his mum to "let it [the death of her husband] go!" It's all a bit too conveniently laid out. The film also falls victim to some old horror cliché-mistakes, like overly dramatic music, particularly during scenes that are meant to be scary. This works in the favour of the archive footage though, which is made even more unsettling by the silence that accompanies it. Perhaps the dramatisation was made more melodramatic purposefully, in order to create this contrast. The difference between the "real" and the "fake" is emphasised by occasionally showing the two lots of footage side by side. This removes us from any tension, and is quite disjointed. Perhaps it would've been better to show the two separately. One could even argue that the film would've been more effective if restricted solely to either the "dramatisation" or the archive footage - certainly the latter would've been more atmospheric, maintaining a vibe similar to [REC] or such.

Nonetheless, it's still interesting to see how the story unfolds, and there is a reasonable amount of suspense at times; for the most part, whether you're drawn in by any authenticity or not, you'll still want to see what happens, so the filmmakers must be doing something right. As I've said before, Milla Jovovich's performance is a good one, allowing you to sympathise with her (although she does make some irrational decisions, and sometimes makes you think, "Why doesn't she [insert obvious thing she should be doing here]??"). But any intrigue in the plot is mostly due to your own want to know what's going on, instead of any emotional attachment with the things the characters are going though. If you take the whole thing as "real" though, obviously the whole thing is a lot more traumatic.

Dwelling on negative aspects has made me sound like I dislike the film...which I don't. There's enough intrigue to keep you in your seat, wanting to know what happens. The setting is suitably moody, and along with the strange filters and lighting of the exteriors, provides an almost ethereal backdrop for the events that occur. Some of the scares are quite shocking, and the "archive footage" is very much so. The film's insistence that everything is real is the thing that sets it up for a fall, though. The Fourth Kind would've worked better if it didn't rely entirely on the fact that it is based on "real" events - we could've had a much more entertaining film if it had allowed itself to be pure fiction, and not tried so hard to convince the audience that everything is real footage, or is based on real events. Still, an entertaining watch.

7/10

Film Review: Up

Pixar have been the most consistently great developers of animated film ever. Apart from a slight misstep in Ratatouille, which is still a very good movie, I've loved every one of their films. Despite the absolute rave reviews Up has been receiving though, unfortunately I'd have to say that it's my least favourite of all Pixar's releases.

I'll start with the good, however, which there is a lot of. The animation has inarguably improved with each Pixar film, and this is no exception. The textures are even more detailed than before, and effects like dirt and dust are more natural. Everything's gorgeous to look at. The visuals are incredibly vibrant - lots of strong, primary colours; and the character designs are disproportionate in a more cartoony manner than usual. It's the opposite of Earth in WALL-E; gritty realism has been replaced with a brilliant, mostly unrealistically animated world. The art style's the sort of thing that you could just sit and look at without having any sort of coherent story to take you through it, and this is aided by similarly wonderful cinematography. Some shots stand out like beautiful photographs, a particular one I remember being when main character Carl is pulling his house in front of a red sunset (you'll notice it too, when you see it).

It's worth mentioning that I saw Up at the IMAX in 3D. It's definitely worth going for this option; the film just looks even more beautiful on such a big screen. The 3D doesn't jump right out, nor are any gimmicks used, like having something fly out towards you so everyone goes, "Whoa! Holy fuck! That thing almost hit me straight in the fucking face!" It just adds a level of depth to the film that you wouldn't otherwise have - the depth isn't as noticeable as it was in Coraline earlier this year, but it still increases the experience of everything on-screen. Other films have struggled to keep the image as sharp in 3D, but there isn't much blur here at all - Pixar have done a commendable job. It's probably still sharper in 2D, so I guess it's up to what you really want when viewing the film: more depth, or more focus.

Might as well give some sort of plot synopsis. You'll probably have seen a trailer for it which will have told you all you need to know - Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Ed Asner) is an elderly man who is being relocated out of his house and into a retirement home. To combat this, and finally live the adventure he and his wife always wanted to go on, Carl attaches hundreds of balloons to the top of his house, and flies away. He soon finds that a young boy, Russell, was on the porch of the house at this time, and so has accidentally gained a companion. The pair land in South America, and encounter other characters like Dug (a dog with a collar that enables him to talk), and a bird that Russell gives the inspired name "Kevin."

These characters are far and away my favourite thing about Up. Russell is absolutely hilarious as the naïve boy who talks too much, and he works perfectly as the antithesis to Carl, a grumpy old man who often just wants him to be quiet. The interactions between these two are a joy to watch. Dug (the dog with the talking collar) is a genius invention on Pixar's part; him and the bird Kevin round out the main cast, and all of them are humorous in one way or another. Also worth mentioning is Carl's wife Ellie - she only appears briefly at the beginning of the film, but when she's a young girl, she's great as the typical goofy, adventurous kid of the kind you may have seen in movies before. While these characters are all fantastic, I must admit that I wasn't keen on the villains. The three evil dogs (also with talking collars) just weren't as funny or menacing as they could have been. The joke with the leader of these dogs is that he's bumped the button on his collar, causing him to have an incredibly high-pitched voice. Rather than opt for a voice actor with an actual high voice though, Pixar have done the thing where they just turn the pitch up really high on a normal voice, so it sounds like Alvin and the Chipmunks...I hate it when films do this, it just sounds terribly artificial, and out of place among other natural voices.

The main villain of the film (who I will leave anonymous...) didn't connect as well as villains in other Pixar films have (like Syndrome in The Incredibles, and Hopper in A Bug's Life, who are perfectly nasty). When he's introduced, his reasons for battling the main cast are introduced a bit too suddenly for me, and he himself wasn't as charismatic a character as the other stars. This was a shame, as the struggle against him contains the majority of the action set-pieces, and leads up to the film's climax.

This is where the film, for me, ultimately doesn't meet the standards set by Pixar's previous efforts - the story. There are some "heavier" issues than have been dealt with before - such as Russell's problems with his father. The fact that Carl is trying to live the adventure that his wife never got to is incredibly touching, and poignant - it leads to some very sad moments within the film. But everything that takes place within the actual adventure just didn't "click" as the other movies have. I can't quite put my finger on it; while I adore the characters present, I just didn't feel as connected to the action, or as intrigued to see what happens. You can tell what's going to happen occasionally (although not to a huge extent - this isn't at all a predictable mess like Terminator: Salvation). Saying this though, a lot of the film is much more original than other animation; the issues like Ellie passing away are much more affecting than anything that happens in, say, Shark Tale or Madagascar, and the film still manages to maintain a large amount of comic moments.

When it comes down to it, Up is still a very good film that looks fantastic, and is better than the majority of animation released by other companies, featuring big names and by-the-numbers stories. This is leaps and bounds above the steaming piles of crap dominating cinemas at the moment. But because Pixar's set the barrier so high with films like Finding Nemo and The Incredibles, it's hard to keep hitting that height, and Up doesn't match the rest of Pixar's marvelous catalogue. To say that isn't an insult to the film though, considering Pixar's astounding level of quality - it's still a film worth seeing.

7.5/10

UPDATE: I know nobody reads this thing, but ever since watching Up on blu-ray a couple of months ago, I completely disagree with my review. I would now give it roundabout a 9.5, for being so wonderfully sentimental, touching, and hilarious. Silly me.

Film Review: Trick 'r Treat

I've been waiting for this film to come out for bloody ages - it was meant to come out in 2007. After positive reactions at various festival screenings, it's finally been released on DVD (albeit skipping a theatrical release - seemingly the producers and / or the masses prefer infinite Saw sequels to anything original).

The film cuts between four different storylines with their own characters, that all interconnect at various points. The organisation of the events isn't chronological (in fact, it follows a circular pattern), so you may see the bulk of one story at one point, but not see its conclusion until part of another of the tales. This fragmented nature means that there isn't a great deal of suspense or emotional investment in the film; it is however just fun to watch how they pan out and relate to one another.

The first of the stories revolves around Dylan Baker as a principal who has a secret in his backyard. I won't say more than that. This was my favourite of the four segments, as it's twisted in such a horrendous, over-the-top way, and some of the exchanges were genuinely hilarious, like when the principal's son shouts at him, "Charlie Brown's an asshole!" Yeah, it's funnier in context than in blog-text. And unfortunately, while this is in my opinion the best of the sections, it's much too short, and the conclusion isn't very satisfying (although the way it joins up with another of the storylines is good). There should've been more of this one.

The second part focuses on a group of kids who go to a quarry to investigate the site of a schoolbus crash. In a film such as this, of course the spirits of the deceased children aren't yet "at rest," and horror naturally ensues. Like the majority of the film, this part isn't really tense or scary, just "fun." The circumstances of the bus crash as explained by one of the characters is just as twisted as Dylan Baker's backyard secret, but apart from this, the nature of this section is similar to that of an episode of Goosebumps; it's probably the weakest portion of the film.

The third chapter isn't really given it's own chunk of continuous screentime - it mostly takes place in snippets in between everything else. Anna Paquin is the lead in this, playing a girl who is being pressured to lose her virginity by her friends. At first I wasn't sure about it, as I couldn't see how anything interesting could happen. It does though; the twist at the end provides great pay-off, as it's brilliantly surprising, and is directly connected to the end of one of the other tales. There didn't seem to be as much of this one as there were of the others, but that's a good thing here: it's short but sweet.

And the final tale entails Brian Cox (who appears earlier in the Dylan Baker section) and his struggle against a creepy demonic child who's attacking him. It's another over-the-top thing that isn't really scary as such, and is even humorous at times (intentionally so). I guess it's reminiscent of Evil Dead or Child's Play. Again - entertaining viewing, but not really suspenseful, horrific, etc.

As I've reinforced far too many times here - this is a "fun" film to watch, particularly on Halloween. It's not going to drag you into it emotionally or suspensefully, it's not going to keep you on the edge of your seat, and it's not going to terrify you - but it's nonetheless visually wonderful, and enjoyable to watch. The characters are often funny, and while the episodes as separate entities aren't usually anything special, the joy is in watching how they all connect, and the little references to one another interspersed throughout. In a world where Hollywood's horror outputs consist of shoddy remakes and horrendous sequels, it's annoying that something more original like this didn't get a theatrical release.

This was a very short review, as there wasn't a great deal to say - it's a good, but not entirely memorable film. However, you should be able to tell from watching the trailer or reading this whether it's up your alley (suit you sir). Probably worth a rental next Hallow's Eve.

6.5/10

Halloween Albums, Vol. 2

Reminder - nearLY (2005)



This is such a brilliant album that labelling it as a "Halloween album" seems demeaning. However, it is incredibly dark and unsettling, and so is great to listen to at night with all the lights off (I have done this...at Halloween...you'll have to trust me). nearLY is the solo project of Jerome Dillon, who played drums for Nine Inch Nails from 1999 to 2005. He wrote and played most of the instruments on this album, while vocals were contributed by 12 Rounds singer Claudia Sarne.

The music here is as atmospheric as you can get really, and the instrumentals (One Day I Was Gone, Liars Day, Blackwing, Up in the Trees, and Release) are where it really stands out. Occasionally you can hear the influences of NIN, but it's considerably different to anything Trent Reznor's ever done, and you won't feel like you're just listening to a rip-off. It's not uplifting stuff; the general sounds, piano, acoustic guitars and ambient drones are isolating and reasonably spooky to sit and listen to by oneself. The tracks with vocals are still good (just not as good as the instrumentals), as Miss Sarne's raspy / whispery voice is almost as creepy as the music, and compliments it nicely. This is a very haunting album that conjures up fantastic, gloomy imagery and atmospheres that other albums can only wish to create with their soundscapes. Jerome Dillon has since been working on soundtracks to horror films (such as The Collector), but I hope he releases another original studio album soon, because more of this is just what we need...

I don't really know what else I can say...if you like dark, atmospheric music, you should like this. Music is a hard thing to get across with words, and so you'll just have to listen to it for yourself to see if you like it. I do. A LOT.

Film Review: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

There's a lot of buzz surrounding this film, due to the fact that it was the last role Heath Ledger filmed before his tragic death last January. Questions were raised as to whether director Terry Gilliam would actually finish or release the film, and about how much of Heath's role had been filmed before he passed away. Well, the film was finished, and it's finally out. Saying something like that doesn't carry as much as impact as it would...we get most films significantly later than the US, and even when we don't, critics generally get to see them before a commoner like myself does. You might've already been reading statements like "Well, the film is finally here..." for months (IGN, for instance, reviewed Parnassus as early as May). Onto my review, anyway...

To get the story out of the way: this film seems to be mostly about Doctor Parnassus (Christopher Plummer), a man who has the ability to present his own imagination, and those of others, through a magic mirror. He has made a deal with the Devil (Tom Waits), however, to gain immortality. The story begins as the Devil comes to collect on this, and the film takes us through Parnassus's attempts to keep what he's promised the Devil, through various wagers. That's the over-riding story arc, although we are also treated to the story of Tony (Heath Ledger), who Parnassus's troupe find hanging under a bridge, which comes to play a part in the larger arc. None of those were very good sentences...but I hate reviews that give away loads of the story, so I'm trying to avoid it as much as I can.

To questions regarding how much of Heath Ledger's role was filmed, the answer is: most of it. All of the scenes outside of Parnassus's magical mirror have Ledger playing his character, Tony, and it seems like the amount of screentime that was originally intended. As with the Joker in The Dark Knight, again we see (unfortunately, for the last time) what a talented man Ledger was, and what a great loss to the acting community his death was. His performance here is incredibly charismatic, occasionally reminding me of Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean in terms of style of humour. It is quite a comedic role (albeit not towards the end), and according to Terry Gilliam, he improvised much of the comedy, again demonstrating his talents. What happens when he travels into the mirror, then? You've most likely heard that he's portrayed by Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell - one actor for each time he goes into it (in a strikingly honourable gesture, all three gave their salaries to Ledger's daughter). The transition into the different actors is quite seamless, and it almost seems as though this was the intention from the start (although obviously, it wasn't). Regrettably (yes, I did just thesaurus.com "unfortunately"), due to the fact that Depp, Law, and Farrell are simply emulating Ledger's performance, none of them really bring anything special to the role; it's just a different face. Still, while nothing is added, luckily nothing is taken away by the three changes in appearance.

The rest of the cast are good; considering her modeling background, Lily Cole is quite naturalistic in her portrayal of Valentina, Parnassus's daughter. Anton, played by Andrew Garfield, is another member of Parnassus's traveling show who is smitten with Valentina. He's a rival to Tony, and a "cheeky chap" type guy who you grow to like; his attitude and humour are entertaining to watch, although there's not really enough of it. And the final member of the troupe is Percy, played by Verne Troyer (who most people know as Mini Me). This is one of the largest roles he's received in film thus far, and it goes to show he should be getting more, as Troyer is, like everyone else, very well suited for the part of the irritable Percy. I've only given about a sentence each to each of these actors, because I don't really have much to say about them... They're all generally in it for an equal amount, and are perfectly suited to their roles, but none particularly stand out as fantastic, memorable performances or characters. Percy and Anton are funny at times, and Valentina has a very realistic teenage-girl attitude. I think it's just that none of the characters are explored enough, or given much to do. This is also a main problem with the story, but I'll get onto that later...

Christopher Plummer is marvelous as the often drunk Doctor Parnassus himself, but like the rest of the cast travelling in his carriage, he isn't given much "exciting" to do with his character. Opposite him is Tom Waits as the Devil, which I was really looking forward to seeing, but there is something lacking about the performance. I was hoping a bit more humour or flair would be injected into the character, but alas, he also falls victim to the not-enough-to-do syndrome that plagues the film's cast. They don't do anything particularly special, unique, or crazy.

The film's main fault lies with the story. We don't spend enough time with one particular character in order to root for them as a hero. Rather than successfully integrate main plots and subplots, the film awkwardly switches focus between different aspects of the story; between Parnassus's quest, Tony's background, Tony's fascination with the mirror, and Anton and Tony's rivalry for Valentina's affections. We are treated to part of a particular storyline, which will be forgotten for a while, and then suddenly resolved at moment in the film where we should be engaged in a different part of the plot. It keeps us at a certain distance from most of the characters, and coupled with the fact that none of them are given the time to properly explore their humour (Tony and Antony) or their past (Doctor Parnassus), it's kind of all over the place. For instance, Parnassus's past with the Devil is skimmed over quickly, and is something that I wish we could've seen more of, for pure entertainment value, and to let us care more about the situation the two find themselves in. The sort of God / Jesus thing going on was intriguing, and could've made a fantastic film in itself...

Where the film shines is in some of its visuals. The carriage itself has a wonderful Victorian aesthetic that stands out brilliantly as an instance of magic in modern-day, real-world London (in a similar way to the Harry Potter films). The costumes and the lighting of the main cast are great, and visually pleasing to look at. The scene in which we see Parnassus's first meeting with the Devil is an example of what wonderful, magical places could've been created for the mirror. However, the scenes within the mirror are visually disappointing, and this is mainly due to the fact that they are almost entirely CGI. Some of the ideas presented could've looked much better if created in a more practical manner, such as the opening scene's drunkard falling down into a giant pinhead, the rocky desert it occupies, and the bar he goes into. It looks significantly less authentic than the practical sets used for the carriage itself. The first time the mirror is entered, the drunkard who has just stumbled out a club walks through a dark forest of cut-out trees, and falls into a pit of empty bottles. It looks twisted in a great way, but this is contrasted by the majority of the mirror scenes which appear later - they consist of ridiculously vivid colours that are just unappealing to look at. It's much less twisted, less interesting, and too much like a children's TV show. This and the CGI just mean that some of the scenes don't look as good as they could have.

Overall, the movie is a jumble of different characters, different plotlines, and a contrast in wonderful, and not-so-wonderful visuals. Considering the loss of Heath Ledger halfway into the film's production, the film has come out as well as it could have - ironically, Tony's transition between 4 different actors is the least jarring "inconsistent" thing, and the only one that doesn't detract from the viewing. It's impossible for us to know how Doctor Parnassus would've turned out if Ledger wasn't lost, but it might well have been quite similar to what we have here, which is a mish-mash of lots of different...well...stuff. The characters are fun, albeit unexplored, and so their plotlines, while irregular, are interesting enough to see through to the end. It just would've been better if all of the film's aspects had been sewn together in a more integrated manner, and if the whole thing had been presented with a wider scope, in terms of the characters, and the variety of lands and stories through the mirror.

5.5/10

Bon Iver in Concert

On the 11th, Bon Iver played their final show "for a while" at the Riverside Theater in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If you don't know them already, they're a great alternative-sort-of-folk band, and lead singer Justin Vernon's vocals are beautiful. You should definitely check out their (only) album For Emma, Forever Ago, but moreso their EP Blood Bank, which is truly fantastic; better than For Emma... in my opinion (albeit consisting only of 4 tracks). It's great to listen to while it's snowing. Although that only happens once a year here. Some years.

Anyway, you can stream the Riverside concert at Radio Milwaukee's blog here. Right click and Save Target As... on that "Audio MP3" button underneath the streaming bar to download it for keeps. It's a great show, and it's in soundboard quality.

Setlist:

1. Flume
2. Lump Sum
3. Creature Fear / Team
4. Brackett, WI
5. Beach Baby
6. Skinny Love
7. Blood Bank
8. Re: Stacks
9. Your Love [The Outfield Cover]
10. The Wolves (Act I and II)
11. Babys
12. For Emma

I've downloaded the concert and split it up into separate tracks with names and everything (the original Radio Milwaukee file is just one long track), and I've uploaded it as a .rar here:

http://www.fileshaker.com/2009

I'm pretty sure that's okay for me to do (if it's not, someone tell me!)...all I've done is split up the original file and named the tracks. The files are AAC (.m4a), so they're iTunes friendly, and should have all the correct tags for artist, album, etc. I understand some people don't like this type of file, but when I converted it to MP3, it ruined the seamlessness of the show (creating a gap in between the tracks). If you want to, I guess you can just find some AAC to MP3 freeware using Google...I just thought the gapless one should be the one I upload. There are a couple of blips and random glitches in the noise, but they were in the original file, they're not my fault!

I gave some of the longer speeches their own tracks, so the tracklist is slightly different to the setlist:

1. Flume - 5:05
2. Lump Sum - 6:07
3. Creature Fear / Team - 7:53
4. Brackett, WI - 4:21
5. Beach Baby - 4:10
6. Introductions [Speech] - 1:23
7. Skinny Love - 4:33
8. Blood Bank - 6:08
9. Thank You [Speech] - 1:11
10. Re: Stacks - 6:41
11. Your Love [The Outfield Cover] - 4:28
12. Instructions [Speech] - 2:50
13. The Wolves (Act I and II) - 6:14
14. Encore Break - 1:22
15. Babys - 7:34
16. For Emma - 5:04

Total - 1:14:55

In hindsight, I maybe should've uploaded a .zip instead of a .rar...but if you download WinZip, you'll be fine.

Enjoy!

If you like Bon Iver, you should also watch these great performance videos on La Blogotheque; there are three on each link:

Part I
Part II

Flume (the first take, on the Part I link), and Skinny Love (on the Part II link) are real stand-outs; I've embedded Skinny Love below, although you're better off clicking on the links, because it'll only let me embed a mini version. And you'll be missing out.

Halloween Albums, Vol. 1

Just a random thing I decided to do seeing as the 31st is approaching - recommend some albums that are good for Halloween listening!

Hellbilly Deluxe - Rob Zombie (1998)



While at the moment he's busy directing inconsequential remakes of Halloween, Mr. Zombie previously focused his efforts mainly on music, first being a part of the band White Zombie, and then doing a few solo albums. His love for horror b-movies is as apparent here as it is in his other films House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. It's the general "theme" of the album, and difficult not to notice when the tracks have names like Call of the Zombie, Living Dead Girl, and Meet the Creeper. Why's this appropriate for Halloween then? Mostly the lyrical content, and the album's general aesthetic - it's all marvelously over-the-top, many of the tracks being deliberately "sinister," but not in a way that they take themselves too seriously like many metal bands seem to. Some of the interludes between tracks sound as if they've been taken straight from the old drive-in films that the album is inspired by (the opening track is the sound of creaking floorboards, doors, and thunder, while a little girl's voice recites: "And out of the darkness the zombie did call / True pain and suffering he brought to them all / Away ran the children to hide in their beds / For fear that the Devil would chop off their heads"). The music itself is great, especially when you crank up the volume. It's nothing too complicated, mainly consisting of crunching guitars, straight-up headbangers with stomping beats (Superbeast (my favourite song on the album), Dragula, Demonoid Phenomenon) and industrial, thumping grooves (Living Dead Girl). I personally love it, and it's very fitting for the holiday.

I've only just realised thanks to Wikipedia - turns out November 17th sees the release of Hellbilly Deluxe 2. Cool coincidence! You can hear the first single off it here, although obviously YouTube doesn't do the sound justice.

Film Review: Adventureland

Adventureland is the latest release from director Greg Mottola, following protagonist James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) as he works his mundane summer job at a fairground. Most people should be familiar with Mr. Mottola - he directed 2007's famous / infamous comedy Superbad. Many will be quick to draw comparisons between these two films, but in truth, Adventureland's tone leans more towards Judd Apatow's brilliant 1999 series Freaks and Geeks. In some ways this betters the film, but in others, it lets it down.

This is in part due to the personality of the characters and their actions. While Superbad seemed to focus on stereotypes like the sex, party and drink-obsessed teens, the awkward geeks, the not-so-bright policemen, etc., etc., Adventureland's characters are much more human in their portrayal. The story's key concern here is main character James's affections for co-worker Em (played by Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame), and how this relationship plays out (as in my other reviews, I don't want to say much at all about what actually happens so you can experience it for yourself). All of the characters involved have likeable traits, but realistic flaws to go along with them, and this aids how much we can empathise with the people on-screen - there's more emotional investment here than there is in Superbad (I'm not saying that I didn't like Michael Cera, Jonah Hill and company, far from it; it's just that it's easier to sympathise with someone like James Brennan (in Adventureland), who is going through some "relationship issues," than it is with Seth in Superbad, who draws hilariously-detailed penises all over his school work). The relationships, like that between James and Em, are played out in a more pessimistic fashion - human flaws provide great obstacles for them, and the cast aren't concerned solely with sex.

While this certainly works partly in the film's favour, it's at the expense of its "enjoyment" factor. Superbad is mostly a comedy through-and-through, yet this film takes itself a lot more seriously. The character development that's present is good, but while something like Freaks and Geeks had many episodes in which to build personalities, Adventureland is a bit over 2 hours long, and so the extra time spent creating better characters means there is less time for comedy, which is a great shame.

There are some characters who are clearly exaggerated, albeit not completely out of the realm of possibility. Bobby the theme park manager (Bill Hader - Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Superbad; you know, he's in most of the films that have anything to do with Judd Apatow), his partner Paulette (Kristen Wiig) and James's childhood friend Tommy Frigo (Matt Bush) all come to mind when I say that. The scenes they occupy are generally hilarious, particularly Bobby's (he's absolutely insane) - the majority of his scenes caused roars of laughter from us watching. It's these side characters that provide the majority of laughs, among others. But these characters are just reduced to the sidelines, as the plot mainly focuses on more serious ones like James, Em, and Connell (Ryan Reynold). While it's good that the storyline is more serious than Superbad, it's annoying that there isn't enough humour in it, when the humour that is there is so good.

The atmosphere and setting everything takes place in are spot-on however - it's set in the 1980s like Freaks and Geeks, and everything looks completely genuine for that era. The soundtrack is fitting for the period also, featuring songs by Judas Priest, Lou Reed, and David Bowie, among others. It all adds up to create what's most likely a genuine feeling of 1987. It's sometimes just fun to look around at the general aesthetic of the theme park, the rides, and such.

A few parts of the film drag, such as where there are long, lingering shots of characters kissing, which are repeated several times throughout. I can't help but feel these sorts of unnecessary "meaningful" seconds could've been replaced with funnier...seconds. While it's good that Mottola opted for a more serious venture this time around, he could've afforded to put in some more comedy to break it up a bit - sure, we care about the characters, and what happens to them, but it would've been better if we had more fun along the way. Still worth watching though; the main storyline is sincere, most of the characters are great (particularly the co-stars), the period is portrayed well, and the laughs that are there are make it an uplifting watch.

7.5/10

Film Review: Inglourious Basterds

Let me get this out of the way first: this is the first Tarantino film that I've seen properly (i.e. all the way through), so I'm gonna be judging it as an "outsider" instead of by the standards of the rest of his catalogue.

Being a Quentin Tarantino film, I knew not to expect a straight-forward action film - but this is not at all how the film has been sold through its trailers. If you watch this trailer here (I'd advise not watching "Trailer 2" - it contains a surprising amount of spoilers), you'll see the fast cutting, loud music and gunshots-type stuff that you'd expect from any mainstream action trailer. But in the case of Inglourious Basterds, this is just false advertisement. There's probably less than 10 minutes of the Basterds actually killing Nazis, and of the nearly 3 hour-long running time, that's hardly anything. While yes, I definitely would've enjoyed the film more if there was a significant increase in the amount of activity on-screen, that's not to say it isn't good - it just might not be the film you expect it to be.

The Nazi-killing / shootouts that are there are great, and the film is incredibly violent at times; in the trailer, Brad Pitt's character mentions his men collecting scalps...and you'll see those scalps being collected (which caused some grimacing from viewers). Despite the title however, the Basterds who are doing all of this seem to be only half of the film's overall focus, which is a shame, considering that Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and others such as Sgt. Donny Donowitz (played by Eli Roth, director of the Hostel movies), are highly entertaining characters to watch. This changing of focus is the film's main downfall - it's split up into five "chapters," and I didn't find the plot or the characters engaging at all. There are frequent switches between characters, and some go missing for hours at a time. As such, there's little suspense brought about with regards to the storyline, and while it's often fun to watch, you never particularly care about anyone.

The film is entertaining though; there are a reasonable amount of funny moments, some even reaching that pedestal of laugh-out-loud humour. Mike Myers even appears in a reasonably large cameo with a brilliantly realistic approach to British accents and moustaches. The film would've benefitted from more of this comic relief however, considering its length. It's not exactly taking itself seriously (as you can tell by the style and the overly dramatic, sometimes Western-inspired soundtrack), and so could've provided a bit more of a break for the audience from the lengthy conversations.

What does happen during the 2 hours and 55 minutes Inglourious runs for? Well it's essentially people sitting around talking. This is where I'm surprised by Tarantino's writing - even though this is the case, at no point was I bored as such. It's a testament to the dialogue, considering that while some of the characters are played brilliantly (Christoph Waltz is amazing, and terrifying, as Hans Landa the "Jew Hunter"), you don't really engage with any of them. Tarantino knows what he's doing in this respect; he at least manages to keep you watching. Some of the twists he throws at you are not only surprising but hilarious (the main one I'm thinking about here occurs at the end).

The film's final scene is its greatest achievement, when it finally manages to reach that perfect mix of action, humour, suspense and general all-out craziness that it's been building towards, and what I'd been waiting for. I expected, or wanted the film to maintain this kind of atmosphere throughout, and looking back on the film as a whole, it's a great shame it didn't, as the last half an hour or so is truly fantastic.

Inglourious Basterds has been out for a month now, so if you're going to see it, you probably already have; I don't need to write much more here. I may have focused on the film's issues but don't get me wrong - I did have a good time watching it, and you probably will too. The dialogue, along with the humour and violence interspersed (albeit slightly sparsely) throughout make it a pleasantly "fun" viewing experience, just not as "fun" as it could have been. You'll probably love it if you're already a big fan of Quentin Tarantino; if not, just be sure not to go in expecting to see Nazis getting "owned" by Brad Pitt & co. for 3 hours.

7/10

Film Review: Mary and Max

I realise that my District 9 review read like a rigid English essay...I'm gonna go ahead and blame that on ten different English teachers over the years, forcing me to write in a structured, formal style... Well I don't like that, so I'll try my best to be a bit more laxed from now on...

You probably haven't heard of this film. It's an Australian claymated feature from a man named Adam Elliot, who has seemingly only been involved with animated short films prior to this. One of these films, Harvie Krumpet (which won the Academy Award for Animated Short Film in 2003), appears to have inspired Mary and Max. Similarities can be noticed, and some small things appear to have been intentionally carried over for those who pay attention, such as the book round Max's neck, which has the title "Faces" (Harvie Krumpet has a matching book reading "Fakts"). You can watch Harvie Krumpet on YouTube here - it's a great little film (a bit over 20 minutes long) that details the seemingly unending amount of misfortune in Krumpet's life. While, as I mentioned, there are some similarities between Harvie Krumpet and Mary and Max - they are only few, and don't impend on either's success as a stand-alone film, or make it seem that you're watching the same thing again.

And I've written all of that without mentioning what the film is actually about. In a nutshell, in what the opening states is a true story, we follow an exchange of letters between an overweight man with Asperger's syndrome who lives in New York (Max), and a lonely young girl in Australia who is bullied at school (Mary - if you couldn't guess). We switch back and forth between their lives and are witness to the events in them. That's it! I can't make it sound any more exciting without ruining anything, and I don't want to do that...

I was very lucky to catch Mary and Max at a one-off screening, and unfortunately, it doesn't look like the movie is going to see a general release in the UK anytime soon (however much it should). My "viewing experience" wasn't off to a good start...I missed the first minute or so, as it took me a while to find the cinema. My penance for this was: receiving a glare from the man I had to ask to move so I could get to my seat, knocking the person in front of him's head in my rush to stop being such an annoyance to him, receiving a glare from them also, and finally I was fortunate enough to get a loud TUT from the people behind me during the 1 second that I was in their way before sitting down. I can't say I'd have a very different reaction if I was in their position; I understand the need to be fully immersed in a film - but boy the British really do need to relax. I was in front of the screen for seconds! Possibly less than that. Anyway, these "troubles" were quickly forgotten - the film is immediately likeable.

The animation is part of the reason for this - it's got a fantastic style, and the character design is reason to smile in itself. I adore stop-motion animation, and there really isn't enough of it around (the only other film I've seen this year utilising the technique was Coraline, which was also brilliant). In fact, I think Wallace & Gromit, Chicken Run, James and the Giant Peach and The Nightmare Before Christmas pretty much sum up the rest of the feature-length stop-motion films I've seen. Mary and Max uses the method to great charm and comic effect. All the exaggerated expressions and such that you'd expect from a cartoon are present. It's an original style too; the characters are small and compact yet have enormous detail.

The other thing that makes the film so enjoyable, is the dialogue, a lot of which is provided via narration by Barry Humphries (Dame Edna). He describes the out of the ordinary things that happen in such a matter-of-fact manner that you can't help but laugh. It's a perfectly-suited narration that ties the film together nicely. The rest of the dialogue is primarily delivered by Max (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Mary (Bethany Whitmore as a child, Toni Collette as an adult) themselves. Max is interested in a variety of eclectic things, and due to his Asperger's syndrome, finds it difficult to understand non-verbal expression in other people. He also takes everything literally; a woman at the doctor's surgery tells him to "take a seat" - he takes one of the chairs home with him. Needless to say, some of the things Max comes out with are equally hilarious ("Did you know that turtles can breathe through their anuses?" he asks the eight-year old Mary). Mary shares this child-like innocence (well...she is a child for most of the film), and in this way you can really care both for the characters themselves, and the bond between them. The voice-acting is superb throughout - every voice matches every face. I was particularly fond of Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance; after watching, it's hard to imagine any other type of voice come out of Max's character model.

There is a LOT of humour in the film, and most of it is, when it's not laugh-out-loud funny, a joy to watch ("Mr. Ravioli" is genius - you'll understand if you see it). Mary and Max is not entirely a bundle of laughs, though. While some may be quick to label it a children's film simply due to the animation style, they would be wrong. The film deals with themes like suicide, general death (of pets and relatives), Asperger's syndrome (of course), etc. There's not much that's really going to upset kids watching it, it's just that some of the subject matter will be a little beyond them. What the presence of these issues does is add a layer of depth and seriousness to an already spectacular film (I'm running out of positive adjectives). While the animation itself seems to be cartoony and quirky, the colour palette seems to reflect the darker moments of the film - Max's New York is a smokey black and white mass of buildings and fumes, and Mary's Australia, while using colour, consists of muddy browns and oranges.

My only slight gripe with the film is that it seemed to end rather abruptly - I was expecting rather a bit more. However, this isn't much of a complaint; I probably just wanted to watch more of such a marvelous film.

I've probably failed in my mission to make this a more informal review than my District 9 one. Doesn't matter. All you need to know is that Mary and Max is a touching, beautiful (visually and internally) movie that should move you and brighten your day. I have no idea if it'll be showing anywhere else in the UK or get a DVD release here, but the DVD and blu-ray come out on the 21st October in Australia, and in my humble opinion, it'd be well worth importing one.

9/10

Watch the trailer here. It has mildly annoying French subtitles, and it doesn't really do the film justice...it just seems like random clips stuck together. But hopefully you should get a feel for it. The clarity of that HD makes me want that blu-ray oh so much...

Winnie the Pooh in 2011

YAY! After rumours a couple of months back - John Lasseter has confirmed a new Winnie the Pooh movie is in production for 2011! I don't really want to use this as a place to recycle film news from other places...but this is a fantastic announcement. This will be Disney's second film (after The Princess and the Frog due out early next year) in its "new wave" of hand-drawn animated features, which were initially brought to a halt in 2004. It's great to see traditional animation finally making a return to the studio, and I'm cautiously hopeful that The Princess and the Frog will kick off a new generation of great Disney films, going on to include their 2010 release Rapunzel (a CG adaptation), and then this.

Interesting tidbits from the IGN article:

• It will be based on five stories from the book by A.A. Milne (in a similar fashion to Disney's original The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh being based on a few of Milne's tales).
• The artistic style used in The Many Adventures... will be retained.
• One segment will include Eeyore losing his tail, with the rest of the cast trying to find a replacement.
• Rabbit's "friends and relations," not featured in The Many Adventures... will make an appearance - they're not "as socially aware as the other residents of the Hundred Acre Wood."

It sounds like good stuff, and hopefully will be - nothing Winnie the Pooh-related that Disney's produced has been as good as their original film. I trust Lasseter - this just might be.

Click here for the original article over at IGN.

Film Review: District 9

PRAISE THE LORD - 2009 is the year we're finally given some good sci-fi. Sam Rockwell vehicle Moon was brilliantly atmospheric, Star Trek was a highly entertaining introduction to J.J. Abrams's new timeline for that series, and now we come to District 9. Produced by Peter Jackson and directed by Neil Blomkamp (a first-time feature director who created that famous Citroën C4 ad - you know, the one with the dancing car), District 9 seems to be the most "serious" of 2009's current science fiction offerings - it's also the best.
The "District 9" of the title refers to a refugee camp in Johannesburg, South Africa, built to house aliens who landed on Earth in 1982, malnourished and ill. Taking place in 2010, the film's opening scenes are presented in documentary style, utilising talking head interviews with the unhappy human residents of the city (some of which will be familiar if you saw the initial trailer), and a cameraman following protagonist Wikus Van De Merwe, as he heads a team going into the camp. This team aims to serve eviction notices to the aliens there, in an effort to relocate them to the newly-built District 10, kilometres outside of Jo'burg. Needless to say, this doesn't exactly go to plan - some conflict ensues, and Wikus ends up with fluid from an alien device sprayed into his face ("it's not a weapon, but it's dangerous," he assures viewers). The rest of the film documents Wikus's struggle with the effects of this fluid.

Wow. That was a horrendous amount of paraphrasing. I won't talk any more about the story so as not to spoil it. Let's try to move away from that...

Due to Wikus's circumstances post-alien-fluid-in-his-face, the film is no longer a "real" documentary about him and his team - a more straight-forward narrative arises, following different characters. Despite this, director Blomkamp still opts to use some of the same visual techniques of a documentary, such as the fast-moving handheld cameras that are getting more and more popular these days. It's not quite as manic as something like Cloverfield, but it puts us on a much more personal level with Wikus. Clearly though, we wouldn't care about him if he wasn't a convincing character to begin with - but he is; brilliantly so. Actor Sharlto Copley, who portrays him, has only starred in two other productions, one of which being the short film that gave birth to District 9 (according to a combination of Wikipedia and IMDb). This becomes more and more surprising as you witness his performance as a friendly man in earlier scenes (much of which was improvised), and then later on, as an incredibly desperate man, in a strikingly genuine manner. It truly is a fantastic portrayal that gets you properly engaged with Wikus (even in his very fictional situations). He's an authentically likeable character, and while you might sometimes morally question his actions, they're always believable enough that, unlike many other films, you won't be sitting there thinking "He'd NEVER do that!" Hopefully Copley will be recognised for this, as it'd be a great shame if we didn't see more of him in the future.

Not only does the handheld camerawork aid our sympathy for the characters, but it also dumps us right in the middle of the action, in every battlefield. And there is a lot of action. The firefights that occur during the course of the film's near-2 hour running time are intense, and take place involving some heavy guns. OH, the guns. The alien weaponry used in the shootouts are the sort of things you thought were confined to Insomniac games (Ratchet & Clank, Resistance). But they very much come to life here, and they really are the coolest guns I've ever seen in film. I'm not usually the sort of person who watches films to see explosions and bullets, but I would gladly have sat in the cinema for another two or three hours watching people be ripped apart with the alien technology. It's just more fun to watch when something original is being used to blow stuff up. This can't be said without mentioning the special effects - which are stunning. The close-up shots of the aliens are remarkably complex, and the practical effects on the guns and the gore are as realistic as you need. Instead of Star Trek, this sort of gritty realism is more reminiscent of near-future sci-fi like Children of Men, which isn't a bad thing at all.

While the story and its action clearly work on their own merits, the ideas therein present a message with regards to segregation and prejudice. The treatment of the aliens by the humans is nothing short of abysmal, from the residents of Jo'burg's derogatory reference to them as "prawns," to the military contractor's hastiness to open fire on them. Parallels can easily be drawn to racism and general human narrow-mindedness across the planet, and in this way, District 9 does succeed on another level. Like films before it though, people may well sympathise with the fictional "prawns," but whether or not this will change their attitudes in real life seems unlikely.

District 9 is an exciting, fast-paced film that makes you feel for its characters and think (a bit) about the real world. It moves so fast that you won't want to take your eyes off the screen, for fear of missing anything. Neil Blomkamp was previously set to direct a Halo movie, until both Universal and Fox pulled out of the project and halted it in its tracks. It seems hard to believe that, after seeing District 9, any major production company wouldn't want to put Blomkamp back in the seat for it. Banshees, Hunters, Warthogs, plasma grenades, etc. would look fantastic if done in the same lifelike manner (well, they do, in this 6-minute short Blomkamp directed to promote Halo 3). It was also recently mentioned that studios want "District 10" already. Whatever the man does next though, I can't wait to see it. A hearty recommendation from me.

9/10