Ian @ the movies

Life’s a bitch, and then you die

Andrea Arnold’s Fish Tank takes a voyeuristic glimpse into the life of unhappy ASBO teen, Mia. The film discreetly exposes and dissects the largely overlooked and desperate, life-on-the-breadline culture which dominates working class Britain.

In her acting debut, Katie Jarvis plays 15-year-old Mia; living out a bleak, unappealing and glamour less existence in a run-down Essex housing estate. A frustrated and unloved teenager with a passion for dance; Mia’s dreams of becoming a dancer are a subtle and enriching sub-plot to the film, which largely focuses on a developing relationship between Mia and her deadbeat mother’s new-on-the-scene, roguish, silk-tongued boyfriend, Connor (yes, he’s Irish), played by Michael Fassbender.

The film goes so far to ensure that its perspective is pure and untarnished by big, glossy shots, that for many the quite, underwhelming focus on character and dialogue may become tiresome. With no real musical score to drive it, in-between dialogue we are simply left to listen to the call of birds or the hum of the traffic. Arnold obviously had a clear vision that she did not want to intrude on this snapshot of Britain’s underclass. As a result, the flow is uninhibited and so close to reality that at times it feels more like a documentary than a feature.

Mia’s sharp witted, foul-mouthed little sister, Tyler (Rebecca Griffiths), adds another level of authenticity to the film’s vision of this unappealing existence. In a way Tyler is more venerable than Mia. Where Mia is finding her own likes and dislikes and reaching the age that she can escape (to wherever that may be), Tyler is stuck there; frustrated and angry. There mother cares very little for either of them. They are just an inconvenience on her lifestyle of drinking, partying and fucking.

Arnold presents some truly outstanding shots in Fish Tank. One particular stand-out scene is set late at night in Mia’s living room. As her wasted mother lies passed out upstairs, the grim yet sexually charged standoff between Mia and her Conner comes to a sultry climax. With the dim flicker off a muted television in the background, the room is filled with the seductive red light of the streetlamps outside; cascading through the flat’s windows.

Everything about Fish Tank is bleak. Hopes are built only to be crushed. There is always a sense that ambition has no place. Mia’s determination to rehearse her dance routines always feels pointless. Not just to the audience but also to her. Empty cans and bottles of cider line the floor of the vacant flat she uses as a studio. The dream of dance is just as much a form of escapism as the booze.

As a sideline, Mia also strikes up a more wholesome relationship with a young gipsy boy. While their dates are far from romantic (a trip to a local scrap yard to steal a part for his car, getting drunk and sitting around looking at a horse), there is a sense that he genuinely cares for Mia. And despite his background, he does at least offer Mia some sense of being.

Jarvis is a true star in this film. Said to have be ‘discovered’ arguing with her boyfriend outside a train station, her raw talent has be expertly tamed under Arnold’s direction. She reaches far beyond the constraints of a written ‘character’ and gives us a venerable, frustrated, deeply troubled young soul. While Fish Tank is, at heart, a coming-of-age story, it does go far beyond a film of that ilk, by delving into a gritty and hyper-realistic storyline. It also takes the current media obsession with paedophilia, and puts borderline underage sex into a more realistic context. Where Mia and Connor’s relationship is uncomfortable to behold, it tactfully documents the age-old scenario of a young woman transfixed with a charming older man. It’s nothing we have not read in Austin.

The only real problem with the film is its appeal. People will go to see Fish Tank because they like British independent cinema or because they want to feel moved by the bleakness of thought provoking art. For the wider audience who watch a few independents here and there, but for the most part set the bar by Hollywood standards; they are unlikely to accept the tone of Arnold’s film. Where that’s more of an observation than a criticism, it is noteworthy.

Touching, and eye-opening, Fish Tank masterfully captures the hopeless struggle of those born without privilege or opportunity in Britain. The film is an urban soundtrack to a side of society that we are aware of, but choose to conveniently forget.

Zombie kill-fest.

It’s rare that a film comes along which breaks down boundaries of genre and offers something fun, quirky and filled with originality, but alas newcomer, Ruben Fleischer’s Zombieland has it all.

Set in the near future, the human race has been all but eradicated and replaced by armies of angry, flesh-eating zombies. Like a light-hearted, action packed, indie version of I am Legend (without all the soppy emotion), the story follows Jesse Eisenberg’s Collumbus and Woody Harrelson’s Tallahassee as they battle their way across America avoiding zombie infection; each in search of some kind of retribution and safe house.

The film opens with a joyful set-up sequence revealing the four basic rules Collumbus has followed to stay alive so far. These include the importance of cardio exercise, staying away from bathrooms (you’re an easy target on the crapper), the ‘double tap’ (finish your zombie off proper good), and importantly, fasten your seatbelt. As the movie goes on, so does the list of rules. It’s like zombie survival 101.

The two unlikely survivors end up running into each other on the road. Collumbus is heading home in the vague hope that he will find his parents unzombiefied and Tallahassee is heading for California with vague plans to set up roost in Hefner’s playboy mansion while, along the way, obsessively seeking out a Twinkie snack bar (don’t ask). As ridiculous as it is, the sharp witted humour and tactful direction allow it to thrive, never taking itself too seriously. Where Eisenberg’s Collumbus is a cautious, methodical, loner, Harrelson’s Tallahassee is his opposite; throwing all caution into the wind and relishing in every zombie kill he makes.

A spanner is thrown into the works when they run into Emma Stone’s Wichita and child-star, Abigail Breslin’s Little Rock; two surviving sisters on the road. Collumbus and Tallahassee get sucker-punched and end up chasing the girls cross country to reclaim their truck, weapons and pride. Stone’s Wichata is a cold, strong and sexy woman hardened by her duty to protect her little sister from harm at all costs. Ultimately the play-off between all four characters creates a fun mix. Of course Collumbus falls for Wichita and a vague love story/geek gets the girl side-plot drives the film forward, but in essence that cliché is more than adequately offset by the action infused blood bath that relentlessly propels the movie from scene to scene.

The real fun in the film comes from its total lack of boundaries. Casting aside the current frustrating affliction of studios to keep their releases ‘family friendly’, Fleischer’s Zombieland goes all out, with blood, guts, gore, half-naked nipple tasselled stripper zombies, and plenty of much appreciated profanity. As if you would not say f**k when you wake up and the sexy neighbour girl goes all ‘Emily Rose’ on your arse. This combined with spot-on casting and tip-top performances from a group of actors who have an exact perception of what Zombieland sets out to achieve, allow it to succeed where others (Lesbians Vampire Killers, Jennifer’s Body) have crashed and burned.

Like an episode of Family Guy, character comments are often followed by cut scenes of possible scenarios. One example is when Tallahassee lays rest to a couple of grotesque, overweight grocery-store-worker zombies, then turns to Collumbus asking: “Zombie kill of the week?” The question plays set up to a fun game show style mini scene which awards the zombie kill of the week prize to the wife of a vicar somewhere in small town America. I won’t reveal the method; it’s too fun.

And the award for the best cameo goes to Bill Murray. Disguised as a zombie to detract attention and avoid zombie infection, his deadpan depiction of himself is a hilarious addition to the fun. “I just like to get out you know,” and “I have no regrets… except maybe Garfield”, are a couple of Murray magic gems from the repertoire.

Eisenberg must have a keen eye when selecting his projects; with 2005s critically acclaimed The Squid and the Whale, Greg Mottola’s surprise summer hit, Adventureland and now with Zombieland under his belt, it seems as though he’s riding a gold-plated Greyhound bus directly in to the Hollywood elite station. Ok, so maybe he is a little type-cast as the glorified geek; hunched over, nervously stammering to spit out his words, but his onscreen persona in Zombieland is every bit the anti-hero. Every time I see him perform, I pray he will be cast as the lead in a Woody Allen bio-pic. As a wing man, this part fits Harrelson like skinny jeans on an emo kid. He is so funny to watch and here he really proves himself as a masterful veteran of cult film.

Fleischer’s Zombieland may not have the most profound statement to make. It’s about killing zombies and having fun with it. But what Zombieland is, is a punch packing flesh fest that will provide escapism, laughs and lots and lots of satisfying deaths (it’s ok… they are zombies!).

Anticipation: 3. Owing to a little-known director, a low budget and lack of a big name A-lister (sorry Woody), it was not huge, but Sony did push the billboard campaign.

In Retrospect: 4. I f**king love Bill Murray!

You’ll never look at a prawn cocktail starter the same again.

Examining the flawed, selfish and destructive traits of true human nature, District 9 glimpses into a reality where the arrival of extraterrestrial life on Earth has led our species to take a number of sinister actions, in fear of what they cannot understand.

Produced by Peter Jackson and his respectable WingNut Films, District 9 was completed for an astoundingly low $30 million budget. Making use of unknown actors, employing local villagers as extras, using the inexpensive shooting location of Johannesburg, and borrowing military equipment from the UN, the film manages to defy Hollywood’s bloated budgets, creating an SFX-rich (it contains 600 CGI shots), polished sci-fi masterpiece on a shoestring.

Though the mock-doc introduction does run a little long, it’s an apt set-up for the action to come. Drawing from his own experience growing up in South Africa, first time feature-film director, Neill Blomkamp’s depiction of Johannesburg is both ironic and enlightening. Although it is by no means the sole intention of this film to highlight racial issues which are such a huge part of South Africa’s past, the second coming apartheid (segregating aliens not humans) is a key dynamic of the script.

The set up explains that the alien’s mothership came to a standstill over the city 20 years ago. As the world watched and nothing happened, the decision was made to cut into the ship where they found a species of seemingly feral, malnourished creatures, best described as giant ‘prawns’ (the derogatory term for the aliens).

District 9 is lead by the character of Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley), the man in charge of re-locating the ‘prawns’ to a new facility outside of the city. In its raw documentary style, Blomkamp dives headfirst into deep water; vox-popping local black residents to quips such as; “We want them gone. Maybe it would be ok if they were from here, but there not even from our planet.”

Copley’s Wikus is a smug, irritating and selfish representation of all wider humanities flaws. While his bumbling, David Brent-like, jobs worth character is amusing as he guides us through the slum style dwellings of District 9; serving the ‘prawns’ up with eviction notices to be moved to District 10 (Wikus later admits it is essentially a concentration camp), he is also a cruel and uncompassionate scumbag who bellows with laughter as a flamethrower lays rest to a shack filled with mature alien eggs “Can you here that pooping sound?” he rages at the camera. “That’s the sound they make when they explode. Like popcorn”.

Part of the film’s success is propelled by these dark, comedic undertones which pull at the audience to laugh at the most awkward of moments. Where you will laugh it will be short and sharp, and lined with guilt.

The effects used to create the aliens onscreen are astonishingly realistic. Already an accomplished master of special effects, Blomkamp draws from his commercial experience and presents much of the CGI in the light of day. When we are presented with the main alien characters; the amusingly named Christopher Johnson and his playful, cute son Little CJ, the true skill of this team comes to light, portraying the aliens as living, breathing, four-dimensional characters that feel every bit as real as the human actors.

The intricate touches of creating a realistic species in District 9 are a joy. Among the delights is their inexplicable taste for cat food, which results in a roaring inner slum black market where shady gangs of Zimbabwean refugees trade tins of the food to the prawns in exchange for weaponary (which can ironically only be used my the aliens). Another touch of class is in the alien language; subtitled for us onscreen, they speak in grunts and clicks, yet both humans and aliens can understand each other.

With eerie similarities to the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ cautionary tale delivered in The Beach, District 9 makes stark and disturbing observations about our own questionable natures as a species. Where it succeeds is presenting a world which although grotesque and painful to watch, is every bit a possibility should an event of this nature occur.

As the films progresses we see Wikus’ character develop. Fate deals him unlikely blow, and as a result his own desperation and isolation from the human race lead him to discover a conscience and compassion which drive the film toward its climatic ending. After meeting Christopher and Little CJ, a clever twist in direction turns the film into a soulful, heart-warming tale about family and identity. The film maintains an overwhelming sense of intensity by denying the audience with any sense of perpetual hope of any one point; as the suspense builds to a breaking point it’s almost excruciating to watch.

For 29-year-old native South African, Blomkamp, District 9 is a shining beacon of light which will propel him into the big-time. I’m glad his initially planned adaptation of video game franchise, Halo had the plug pulled. Now, let’s give this guy $145 million and see what movie magic he can create.

Anticipation: 5. With Jackson’s backing the marketing campaign was cheap yet captivating. The teaser trailers made it hotly anticipated.

In Retrospect: 5. The bar just got raised. A low budget sci-fi gem.

The answers, and much more, are blowing in the wind.

Beyond being an exploration of friendship, compassion and hope, Ramin Bahrani’s Goodbye Solo is also a warm and thought-provoking examination of what it is to be human in an ever changing, often cruel world.

Small town Winston-Salem in the US state of North Carolina is the setting for this character driven drama. The film captures a month-long period in the lives of two men; Solo (Souleymane Sy Savane), a bright, young Senegalese immigrant - poster-boy for the American dream - working as a cab driver to provide for his family, and William (Red West), a 70-something redneck ex-biker whose dreams and faith in life have long died out.

The lives of the two men collide when Solo picks William up in his cab. An unlikely relationship develops after William offers Solo a large sum of money if, later in the month, he agrees to drive him on a morbid, one way trip up into the mountains of Blowing Rock National Park. Unable to comprehend William’s desire to end his life, Solo works his magic, relentlessly pestering him with gestures of friendship and inviting him to share in his simple yet rich life, until a reluctant yet charming bond begins to form between the two men.

Goodbye Solo is Bahrani’s third feature film, following on from 2005s award-winning Man Push Cart, which glimpses into the life of a former Pakistani rock star who, having moved to Brooklyn, is now a pushcart vendor meandering beneath the towering skyline of Manhattan, struggling to make a living selling coffee and donuts to passers by. And 2007s Chop Shop, set among the sprawling auto repair shops (chop shops) of Queens; it tells the raw, and moving story of 12-year-old Alejandro and his 16-year-old sister – forced into prostitution - trying to make their way as they endeavour to transform a clapped out van into a tacomobile.

Bahrani, who shares the writing credits here with Bahareh Azimi, is a director and writer with unprecedented talent for capturing the essence of human emotion on film. As in both previous pictures, in Goodbye Solo he tells a story, which, without ever being complex, and never becoming a bore, is moving and incredibly relevant in today’s modern world.

In his key actors, he has selected complete polar opposites. Souleymane Sy Savane is a newcomer by any respects; fresh and untainted by the boundaries of Hollywood. Whereas Red West is a Hollywood bit part veteran and one-time bodyguard to Elvis Presley who has been in 'the biz' for more than five decades. Where Red West’s William conceals in this eyes a lifetime of let downs, regret and pain, Souleymane Sy Savane’s Solo’s eyes are filled with hope, ambition and promise.

As the day of the trip to Blowing Rock approaches, William proves a tough cookie to crack, only offering Solo tiny glimpses of the man behind his cold, grimacing and gnarly exterior. And where inroads are made, William swiftly retreats back into his lonely shell, unwilling or unable to allow a change of heart. Yet as Solo persists in showing William the small joys of life; drinking with his friends, inviting him into his home, hanging out with Solo’s smart, charming young stepdaughter, Alex (Diana Franco Galindo), the play-off between the two characters ignites to create a rare and intriguing onscreen chemistry.

Solo is adamant in the pursuit of his dreams. He wants to become an air host on the local domestic airline. His Mexican wife (Alex’s mother) is expecting his child. He wants to provide for them and be a great father. He sends money back to Senegal to care for his family there. He is solid, caring, kind, friendly and well liked. All these things we can imagine were once traits of William’s personality, yet fate and the cruelty of life have removed them from his being. It’s a subtle, well-judged approach which showcases a script which is as strong as the actors within.

As well as the contrast between characters, Bahrani’s film explores the contrast between cultures. Where from his African roots, it’s ingrained in Solo to respect and care for his elders, there is a strong sense that this has been lost in American society. Perhaps, it suggests, William is a victim of this loss.

Not everyone will appreciate the morbid sentiment at the heart of the film. The long build up to an inevitable, despairing and uneventful ending will leave some dissatisfied, but in truth it's a far greater reward than any clichéd ending would have offered.

Goodbye Solo enforces a way of life; one where self-belief and love transform and touch the lives of those around them. It offers hope, but reminds us that some things cannot be changed. It never leaves the realms of reality, instead quietly and delicately peeping into the lives of Solo and William. Bahrani’s film is a multilayered success, proving his worth as a frontrunner at the helm of the America’s independent cinema clan.

Anticipation: 3. Having enjoyed warm receptions at a host of festivals, word-of-mouth have hyped this beyond expectations.

In Retrospect: 4. I hate goodbyes. I love Goodbye Solo.

A whole new spin on working from home.

Bruce Willis is an action man with a fetish for a film with a twist. This goes a long way to explain why he mistakenly agreed to the role of hard-nosed FBI agent, Tom Greer in Jonathan Mostow’s Surrogates.

You’ve seen those relentless ads that spam your inbox and occupy the classified section of your local newspaper right? Those that glorify the benefits and huge earning potential of working from home… Of course, in reality we know it would not work out so well.

Taking the concept of working from home to a whole new level, Surrogates is set in a future where everybody not only works from home, but live out their entire lives from home. With super-high-tech, customisable robot vessels to take care of everyday life for them, the human race just kick back in lazy boy chairs and transmit their thoughts through the air; safe from harm, crime and disease. An insane concept, but one which is working out pretty dandy for humanity. Crime rates fall by 99%, the streets are clean and finally Warhammer geeks can get girls with the allure of rock hard abs, pouting lips and big baby blues.

In the past, films like Artificial Intelligence: AI, iRobot and the Terminator saga have toiled with the troublesome results of a world where robots roam as free-thinking entities or the dangers of mixing the biological with the mechanical. Surrogates does offer something new, presenting us with a society which, obsessed with physical perfection and fearful of the dangers of everyday life, has undergone radical change.

However, for the first twenty minutes or so you’ll be trying to work out exactly what is going on. And when you do you’ll probably think; ‘wow, what a cool idea’. Then the novelty will wear off and once again you’ll realise you are not entirely sure what’s happening. Except this time it’s not because the movie is concealing a big, mind bending reveal; it’s because Jonathan Mostow’s film is a bit of a mess, with a weak script and badly developed plot ideas. From a director whose last big project was post-prequel trilogy car crash, Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines, this film does little to justify his creative worth.

Where the story fails to touch base, there’s plenty of juicy action and CGI to keep things going. Willis is as you would expect; brooding, solid and convincing as a troubled cop with a moral dilemma (yes, he’s on familiar ground). As he begins to realise the sorry state the world has gotten itself into, in true Die Hard style, he sets about single handily stopping a plot which could lead to the annihilation of, not just a building full of hostages, but the entire human race. Heavy stuff. Yet Seeing Willis (with hair) jump from building to building in hot pursuit of a suspect is a weird yet equally cool spectacle.

James Cromwell who stars as George Cantor, inventor of the surrogates, is a very respectable and talented actor, but in a flat, wooden and clichéd role of man-consumed-by-power, even he is a lost cause. Greer’s FBI agent partner, Peters, is played by Radha Mitchell. Best remembered for her role in Pitch Black, she an actress yet to prove herself as a special talent. Here she merely acts as background material, haplessly written in to throw a spanner in the works at the appropriate moment.

Attempts to inject a true sense of humanity fall flat, with uninteresting side plots like the emotional pain felt by Greer and his wife Maggie (Rosamund Pike) over the death of their young son. As if plucked directly from Spielberg’s Artificial Intelligence: AI script, it would be hard to find a more recycled and blatantly plagiarised idea.

If you take away nothing else from Mostow’s Surrogates, take heed of the moral message within; if we keep going the way we are, living our lives the way we do, and relying on technology to make things easier for us, then boy are we on a self-destructive path. Scrap that. Robots are cool. Although remarkably less cool whenever Mostow is involved.

Anticipation: 1. The film literally appeared from nowhere, with no buzz, very little promotion. Relied on the star to sell the film.

In Retrospect: 2. If I could have a surrogate, he would not look like Bruce Willis in a wig.

Blood is a tough stain to clean.

Although covering a pretty grim topic, there is plenty to smile about in Christine Jeffs’ Sunshine Cleaning. Lorkowski sisters, Nora (Amy Adams) and Rose (Emily Blunt) aren’t having much luck in life. Former prom queen and cheer team captain, Nora is a struggling single mother stuck in a destructive affair with a married ex-football captain turned cop (Steve Zahn). Her screw-up, goth sister Rose can’t hold down a job and spends her days getting high and wallowing over the untimely death of her mother.

Fate leads them to start an unlikely, grim, yet lucrative cleaning business; mopping up the bodily remains from crime scenes. The emotions in this downbeat indie flick run deep, and there is enough depth in the characters and storyline to allow the audience to really care for their fates. Amy Adams is a gem with a likeable venerability that, after this, her strong performance in Doubt and this year’s Julia & Julia, will continue to take her up the ladder towards a-lister status. And Blunt is an equally effective sidekick, proving she possesses the skills and charm that would have given Anne Hathaway a run for her money in the 2008s delectable Rachel Getting Married.

Sunshine Cleaning addresses a flurry of profound topics; the struggles of life, the pain of finding ‘the one’ and the grief that lingers with family following a death. As it’s covering so much territory in a sub-90-minute timeframe, it generally does not manage to cut deep enough below the surface of each issue to extract a real sense of achievement, and so although meaningful and enjoyable in its convictions, it is easily forgotten. The cast is strong and well-judged, and as a light, though undeniably morbid piece of entertainment, Sunshine Cleaning cleans up.

The boys are back in town.

In (500) Days of Summer, Director, Marc Webb plays around with ideas and techniques that would, in many films, only create confusion and discontinuity. However, with almost relentless success he pulls off scene after scene of charming, artistically poised filmmaking.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom Hansen; a young man who wears his heart on his sleeve. As life often dictates, Tom has abandoned dreams of being an architect after graduation and has fallen into a mediocre job, writing cheesy slogans for a greeting card company. When his boss drafts in new assistant, Summer (Zooey Deschanel), the job looks a little more interesting, he perks up and his intrigue soon turns to infatuation.

The film follows a jumbled timeline within the allotted 500 Days, jumping between the early days of infatuation, the first signs of trouble, and where it all goes wrong. It’s rare to see a film that plays so drastically with chronology and the natural order of a story, which flows so naturally from scene to scene.

Gordon-Levitt has come a long way since his child actor beginnings on Third Rock from the Sun. He has depth and range that are a rare find in an actor. Webb uses close-up shots a lot, extenuating the quality of his two leads; examining their intricate movements with poise. Gordon-Levitt works the camera with delicate charm. I can’t take my eyes of him. Older and matured, he bears eerie resemblance to the late Heath Ledger. And where we have sadly been deprived of Ledger’s growth as an actor, Gordon-Levitt is consolation, and a rising star to be watched.

I’m not sure if it’s the way director Marc Webb presents Summer onscreen, with intimate close-up camera shots, well chosen sexy yet modest outfits and plenty of confidence, or if there is just something about Zooey Deschanel; the startled glare of her pale blue venerable eyes, her thick brown hair, and nuances in her movements which captivate me, but after (500) Days has been playing for around 10 minutes, I have fallen completely and utterly in love with her.

So, when Tom falls for Summer, I am there with him. I feel his anguish as he struggles to find the balls to ask her out, as they playfully frolic about and discover each other, I am learning too, and when it all goes wrong, I too am heartbroken. Not just because Summer had broken up with Tom, but because I, like so many more men, have been there before. It’s familiar. Summer is familiar, and so it all makes sense.

The chemistry between boy and girl bring the film to life. Friend’s in real life, Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt re-create the electric vibes of an early romance with perfect precision, and the heartache that follows is at moments both heart-wrenching and hilarious.

Webb’s background as a music video director has inspired a film which uses music to assist the narrative. It’s a true indie offering, filled with a gloriously diverse indie soundtrack incorporating nostalgic classics from the likes of The Smiths, Simon and Garfunkel and Hall & Oates, as well as modern offerings Regina Spector and Wolf Brothers.

The film is primarily a role-reversal rom-com, showing a male lead as sensitive and caring and the female as selfish and flawed. And beyond this (500) Days is essentially a statement that all of us are flawed and in our search for love we are looking for someone to shift our own insecurities onto. The statement is truly profound and is a fresh departure from the regurgitated cliché material which dominates the Hollywood box office.

Webb’s integration of numerous visual and musical elements into the film makes his offering both rich and meaningful. He hits us with dreamlike French film noir shorts and 'camp-tastic' singing and dancing musical numbers which somehow slot into the narrative with ease. In an industry where rom-coms are delivered thick and fast, he has managed to find a path which puts a completely new spin on the old format.

Kudos go out to both Webb and his location scout who hunted down some great spots to shoot in Los Angeles; showing a city which can often come across as soul-less, as possessing an aesthetic and a historical side that pre-dates Hollywood.

Everything in (500) Days has been expertly crafted to break the mold. Where for some, Webb’s anti rom-com might have gone a step too far, for me it was a triumph and a laugh in the face of repetitive cliché.

Anticipation: 3. It carried a nice little buzz, but would have slipped by unnoticed in the night more many.

In Retrospect: 4. Perfectly combining film with music and script with character, Webb’s debut feature length film transcends entertainment and manifests itself as art.

In this four day period where I have been forced to work to keep money coming in and food on the table, I have had to curb my writing. But, in preparation for the next reviews which are coming along, here is my little rant on the Hollywood cash cows. Bad films make good money. Good films make not so good money.

As an example, it’s pretty obvious from my reviews of Funny People and Adventureland which I rate as a better film.

Adventureland pulled in $16,025,394 at the US Box Office to date.

Where as Funny People took $59,679,500…

What does this tell us? It’s an obvious answer really. Big names sell tickets. That’s why Adam Sandler takes a $15 million pay check and Judd Apatow can do whatever the hell he wants.

Maybe everyone sells out in the end. Maybe I would too.

Keep an eye on my blog for reviews of:

Sunshine Cleaning

You’ll think you’re off to the funfair and wind up at Disneyland.

Don’t be fooled by the title, this summer season comedy from Superbad Director, Greg Mottola, is no thrill ride but it is however a deeply rich and authentically funny portrayal of young adults coming-of-age in late-80s suburban America.

Tackling the often troublesome topic of young love and sexual discovery in film is a notoriously hit and miss game. Taking the comedy driven indie flick blueprint and weaving around it a plausible and captivating story is no easy feat. It requires delicacy, the talent of a strong (preferably relatively unknown) cast and plenty of subtlety in performance, directing and scriptwriting. Beyond this, to meet the criteria of the niche genre, you have to essentially create a film which is constructed around boredom; one where the audience is engaged but where nothing hugely dramatic ever really happens.

Adventureland follows high school graduate James Brennen (Jesse Eisenberg) who is preparing for a summer of fun and self-discovery with his classmates on a tour of Europe. When his family hit financial difficulties, this dream swiftly collapses around him and he is forced to take a summer job at the local amusement park to raise funds for college. For anyone who had had to take a crappy summer job and ended up having a blast, this is a film you will relate to.

Cinema goers expecting Superbad II will be somewhat surprised, if not put-out by the lack of slapstick overkill. But in fact Mottola’s decision to pull back on the puke joke throttle leaves a lot of room for the masterful delivery of a wholesome ‘dramedy’. It’s tense, it’s awkward and at times cringeworthy, and there are numerous laugh-out-loud gems that will have you gasping for air.

The characters in Adventureland are closely linked to those in Mottola’s own teenage years. Where other directors have fallen by the wayside and added too much of a personal stamp, Mottola keeps the reins pulled tight and his closeness to the script only adds a strong sense of depth to the each of the characters.

Added to the charming exterior is a generous cast of up-and-coming talent. Eisenberg shows a rare screen presence; delicately delivering laughs and emotion with Woody Allen-esque charm which easily justifies comparison to better known stars like Juno/Year One star, Michael Cirra. Twilight’s Kristen Stewart excels in her role as deeply sarcastic and severely mixed-up teen, Em. And the play-off between her corrupted state-of-mind and sexual prowess and James’ inexperienced innocence is a joy to behold.

Although goofy and awkward it’s very believable and the emotional struggles of the young adults will ring true to most generations. Canada’s answer to Matthew McConaughey, Ryan Reynolds, takes an unlikely bit-part as charming scumbag alpha-male, Mike Connell. He is well cast, presenting an inexplicably likeable character in a man whose testosterone fuelled objective is solely to lie and cheat his way into the pants of unsuspecting and always willing teenage girls (despite the presence of a wife). A love triangle ensues between Mike, Em and James.

The amusement park is run on a shoestring budget by the questionable yet amusing management duo, Bobby (Bill Hader) and Paulette (Kristen Wiig). Hader is on top form displaying a kind of borderline insane eccentricity that jumps off the screen. The games are rigged not to pay out and the rides are death traps.

Light, less noticeable touches of humour are most precious. James wants to work on rides when he starts out, but is repeatedly told by Hader’s Bobby that he is “just more of a games person.” The running joke is a cracker, rubbed in by the necessity for James to wear the games t-shirt. Geeks are on games and hotties and jocks are on rides.

Every character within Mottola’s picture perfect depiction of small town Middle America is deeply rich and enchanting. The cast is diverse and thoughtful, and the story, although uneventful and bleak never becomes a bore. For every geek that got the girl, this is your autobiography. If you are on this film’s wavelength then you will come out with a warm heart and a smile that won’t wipe off for weeks.

Anticipation: 2. People will see it because of Mottola’s Superbad connection. It will slip by most and has nowhere near the buzz that surrounds an Apatow production.

In Retrospect: 4. A charming and delightfully executed surprise from a promising director. Let’s hope there’s more to come.

Watching two movies at the same time makes me nauseous.

A comedy about comedians with more serious undertones, plus a strong pool of humour-mongering talent makes Funny People an intriguing summer offering. Having marked his territory with The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up, Hollywood’s comedic overlord, Judd Apatow returns to the director’s chair with what he has pitched as a more mature film.

But sadly this film is harbouring a personality crisis. Although it is essentially a comedy, it wants to be more than that. It wants to be taken seriously.

After tackling unexpected pregnancy trauma in Knocked Up, Funny People’s subject matter tackles another, albeit darker issue where its lead is forced to consider his mortality.

Apatow’s ex-college roommate and Hollywood Improv buddy, Adam Sandler, plays George Simmons (some vaguely alternative version of himself); a successful, wealthy stand-up comic and film star. And a slimmed down Seth Rogan plays Simmons’ struggling comedian prodigy Ira Wright.

The film starts well, opening with a visit to his doctor who delivers the bad news that Simmons has a likely terminal illness. And the plot ensues as he goes about his life while attempting to deal with the implications of impending death. Simmons soon realises that the fame and success he once craved has left his life empty and without true purpose. Simmons then drafts in Ira to write him some jokes after a bad stand-up performance reveals his own material has become too dark (not commercial enough). The working relationship soon turns into a bizarre friendship where Simmons acts as ‘teach’ and Ira obliges as ‘desperate student’.

Apatow’s script plays out as flawed and sloppy. Simmons' pilgrimage to right his wrongs, and find substance in his life is often misplaced and always without conviction. Rare scenes of stand-up and humorous banter between Sandler and Rogan provide light relief from a film which runs away with itself in the self indulgent 140-minute plus running time.

His therapeutic path to rediscover himself is sentimental cliché at its ugliest. Rogan shines best when he is playing off his two flatmates; Jason Schwartzman’s smug and vaguely successful sitcom actor, Mark Taylor Jackson, and Jonah Hill’s funny, fat and seriously vulgar, Leo Koenig. There’s a great chemistry between the three of them, with the cruel banter between friends that any guys that have lived together will recognise and relish. It’s a shame we don’t get more time to share with this trio as this really could have been its own (far better) movie.

The looming death storyline fails to make the film dark, but instead just acts to confuse the audience. It feels like two films stuck together, drafting in elements of comedy, serious drama and romance.

In Ira, Simmons appears to find an untarnished version of himself before the fame. The film offers up a sense that Simmons wants Ira to take the right path. Where it’s too late for him, there’s hope for Ira to be a better person. It’s money and fame verses morality. Sadly the battle never really gets won by either party. Simmons is too far gone and Ira is too in awe of the fame and money to ever make an impact beyond being his lap dog.

Apatow plays this movie very close to his chest. It’s a family affair. His wife, Leslie Mann plays love interest/the one that got away, Laura. And the fruit of his loins even play her on-screen children. Most confusing of all is, as the film seems to be coming to a natural close, we are drawn into yet another act where Simmons and Ira head up the coast to visit Laura and her kids. The problem is that Mann and the children can’t really act and so further remove the charm from what is already a two dimensional film.

Where some sharp cuts could have brought the film to a satisfying close at the 90-minute mark, we are subjected to a further hour where the film losses all traction and turns into a bad rom-com cliché focused on a love triangle between Simmons, Laura, and her husband Clarke, played by Eric Bana. Bana’s arrogant and authentically Australian Clarke is the only saving grace of this final furlong, and by the time the characters work out their differences and the duo head back to Los Angeles, I don’t care what they have learnt nor understand the point of the lesson.

Sandler’s portrayal of a troubled comedian using his comedy to mask feelings of awkwardness and self-loathing rings true, and as always, he puts in a slick, if underwhelming performance which does not match up to those delivered in Punch Drunk Love and Reign Over Me.

The lack of any real direction or conviction in the ideas the film puts forward makes Funny People a mediocre offering from a director whose fame has obviously gone to his head. As you would expect from the Apatow comedy factory there are plenty of cock jokes to satisfy audiences’ pre-ordained expectations. But even they feel a bit out of place in the mish-mash of humour.

Filled with too many big ideas Apatow’s characters are simply left meandering around the big screen with little purpose. George is going to die. George is not going to die. It doesn’t mater. For future reference, it’s not that we don’t want serious films to be funny; it’s that we don’t want funny films to try to be this serious.

Anticipation: 4. It looked like something a bit different and quirky, with a great cast and an intriguing concept.

In Retrospect: 2. A huge disappointment. Apatow has obviously built up such a name that no-one dared tell him he created a big mess.

It's not that I can't write or that I don't know how to finish things, but I have been watching new films and working on about five reviews at the same time. Each of them seems to be taking a diffrent shape and so I am just going with the flow and seeing how they turn out.

Watch this space for reviews of:

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

The Proposal

The Hangover

Funny People (turning into a 1500 word critique)

and Antichrist and Moon if I make it to the cinema this weekend.

Toodles.

Over the coming days and weeks I will begin to upload reviews of movies. Using this blog as a medium I will create a portfolio of work which I hope others will come to find useful and enjoy.