Disney: Best and Worst

Since 1939 Walt Disney Pictures has built a formidable reputation of producing quality family feature films. But in its legacy of achievement, there have also been failures. Here are my pick of the best and worst Disney movies.

Aladdin earns third place in the Disney greats. What stands out from this film is the sizzling aesthetic vision of Agrabah, with its pungent, oriental essence of the Arabian Nights, mixed with a strong, hilarious screenplay and voice acting. A manifestation of the reasons Disney is so well-regarded today, this movie is a Cave of Wonders to the child in all of us.

Second best in my list is Beauty and the Beast. This won a Golden Globe for Best Film as well as a nomination for Best Film at the Academy Awards – a previously unachieved feat for an animated movie. With its deft characterisation, classic songs and groundbreaking use of CGI in the ballroom scene, it deserves that recognition.

And the greatest Disney film award goes to - of course - The Lion King. Hans Zimmer, Elton John and Tim Rice’s score and soundtrack are standalone exquisite triumphs, from the soaring, Swahili-inspired brilliance of The Circle of Life, to the award-winning, mellifluous Can You Fell the Love Tonight. This is blended with a stirring storyline (a homage to Hamlet) and a bundle of likeable characters, including Jeremy Iron’s sassy love-to-hate villain Scar, Roan Atkinson’s uncanny anthropomorphism in Zazu, and the sensational double act of Timon and Pumba.

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Pocahontas 2 gets the dishonour of third worst Disney movie. I seriously advise anyone to avoid this if you have a smidgeon of respect for the first film. The sheer audacity of Disney to smear Pocahontas with a more realistic and cynical storyline is beyond words. A pop to the proverbial bubble of childhood  - nay, a punch to the face - which Disney so beautifully encapsulates with its essentially escapist fantasies. Why did you do this to us? Why!

Second most abysmal is High School Musical 3. While the whole franchise is pretty terrible, the first two deigned to have catchy songs and a vague stab at ‘plotline’. This third shambles embodies the cheesiness and atrocious ‘acting’ of its predecessors while lacking in any of the wit, intelligence or nuance of previous generation’s Disney films. It seems like the Jedward of movies – so bad you have to watch it just to realise your preconceived expectations of how bad it will be.

And – drumroll - the worst of Disney’s disasters is: Beverly Hills Chihuahua. As if the title isn’t enough to put any sane person off this train-crash slice of cinematic embarrassment, predictably the content is meagre to say the least. It wounds the soul to think that the producer of so many classics conceived an idea so vacuous, so offensive, as a film about the commodification of small dogs as fashion items, not to mention its awkward racial stereotyping of Mexicans. The worst thing about this debacle? They made a second and third. 

Low Budget vs High Budget Film

If you’re a film aficionado like myself, you may be aware of a sense of competition between big-budget Hollywood films and lower budget, more independently produced features. Even if you just enjoy the odd flick on Netflix, it’s worth knowing what your well-earned student wonga can buy.

So: high budget or low budget?

For low budget we’re talking under $50 million. If that figure sounds like a lot to you, a million is nothing in blockbuster terms, I promise. World War Z, the zombie-genre monolith Hollywood churned out this summer, cost just under $200 million.

In past years the Hollywood machine created a formula for making maximum profit. Throwing money at a project that is A: pre-sold (I.e. it was already a best-selling book, TV series, or in Battleship’s case, a board game) and B: CGI-tastic – that is, there are a lot of explosions (any Michael Bay film) –  have proven in the past to make the most turnover.

But budget doesn’t necessarily determine how good a film is going to be. With no due respect Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End had an estimated $300 million budget and isn’t likely to be winning any awards. Meanwhile critical successes such as the $32,000 Fish Tank – which won the Cannes Jury Prize in 2009- will most likely never make a profit.

Equally, a big budget film isn’t necessarily a Hollywood-backed project. Last year’s Cloud Atlas was extremely high budget but all the funding was independent – the directing siblings the Wachowski’s even put in their own money for lack of backing.

Low budget films first emerged as B Movies. Back in the day, these were the lesser part of a double-feature screening. Less money and talent was afforded to these projects than the A Movie blockbuster, but this soon developed into a genre of its own. By the sixties B Movies were exploring more vulgar subject matters, such as sex and violence. These films broke so many cultural taboos, pushing not only censorship boundaries with their gore and soft pornography, but also were a platform of social radicalisation. For instance, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) still stands as a sci-fi classic, having been said to inspire Night of the Living Dead (1968) which was groundbreaking in being one of the first films to have a black male lead (Duane Jones).

Low Budget movies also tend to push the boundaries of style in filmmaking. Because they might not have the money, filmmakers are forced to be more creative. In The Fountain, for lack of funding, Darren Aronofsky used microscopic shots of underwater organisms to mimic a dying star. X-rated blaxploitation jaw-drapper Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song (1971) not only pushed boundaries with its content (unsimulated sex, racism) but with its precocious style – a whirl of jump-cuts and fast paced editing.

If you’re feeling for a classic this October 31^st, Halloween was made on only a $320,000 budget and still stands as a consummate slasher horror movie. What’s more, The Rocky Horror Picture Show not only surpassed the ‘line’ but redefined it. This extravagant, trippy movie is a plethora of sex, cross-dressing, cannibalism and sci-fi which has earned an intense cult fanbase.

But recently Hollywood has upped its game, with some exciting prospects on the horizon. The consistently brilliant Coen brothers have a new project:  Inside Llewelyn Davis. Marvel’s Avenger’s spin-off Thor: The Dark World is out soon (8^th November) and it looks impressive. Whereas the generic blockbuster can be bad (Transformers,anyone?), with a good director at the helm the result can be successful. Joss Whedon recently wowed the world with The Avengers, a sheer explosion of fighting, wittiness and epic. If you’re not a superhero fanatic I would recommend you take a look at something like Woody Allen’s latest Blue Jasmine.

Ultimately, it depends what you’re looking for in a film. Personally I like both – while blockbusters are generally light relief and entertainment, lower budget films tend to make you think and can even make an impact on the world around them. Moreover if the people in charge of a film are more interested in the art itself than any money the project makes – your Tarantinos, Coens and Whedons – you generally can expect a worthwhile cinematic experience.

Cloud Atlas

Adapted from the best-selling novel by David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas is a poignant, sprawling piece of cinema. Showcasing Tom Hanks and Halle Berry in its start-spattered cast, the film follows multiple narrative trajectories across time – from the 1840s to the 22^nd century.

The Wachowskis (The Matrix Trilogy) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) deserve recognition as directors who adapted the seemingly impossible to adapt book to movie form, when Hollywood seemed to have given up hope. Whereas the book begins telling each story separately, the film splices them into parallel narratives, inter-editing each tale together in a jumpy, chaotic mash-up which actually seems to work.

Cloud Atlas has been criticised for its frenetic editing between the stories. Admittedly it takes time to get used to this flitting, sporadic storytelling, but – with an open mind - it’s not difficult to follow. In fact, this innovative form alone is striking. At its Lord of the Rings length of almost three hours, you have to be willing to dedicate yourself to the story. The film demands a re-watch to fully appreciate its complexities. But the pay-off is terrific, both emotionally, philosophically and on an entertainment basis.

From Jim broadbent’s character’s comedic Mission-Impossible-esque escape from an old folks’ home to a clone fighting an evil regime in a nightmarish future Korea, there are plentiful laughs and thrills here. But the story will not only get you hooked with its originality, intrigue and action - it will make you think. The narrative explores how a person’s lifetime is affected by those who lived before, and the causality and momentum one life can have on those in the future. Each story is connected by themes of oppression, revolution and liberation.

There is also a recurring idea of reincarnation. Many actors play multiple characters – most interestingly (and difficult to spot) perhaps is Halle Berry’s portrayal of a Korean man – and this is suggestive of the same soul passing through different lives, improving, loving, losing, and seeking meaning.

 Cloud Atlas is high concept cinema which deserves patience and commitment. A thought provoking, beautiful film, I cannot implore you to watch this enough.

World War Z

If you've ever played the game 'plague' on your phone, just imagine that combined with black ops zombies and -TADA!- you have World War Z. This is not necessarily a bad combination. WWZ is a behemoth action extravaganza which will command attention amidst other summer blockbusters, overpowering them with its brazen billiondollar-ness. Brad Pitt's love-child, the scale of this thing is formidable, but it is nothing new.

Although you could have guessed it, WWZ is all about poor Brad Pitt trying to save the world from the dreaded zombie. He must travel to the furthest reaches of the globe (including the forbidden, treacherous and enigmatic land of Wales) to Save the Day and get back to his family. What a bleeding hero. 

I mentioned Black Ops, because I found WWZ, unlike the book (although I could start every sentence of this review with that phrase) awkwardly patriotic. At times it gets a little cheesy, with the US Army constantly saving the day. A scene when Brad Pitt is being escorted by a swat team to an aeroplane is a lot like COD with the use of headsets, the xbox shots and general mise-en-scene. The ending was actually rewritten and re-shot and this stunted structure is evident. Reminiscent of Any Action Film in The Eighties or Nineties, Brad Pitt walks solo down a corridor to save the day. It's so cringey I half expected the American National Anthem to start blasting into the cinema. The closing sequences attempt to moralise the situation because there of course has to be a message, and that is okay, it's just that it's done pretty poorly here. 

I know this is a small point but I found the family pretty annoying, unbearable and frankly unpatriotic at times. Brad's kids were having inconvenient asthma attacks the whole time, undoing their seatbelts in a speeding car to dive (FOR A BLANKET might I add) at the floor and thus cause Pitt to crash, not to mention the wife phoning up for a natter when it is paramount Jerry remains silent else he be attacked by Zombies. Come on guys, where's the do-it-for America spirit here? Be obedient for your country, god damn it. I felt like they all needed a good slap in the face from Ron Weasley, followed by a lecture on sorting out their priorities. Honestly, if those eleven year olds had their shit together in Hogwarts battling an evil wizard, you can too.  

On the bright side WWZ occasionally counters these shortcomings. While gore is subdued for the much debated audience-enhancing PG-13, terror takes centre stage here. The use of 3D is genuinely justified and effective, taken full advantage of in jumpy moments and sensationally vivid in sequences such as the memorable zombie-wall-climbing scene. Rabid editing and frenzied handheld dizzies and captivates (although you might wonder if a zombie had stolen the camera) whilst celebrating the notion that no scene is shot more epically than with a helicopter shot, and by that thesis WWZ sticks heavily to. 

Director Mark Foster capitalizes on the vibe which infuses End of the World flicks  28 Days Later and I am Legend. Yes, these films are infinitely superior, but the running zombie/rabid human antagonist is present here. Zombie purists (like Max Brooks, the guy whose book this is based on...oops) maintain that they cannot and must not be able to run. However this skill surely gives an added sense of terror to Z... what could be worse than a man-eating human which walks slowly but cannot die? Um, one which sprints. This addition creates a dimension of threat unlike the dominating force of the zombie-genre The Walking Dead, which is perhaps why they deviated from the book in this sense. Chases and mass-attacks are all the more exhilarating with the insectile, running zombie, making up for a lack of physical horror.  

World War Z is a blundering yet impressive rollercoaster of a film, with all the visuals, immediacy and sensation to incite an adrenaline rush. You will enjoy this film, probably look over your shoulder a lot more after your viewing, but you'll have forgotten it by next year. 

The Fountain

‘Death is the road to awe’ a Mayan priest whispers at the summit of a great pyramid. The last man, struggling to sustain his only companion, a dying tree of life, voyages through space in a bubble. A star fades, wrapped in the death-lock of a nebula.

These are moments which punctuate visionary feast The Fountain. Darren Aronofsky’s third feature film sits firmly among the writer/director’s greats, including Requiem for a Dream , The Wrestler and Black Swan. However it is little known and wildly overlooked, with takings of half its $35 million budget and critics sneering left right and centre. Ultimately this is a great cinematic tragedy - it really is a work of consummate beauty, a -see-before-you-die deal.

Often described as a tri-narrative tale, the film explores three parallel stories from the past, present and future. Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz play the central protagonists in each narrative: a conquistador hunting the Tree of Life for his Queen to the historical backdrop of the Spanish Inquisition; and a space man, Tom (a homage to no less than Bowie’s Major Tom) the Last Man, seeking salvation in the collapse of a star. But the central story is that of Tommy and Izzi, a modern day couple whose lives are haunted by her terminal cancer. Although originally startling in the sense that we are not often confronted with this sort of narrative, it’s refreshing, and as the story unfolds the connections and parallelisms create a combined message.  Izzi and Tommy’s tale permeates and encompasses the film, with Tommy’s memories of Izzi projected within Tom’s storyline, and the plot of the conquistador and Queen being a story Izzi has written for Tommy to help come to terms with her death. Although the fragmentary and ambitious non-linearity of The Fountain is indeed as disorienting to watch as it is to describe, they each run with parallel themes and are inter-connected through graphic-match editing, aesthetic motifs and ecclesiastical iconography.

The message this film emanates is encapsulated in the words of the Mayan Priest. Death is the road to awe. Aronofsky’s work is profoundly focused on the idea perhaps more basely referred to in The Lion King as the circle of life: death is a natural process, one we all must face. This idea blooms throughout the film as Tommy, after a struggle as a neuroscientist to prevent his wife’s death, fails and gradually becomes at peace with himself. The conquistador, on discovering the tree of life finds he has interpreted its powers erroneously – rather than raising him to immortality as a man he meets a different fate. And Tom reaches Xibalba and witnesses, as Izzi has reiterated earlier in the film, that the most exquisite death of a star creates new life.

The Fountain is at times bleak, dealing with raw human emotion and universal experience. Centrally the film focuses on death and mankind’s relationship with our mortality. At some point, everyone has to consider and accept the fact that they will die; while this is agonizing for Tommy who insists ‘death is a disease’ to be cured, Izzi embraces the life she has left. This is the mastery of Aronofsky’s film: its immeasurable scale – narratives scattered across time and space, enormous life questions – is countered by its intimacy. The storyline is surprisingly uncluttered with the aforementioned strand of Tommy and Izzi dominating screentime, undiluted by other characters. Extreme close-ups physically enhance this immediacy, with almost intrusive zoom on the face, lips and neck involving the audience in their relationship.

Stylistically as ever Darren Aronofsky pays intricate attention to detail. Izzi is - without exception – dressed in white throughout the film, a dramatic contrast with Tommy who is shot in dark, low-key lighting and black costumes. Aronofsky plays with this chiaroscuro throughout, particularly in a bath sequence in which Izzi is the brightly lit central focus of the shot; Tommy lingers on the sidelines, in darkness, a visual expression of the regressive nature of his attitude to death.

A reflection of the film’s limited budget (for Hollywood standards), Aronofsky as ever uses creative techniques to replace expensive CGI. The shots of Xibalba – the Mayan underworld - as the spaceman hurtles into the dying star are in fact the work of macro-photography of undersea micro-organisms. The use of the infinitely miniscule to represent the infinitely colossal is an exquisite, inspired idea which in this context not only works but has deeply philosophical implications.

The double act of Weisz and Jackman is remarkable. Both performances are beautifully convincing and, accomplished with the aforementioned intimate cinematography and poignant screenwriting from Aronofsky, the bittersweet nature of their parting is all the more severely felt, as if it were a direct blow to the viewer as well as the characters onscreen. Indeed, the film encapsulates the agonizing hopelessness which accompanies loss. Tommy’s frustration at his inability to save his wife is deeply relatable, a heart-heaver. Jackman’s performance is particularly distinguished as Tommy strives in desperation to achieve the unattainable and cure death. His pain is that of every person as it is an innately human response to riot against the ending of our lives, or that of our loved ones.

An adventure across spirituality of all planes – Christianity, Buddism, Mayan – but also in science, philosophy, The Fountain manifests the human urge to gaze at the sublime, to wonder. Head on it might be a tale of darkness and morbidity, but ultimately The Fountain urges us to celebrate the life we have rather than fight the inevitability of death. 

Man of Steel

Combining the forces of Chris Nolan and Zack Snyder, whose legacies offer The Dark Knight franchise, Inception and 300, in a DC Comics superhero project seems an effortlessly legendary proposal. But what is delivered in Man of Steel, I am sorry to say, is often more bombastic than genius. The film is enjoyable, a peppering of sublime moments and ambitious action, restricted, however, from brilliance by a drawn out narrative, disappointing villain and reluctance of using humour in any form.

Try as hard as any heterosexual female may to be impartial but it is inevitable one Henry Cavill will have an impact on any review this hypothetical person might make.

Logistically speaking (of course) the actor is aesthetically perfect for Superman - it takes a limited stretch of the imagination to envisage his strong jaw, calm gaze and slight dimple in the chin (apparently a requirement for a budding S-Man) accompanied with the iconic blue and red skin-tight  (thank you wardrobe team) costume. Strutting across the screen with rippling biceps, a jaw-bone of a Grecian God, and what can only be described as bulging DD's, I haven't seen a man this ripped and this perfect. And apparently, neither has the camera, which eye-fucks him throughout.





But we have to remember Henry is also acting in the film, and he takes on the role of leading man with a strong, impassioned performance. As an evolution story, the focus is on Clark Kent's character arc throughout, but particularly in the most enjoyable first half of the film. Here flashbacks are used to create depth of his character as young Clark struggles to hide and control his godly powers. These sentimental moments, accompanied by adopted parents, played  in an understated, majestic manner by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane, are beautifully poignant.




Gravity is added to the Superman fable; big, obvious questions like 'are we alone in the universe' are pondered where they, oddly, haven't really been discussed in the franchise. It also considers the 'science' of Superman, striving to explain why he is so super, although I'm sure Stephen Hawking wouldn't be convinced by Russell Crowe's mutterings about the Earth's atmosphere differing to Krypton. No matter, at least they tried, and its not like we weren't suspending any beliefs when we walked into the cinema to watch this.

There's glimpses of the captivating scale and cinematic escapism that permeates Snyder's earlier works. The monolithic alien robots, which penetrate the earth with some sort of sonic beam, blast out a surreal booming noise, a resounding orchestra of the soaring operatic scores of Hans Zimmer (who also worked on Nolan's Inception and Dark Knight series), just calling to be transferred into a dubstep remix. The learning-to-fly scene which tantalised in the trailers is a stand out sequence. Here Kal-El walks amongst a pristine ice landscape, crouches, the ground reverberates as though a force of pure energy has awakened, and, like a rocket, Superman launches into the clouds. Action throughout is dazzling, especially when we take to the clouds with the superhero, the camera follows videogame-style as he sucker-punches the bad guys. 



As you might expect, as was the way with Batman, Nolan and co. deconstruct any camp or lighthearted associations the audience may have with the Superhero. The S emblazoned on his costume, Clark Kent insists almost pedantically, is 'not an S' but a symbol of hope in Krypton. KBabes. The costume department have also gone to measures to darken the blues and reds, stripping as much as possible from the Comic-book vibe. And the red pants outside the tights have been dismissed. ("NOT THE RED PANTS" I hear nobody cry). This is a necessary deviation from the known which slices a new angle for the superhero, as Nolan did with the Batman franchise, and Burton before him. In many ways the focus on a somber, elevated experience for Man of Steel is effective and a success. However overall the film does take itself too seriously, with limited laughs throughout - come on the villain is called General Zod. And his haircut is so bad. 

Moreover I found character development beyond Superman/Clark Kent/ Kal-El was somewhat lazy and dimensionless. Although it is understandable why Lois Lane falls head over heels for Clark Kent after one conversation, there is limited chemistry between the two to convince any emotional investment in their relationship. Their kiss at the end just seemed latched on and apologetic, almost like when Anne Hathaway's Catwoman randomly kisses Batman at the climax of The Dark Knight Rises, it doesn't seem plausible. It just seems like a box each blockbuster has to tick - 'explosions, check; CGI, check; make out scene, check' - which is often, as in this case, slopped on at the end like a dollop of peas to bump up the nutritional value of a meal.

To add insult to this grievous injury I found myself disappointed by the aforementioned villain. Michael Shannon is robotic and two dimensional as Zod. I understand this was a requirement of his character, as on Krypton each individual is bred for their purpose- an interesting reference and warning about the powers of genetic engineering. However this idea does not lend itself to a refreshing baddie. Plus I didn't find Zod in any way truly threatening, rather an irritation. However as perceived in the transition from Batman Begins to The Dark Knight, a fabulous villain in the Joker is all it took to propel the series of films from good to excelsior status. 

Man of Steel is a great, entertaining, all guns blazing blockbuster by all accounts. It is on par with rival Marvel's earlier 2013 superhero flick Iron Man 3, lightyears beyond Captain America, but not quite as shithot as The Avengers.  I only felt let down by my own cinephilic expectations. I'm sure the next films (and there will undoubtably be more) will give more time to the romance between Clark and Lois. Dear Snyder and Nolan: give Kal-El a good villain and a sense of humour, and we're on to a winner.

Iron Man 3

Shane Black struck Iron with this third installment of the Marvel franchise. Your second favourite Stark (that is, behind Rob) returns to the big screen in a film packed with the slick writing and trademark humour that the first promised and the second lacked.

The plot is kind of cool with its twist on the comic-book villain and satire of American paranoia and its self destructive nature. Apparent here is the chemistry between Black and Downey Junior, whose mutual work in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang propelled RDJ to the Iron Man role in the first place. The combination of Black's witty screenwriting and Rob's charismatic yet endearing performance is a match to rival Ben & Jerry. There are numerous comic  moments, including Stark's banter with a wimpy kid: 'Dads leave, don't be a pussy about it'.

Coinciding with the trend to go all Dark Knight on comic book films (Man of Steel anyone?), the trailer promises a darker, more serious Iron Man. And to an extent he is. Poor old Tony is tortured by stress, insomnia and anxiety attacks. For a major part of the film, Iron Man is stripped of his...Iron Man and must fend for himself. So how will the coolest Avenger do without his suit?- something I'm pretty sure a lot of fans and haterz alike have been musing, and the film and Tony Stark do not disappoint.

Visually the film is as blockbuster as you like, I was lucky enough to see it at the BFI IMAX and was arrested by the explosions, crashes, gunfire and various fighting sequences you come to expect from this calibre of movie and it's enjoyable. But what sets Iron Man 1 and 3 apart is Tony Stark. His 'screw it I'm Iron Man' attitude displaces other superheros and Robert Downey Junior's quick quips and egotistical flair are characteristics which make him one of the most attractive and refreshing on-screen superheroes.



P.S. Wait til the end of the credits, it's totally worth it. 

Tiny Furniture

All writing, all acting, all directing Lena Dunham emerged sporadically into the small-screen scene just last year with her acclaimed television series GIRLS, which seems to have snowballed since its pilot to marmite status. Accordingly everyone seems to be looking at her earlier full length feature Tiny Furniture (2010). Like GIRLS it's about the not-knowing-what--you're-doing twenties. And this is also just as love or hate. 

The self-consciously self-pitying tagline 'Aura is having a very, very hard time' is an instant irritant which seems to perforate the tone of film. This is about someone feeling a little (or a lot) sorry for themselves about their indecision and incomprehension of what to do with the life-shaped elephant in the room. Ergo the lack of plot or direction, and the multitude of scenes of Aura sleeping, Aura looking mopey then going to sleep, and Aura waking up from sleep.  And another thing!: I know it's more realistic and god bless Lena Dunham for being imperfect like the rest of us, but half the time I found myself distracted by her insatiably knotty hair. 

I didn't feel drawn to Dunham's Aura. She's a different protagonist but I found her even more of a doormat than Hannah from GIRLS, and less funny. She lets guys walk all over her, specifically Jed, played by Alex Karpovsky who also stars in GIRLS (again, better character, there's a theme here), and some dude she meets at work. Both of whom, might I add, being neither sexy nor charming enough to justify letting them get away with their behaviour (if it was Jon Snow I'd understand). With Jed, Aura invites him to stay with her while he is in New York for a short period. This being an already over-friendly move considering she barely knows the guy, he proceeds to act like a total douche and she does not seem to mind. Here's a particularly irksome snippet which occurs after Aura's mother kicks him out when he's been staying more than a week:

Jed I feel like you should make sure you can deliver something before you promise it

Aura Well, I didn't like not deliver I mean you stayed in the house for a week, but I know you're totally right.

And yet, judging on the explicit doormat-syndrome we encounter here, it seems as though Dunham has deliberately framed her character in this way. Maybe we don't like seeing this behaviour because it in fact reminds us of our own weaknesses. Aura is imperfect not just by film character standards, but as in real life, normal person. She's a dick to her best friend, her mum, herself, but aren't we all. 

Tiny is raw and authentic as you like, with Dunham casting her own mother and sister to play her mother and sister, and filming it in their actual apartment. This possibly explains the grazing verisimilitude of their on-screen dynamic, with screechy-voice, nonsensical, often petty skirmishes reminiscent of my own experience of familial arguments. The sex scene in this is probably the most undignified thing I have ever seen. Moments after casually checking if he has AIDS, Aura and some loser she's been semi-chasing throughout the film get diggity in, in her own words, 'a pipe in the street'.  It's the low point of the film; you really feel her sense of self-disgust when she relays it to her mother afterwards. 

And yet, despite any criticism which can be made: nudity is brave, wretchedly awkward sex scenes are brave, disregarding hair and make up is brave. This must not be forgotten. What's more Dunham's writing is guillotine-sharp and sweetly perceptive. This was a progressive step towards GIRLS, a chrysalis if you will, one I  recommend to watch if you can handle the self-indulgent insularity of indie films.

American Beauty

I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me… but it’s hard to stay mad, when there’s so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I’m seeing it all at once, and it’s too much, my heart fills up like a balloon that’s about to burst… And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it, and then it flows through me like rain and I can’t feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life.



Look closer. Sam Mendes' (Skyfall) direction met with Conrad Hall's mellifluous cinematography and a captivating, yet inherently disturbing, performance from Kevin Spacey to create this dark and often bitter nineties satire with a comic bite. Centred around, but by no means limited to, the perspective of Lester Burnham, a man 'awakening' to the realization that he is bland, forgettable and has nothing to show for his life. Commence mid-life crisis, but not the kind you think you know. A tale magnifying the flaws of suburban American life, where an appearance-obsessed culture is undressed to reveal the intricate unpleasantries which lurk beneath. The film also follows the lives of Carolyn (Annette Bening), Lester's dissatisfied and sporadically maniacal wife, Jane (Thora Birch), his weird and 'misunderstood' daughter, and Jane's overtly sexual friend, Angela (Mena Suvari), the sneeze which nudges Lester's avalanchine crisis. 

The eponymous American Beauty sprung from the name of a rose, which is the films' main star. Perhaps most memorably, we see the Beauty in Lester's fantasia. Scarlet petals burst from Mena Suvari's breasts as she strips, and surround her as she bathes on that iconic film poster. But these red roses leak through the confinements of dream sequence to perpetually permeate its waking mise-en-scene. Whether it be the perfect picket-fenced garden, embroidered with the flowers, to the injection of the blood red hue of Angela's lipstick, Carolyn's coat, the front door. As in The Sixth Sense and that piercing scene from Schindler's List, red punctuates the film, a symbol of lust, passion, fertility, violence and eventual death. A rose is the vision of intricate perfection, which is what, in their embodiment of the American Dream, these characters strive for. 

But American Beauty urges the audience to look closer. It happens that the eponymous character is more than it seems, the ironically named American Beauty species of rose being prone to rot at the root, despite its superficially pleasing aesthetic. As its petals obscure and eroticise Angela, who is also more and less than she seems, the beauty is a shroud to the deep set rot which settles just below the surface of suburban life. The narrative trajectory leads the characters to discover beauty in less obvious places. Jane is befriended by her dealer neighbor (Wes Bentley) who introduces to her, literally through a camera lens, the way he sees the world. A carrier bag blowing in the wind mesmerizes the (admittedly probably stoned) fellow. But the ultimate message here, I believe, that beauty, just like art, is subjective to the beholder. Objects or people we may not deem special or beautiful can be more exquisite than superficial beauty, if we look closer. 

filmsneeze

Welcome to the new blog name. I decided to change from 'Film Nerd' because honestly it's too cliche, too blatant, and some smug bugger had already nabbed the address. If you don't like it with the greatest respect I don't really care; posts are going to be similar and I promise more frequent.

Look out for more old film reviews, film news, my opinion on new films and maybe even a little bit of the small screen tucked into filmsneeze 2013.
























Coming Soon... Oz the Great and Powerful and American Beauty

Les Miserables

Tom Hooper's gargantuan adaptation of the beloved musical Les Miserables flourishes with the revolutionary fervour its tale deserves, whilst maintaining focus on individual struggles amidst the romantic clamor of its self-proclaimed 'angry men' 's vocal blusterings. 

Disclaimer: First of all I have to say if you don't like musicals or you don't like Les Miserables in particular, you will most likely not like this film. Obvious as not letting your gran watch Saw, I know. 

Set in 19th century France, the film focalizes on the lives of revolting (in every definition of the word) peasants, principally one Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a man who broke his parole to fulfill his life ambition of being a mayor and saving peasant girls. Amongst his altruistic endeavors JVJ saves clumsy villagers from being crushed under carts, prostitutes from being slung in prison and battle survivors by dragging them through a sewer - (you have to ask, is there no other way?), while being persued by the persistent jobsworth Javert, played by none other than the man who made whispering cool: Russel Crowe, who I still can't help but feel has an ulterior motive for hunting Valjean down so vigorously, but you can check out fan fiction for that. All of this excitement takes place against the backdrop of the Paris uprising of 1832. 

The casting was exceptional; there are so many standout performances here. For example, the relatively unknown Samantha Bark's cast as Eponine was inspired. Moreover, Hugh Jackman proves himself as more than just mildly-witty hulk of meat Wolverine.

But it is Anne Hathaway who has had critics drooling, and rightly so. Perhaps a career defining performance, she plays aforementioned reluctant prostitute Fantine. Whilst I was previously not a fan of the actress, she steals the show and will reduce mums across the world to weeping wrecks with her performance, particularly in her rendition of 'I Dreamed a Dream', which she reclaims from the deviant clutches of Su-Bo.

Sam Barks as unlucky in love Eponine

Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as the delightful Thenardiers.

What is so refreshing about Les Miserables was its sense of authenticity. As you may or may not know, the singing was recorded on set. This enabled the actors to perform spontaneously with each take, and gives each performance more of a raw feel. Their expressions aren't completely placid as they hit a high note which is often the case with pre-recorded singing. The strain in reaching the note enhances the strain the character is going through - as you may have guessed (the clue's in the title) none of the songs are about being happy. 

Additionally, I was struck by the somewhat brave portrayal of these actors in their ugliest form (except from Amanda Seyfried, who refuses or doesn't know how to ever look bad). Hugh Jackman really does look like he's lived a hard life, what with his gaunt face and haphazard haircut (below). The scene where Fantine's hair is cut off is Anne Hathaway's actual hair, so her devastated reaction to the loss is genuine. Nobody has the 'hollywood' white teeth here. All of this embellishes the verisimilitude and ultimate identification with what we are seeing - these are a bunch of smelly peasants trying to live a better life.












An accomplished, (eventually) uplifting piece of cinema, Les Miserables should delight closet and outed musical fans alike. 

FILM 2013

So here's your sneak peek of all the films I will be anticipating this year.The dates to my knowledge are all correct as of the date of writing this, but judging on the industry that is far from saying they are concrete. For instance, we were all waiting for The Great Gatsby for WINTER LAST YEAR (admittedly a month ago) and yet because some shiz went down like the editor didn't like a hairstyle in a scene or something terribly important like that, it has been delayed until May. Yes, May. Bitterness aside, here's the lineup, (not including Les Miserables or Django cuz, tbh it goes without saying that I'll review them):



Warm Bodies (Jonathon Levine) 8th February



I'm rather excited for this interesting take on the Zombie genre by careering it headfirst into the romcom. This is the makings of either a disaster or charming quirk. The book it is adapted from is said to be meritorious.



A Good Day to Die Hard (John Moore) 14th Feb



Obviously a Die Hard film is always going to be a winner to a die hard fan of the franchise (excuse me while I pat myself on the back). Well, excluding the third.



Jack the Giant Slayer (Bryan Singer) 22nd March




Yes, I went on the set of this. You jealous? This modern take on the Jack and the Beanstalk fairytale, originally entitled 'Jack the Giant Killer' - I don't understand the need to change it, or how it improved the situation either -, is made by the same guy who directed and produced various films in the X-Men machine. Also, did anyone else notice that Nicholas Hoult is getting around?



Oz the Great and Powerful (Sam Raimi) 8th March



Give me a Disney film with James Franco, Mila Kunis and Rachel Weiss in and I'm so on board I'm practically Sinbad. Even better, this creation is a prequel to the Wizard of Oz! Did you ever wonder why and how that sociopath got to the Emerald City, and decided to be God, without any particular skill or talent? No? Well how about how that angry lady turned out all green and befriended those irate flying monkeys? If you just accepted that and just watched the movie like the general population lets just say this is the Prometheus to Wizard of Oz's Alien - unnecessary - but hopefully more entertaining.



The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrman) 17th May
(unless it's put on hold - AGAIN)




Well I'm feeling a bit of deja vu here. If you can think that far back I was talking about this in this post last year. All you need to know that if you liked the trippy surrealism, mixed with epic tragi-love story of Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge, the director of both these beauties is behind Gatsby.



Man of Steel (Zach Snyder) 14th June



I can't describe my emotions when I heard Snyder - genius (over exagerration? Nah) behind 300 and Watchmen -  was in line to direct a Superman film. Maybe AHHHH. Expect highly stylised, luxurious visuals. And I'm not just talking about Henry Caville, the main man. There is evidence that this is the starter-flick of DC Comic's version of the Avengers: Justice League.




World War Z (Marc Forster) 21st June




Dubious one. Based extremely loosely (judging on the trailer) around Max Brooks' exhaulted book of the same name, Brad Pitt has produced and starred in the Zombie movie. He's modest like that. He's also modest enough to change the plot of the book so that his character, rather than being a sidelined interviewer, is the main man. Other perceptible changes include the zombies' ability to run, like freaking fast. Will this make for a distinguished and all-threatening zombie movie, or is it just a fail? We'll have to see.



Kick-Ass 2 : Balls to the Wall (Jeff Wadlow) 19th July




TO THE WINDOW, TO THE WALL. Just me? Well what's not to like about returning to the lives of McLovin, girl-who-needs-to-wash-her-mouth-out-with-soap and your favourite superhero with no superhero characteristics (okay besides the rich guys Batman and Iron Man)? I adored this nerd-gasm the first time around, plus I have no reason to believe Aaron Johnson can disappoint me more than marrying an old woman.



The World's End (Edgar Wright) 14th August





So this is the one I am honestly looking forward to above any other film this year. The phenomenal filmic threesome of Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright are back for the third and final segment of the 'Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy', which presently comprises of the legendary Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Expect blood. Expect Cornettos. Expect 'what's the matter Danny, never taken a short cut before?'. And finally expect film nerds to spontaneously combust with pleasure when confronted by any of the above.



The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence) 22nd November



A change of director and a splitting of the finale into parts One and Two has BLOCKBUSTER written all over it. I hope this does not mean to compromise the essence of the Hunger Games books upon which these are based. No matter, there's plenty of spectacle to be expected from this one: action, revolution and of course a love triangle to rival Made In Chelsea. Plus a jumble of new characters are thrown in to the mix, including sexy guy from On Stranger Tides (Sam Claflin) as fishy Finnick.



The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (Jackson) 13th December




The title is a bit lame and plot-ruining but the first in this Jackson series was so commendable I have high hopes for this second. After all, The Two Towers was pretty dang sweet.





And here's one I couldn't find a picture for...


Oldboy (Spike Lee) 11th October (USA)

Oldboy manga

If you have a mind to be disturbed, horrified and cringing to the core, the original Korean film is just up your street. So dark is the original it makes The Human Centipede look like a Pixar creation. Okay tad too far, but you get my jist. The story is visceral and horrific to the extreme, with incest, gore, abjection and tabboo running amock. I am enticed by the premise of this English remake, which stars Josh Brolin as the antihero, and boasts a pertinent and dynamic director; lets hope it lives up to the grisly grandeur of its predecessor.




So, which one of these juicy beasts are you salivating the most over?