Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010)

This is an adaptation of the graphic novel series by Bryan O'Malley, of which I have read half of the issues so far, deciding to start before I watched the film. Edgar Wright ("Spaced", Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) directs this astounding adaptation, which has a visual flair beyond anything else this year, and a script that is just good enough to keep up.

The film stars Michael Cera as the title character, who we first see dating 17-year-old high schooler Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), though they haven't even held hands yet. Scott Pilgrim also has a band, Sex Bob-bomb, which has two friends of his, Stephen Stills ("The Talent", played by Mark Webber), and Kim Pine (Alison Pill), who Scott used to date. The band also plays at Young Neil's (Johnny Simmons) house. Scott's house is one he lives in with gay roomate Wallace Wells (Kieran Culkin), and sleeps in the same bed as Wallace, though nothing is going on.

This is Scott's life before he has a dream, where he sees a mysterious girl. He then sees that girl at a store, before meeting her at a party, where he tries and fails to pick her up. His desperation knows no bounds however, and he succeeds in picking her up the second time.

The description sounds pretty normal so far, but things take a somewhat drastic shift here. After Scott starts dating this girl, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), it turns out he must defeat her seven evil exes to continue dating her.

The plot summary is amazingly straight-forward, but the plot really isn't the most important part of this movie. The visual design replicates the comic-book feel amazingly, with transitions that look like panels side-by-side, and onomatopoeic sounds that pop up on the screen to show a phone ringing, and generally energise the movie.

Edgar Wright is an incredibly talented director, and a large part of that is in recruiting the best talent he can find to help bring his vison to life. His DP Bill Pope (Army of Darkness, The Matrix, and Spiderman 2, among other films) is able to create an amazing visual style, by far the best of a movie released so far this year (including Inception), that is incredibly good at replicating the video-games that the comic and movie seem to be inspired by (fighting games, early Nintendo). Wright also recruited Jackie Chan's fight choreographers, and it shows in the amazing fight scenes. The fight sequences are shot in such a way that, though it may cut incredibly fast, you actually get a sense of spatial awareness in the fights because they shoot in a way that is a little bit reminiscent of Hong Kong action movies.

The plot may be simple, but the performances are amazingly strong, with Chris Evans and Brandon Routh stealing their scenes as evil ex two and three respectively, not to mention Jason Schwartzman as big bad Gideon Graves, and the dialogue is great, with words such as "Hasbian" used to describe bi-sexuals. Michael Cera is able to finally show that his comedic style doesn't have to be annoying, with the possible exception of Arrested Development, in this movie. He delivers the lines in a brilliantly deadpan way that plays against type a little bit, with Scott being a bit dumber than the average Michael Cera character, but works quite effectively.

The references, as you would expect in a Wright movie, come thick and fast, but often aren't the centre of the jokes, which is something that people seem to forget these days. The only joke I can think of where the reference took a primary role was the "Seinfeld" gag, which was a hilarious parody. The visuals are full of sight gags, such as Scott's shirt, which has, by my count, Astro Boy, the Fantastic Four and Rock Band references. There are also moments where he turns convention on it's head, such as Nega Scott, who turned out to be a really nice guy instead of evil Scott the way you would expect in a video game.

Overall the film plays much more like a $60 million version of Spaced, though the subtle British comedy isn't quite as present. Not that there's anything wrong with that. This is a fine entry in Edgar Wright's body of work, and hopefully it will allow him to continue to do what he does best with the money it makes.

5/5

Cyrus (2010)

Well, at the end of my last review, I put Four Lions before Cyrus, but it turned out that the tickets we had booked put Cyrus before Four Lions. Not that it really matters anyway.

Cyrus is a film about John (John C. Reilly), and Molly (Marissa Tomei), and her son Cyrus (Jonah Hill). John has been divorced for seven years, and the film begins with his ex-wife Jamie (Catherine Keener) coming over to visit, only to catch him masturbating. She has came because she is worried about his increasingly depressed state, even more so after she announced her engagement to Tim (Matt Walsh). Jamie invites John to a party, where he embarrasses himself in a way that you only do in comedies, before meeting Molly at the party.

Molly and John hit it off instantly and, after Molly leaves in the middle of the night when she comes over for the second time, he stalks her to her house and falls asleep parked outside her house. He wakes up the next morning, goes to her house, and finds Cyrus, who seems friendly at first, but turns out to be worse for their relationship than they could imagine due to him and his mothers' relationship.

The reason that this plot summary is sitting here is because I want the very few of you who read this blog to understand the sort of movie I am talking about here. It is a romantic comedy, albeit an "indie" rom-com, but a rom-com nonetheless. It is formulaic, and follows the conventions throughout the movie. I find rom-com's excruciating to watch, and leave the room very abruptly if there is one on.

Cyrus was not excruciating to watch. The hand-held camera shook like hell, objects were zoomed in on with home-video techniques, the dramatic moments were telegraphed like there was no tomorrow, and the whole thing, frankly, stank of that sickening sweetness that only a modern Romantic Comedy has. But I watched it, without thinking of nails on a chalkboard as I do when stepping in to see a romantic comedy playing on the TV.

The reason behind this is the way the Duplass brothers make their films, similar to the way that Apatow makes his. They give a huge amount of freedom to improvise, knowing that with talented comedians they are more likely to be funny when they improvise than when they stick to the script. Jonah Hill and John C. Reilly, both talented comedians, use this to breathe life into a movie that otherwise would have had none. Their interactions, which still follow the conventions of romantic comedies, with Cyrus being the obstacle that comes between the happy couple, are hilarious. They play off each other naturally and their ability shines even in scenes without each other. It doesn't take a talented comedian to make a drunk character hilarious, but it sure as hell helps.

The movie can't escape the plot with improvisation, and that is ultimately the downfall of what could have been a far better comedy. The improvised scenes, particularly the beginning where the rom-com plot hasn't started yet, are very funny, to the point that I was chuckling through most of the first third or so. The plot was thin, but it was just present enough to be cloying, particularly towards the end, where the bulk of the plot seemed to be for some reason.

The technical elements really didn't help, with the music being designed to reinforce the rom-com stereotype, and the camera-work a stark reminder of the way that cinematography seems to have taken a back seat over the last decade or so, with film-makers who started in the last decade often not bothering with the conventions of their antecedents, to the point that tripods are supposedly unecessary. The editing was good though, moving along at a good clip, though the plot would have moved at a fast clip anyway.

Overall, I would give this a 3/5, based on the hilarious performances of Jonah Hill and John C. Reilly, who stood out in the dramatic moments as well. The rest of the movie should have just functioned as a frame-work for their performances, but in the end it interfered far too much with my enjoyment of their performances, and made the movie a lot worse, in my mind at least.

Predicament

This review is a bit old, seeing as I watched the film on Sunday, but I was a bit too busy with other things to get around to it. Either way this is my first (out of three) reviews from films I will be watching at the New Zealand Film Festival.

And what a way to start. Predicament is the new film from director Jason Stutter (Tongan Ninja, Diagnosis Death), making his first "real feature", collaborating yet again with Jemaine Clement, who is such a New Zealand icon he needs no introduction. The film also stars Heath Franklin ("Chopper Reid"), Tim Finn (musician from Split Enz and the Finn Brothers), and first-time film actor Hayden Frost.

Predicament is an adaptation of a New Zealand crime novel of the same title by Ronald Hugh Morrison, and it is a visually stunning dark comedy about student Cedric Williamson (Hayden Frost), who is a scrawny loner, and sometimes slips into fantasises about his dream girl. He is then unsuspectingly used by black-mailer Mervyn "Merv" Toebeck (Franklin), as an alibi for the "suicide" of his father. Merv pretends to be distraught so he can crash at the ill-kept mansion that Cedric lives at with his grand-mother, and insane father (Tim Finn), who is building a giant tower to heaven to see his dead wife. Soon Merv has brung in his friend Spook (Jemaine), and they decide to rope Cedric into a blackmailing scheme, where they take images of men having affairs at the local club. Cedric goes along with their plan, trying to get back at the Bramwell family, who swindled his family out of land.

Unfortunately things don't go to plan with their plan as Cedric, torn by guilt, decides to tell their mark, who was poorer than they expected, about the fact they had no camera, only the flash bulb. After a little bit of persuasion they find Blair Bramwell, the spoiled son, sneaking off with his step-mother. Spook screws up the plan, and suddenly the police are on their tail.

In a lot of ways this is essentially a Coen Brothers-esque film set in New Zealand. A lot of the dark comedy parts in the film clearly owed a lot to their films, but to call it that would be dismissive. After watching the New Zealand TV series "This is Not My Life", I was shocked at the poor quality of television in New Zealand. This however, along with "I'm not Harry Jenson", is showing that our film industry is on the rise. The comedy, though borrowing from the Coens, is very much in the New Zealand style that has been developing recently. Clement is, as always, hilarious in his slightly off-kilter way, showing his skill at comic timing. Franklin is very good as the boorish bludger Merv, and Frost shows very good skill at playing the awkward teenager.

The cinematography is very good, if a little showy, with quite a few crane shots, and a general sense of polish that really helped to sell the film. The art direction is where the film really succeeds. Very ably re-creating 1930's New Zealand with an almost fairy-tail like brush, the set design adds a lot to the movie. The true show-piece of the set is the tower that Tim Finn's character is building throughout the film. A tower built out of every-day objects, it's haphazard nature makes for some very amusing sight gags, and general jokes made at the Williamsons' expense.

The end isn't the strongest around, and is very much a tonal shift from the rest of the film. It is very strange to have a dark comedy that ends on such a saccharine note, though it does sell it reasonably well. Stutter definitely showed potential as a "proper" director with his two other movies I have seen, but this really realises that promise into a film that is very strong.

I would give this a 4/5, a quite well-realised dark comedy. It loses points on the ending though, and a few minor issues that are ingrained into the movie. The other two films I will be reviewing are "Four Lions", a British comedy about a group of would-be terrorists, and "Cyrus", which is a Duplass brothers film starring John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill.

Rescue Dawn

It's been a couple of months. Not that I haven't stopped watching movies (watched about 30 over the school holidays), but more that I have been absorbing a lot of information recently about film in general. I have been watching a lot of "art" movies, and I have been reading a lot of books on film, all of which has lead me to conclude that my reviews and criticism add very little to anything in terms of film criticism, not that I had any pretensions about this earlier.

I will be coming back to this to develop my writing skills, and to create focussing points for my heated discussions about movies with friends. I probably won't comment on all the movies I have watched in the mean-time, though I will come back to some.

Onto this movie, my third Herzog film, after "Fitzcarraldo", and "Even Dwarfs Started Small". Interesting that my third would be his most accessible film, instead of the first film by him that I watched. But make no mistake, Herzog is a man who does not make easy-to-digest movies, even at his most accessible. Rescue Dawn is the tale of Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale), a German-American pilot involved in a top-secret mission bombing the Ho Chi Minh trail in the early stages of the Vietnam War. This is also a studio film, produced and distributed by MGM.

He is shot down on his first mission, and stays on the run for a while before being captured by the Viet Cong. Once in the prison camp, he befriends the fellow inmates, a mix of Vietnamese and other US pilots. He forms a close bond with Duane (Steve Zahn), who has been in the prison camp for a year and a half. He then formulates a plan to escape by stealing the guards guns when they go to get food by breaking out of their handcuffs and chains using a nail. From there the group get very aggressive, with Eugene DeBruin (Jeremy Davies), who is mentally unbalanced and was against the plan from the start, stealing guns and shoes, but not getting any shoes for other people. This leads to Dieter and Duane trying to make it to Thailand on their own.

Their increasingly depressing tale of survival through the jungle, while Dieter desperately tries to signal US planes, though being shot at as he looks like Viet Cong from up high, reaches a very depressing end with Duane being killed by villagers and Dieter at the end of his wit signalling a plane. But at that point things take a turn for the better as he is rescued by US soldiers, leading to a very sentimental ending, a little unexpected to those who know anything about Werner Herzog.

What makes this phenomenal tale all the better is that it is based on a true story, which Herzog followed earlier in this 1997 documentary "Little Dieter Needs to Fly." Liberties are taken (he was captured twice and the plan had been hatched before he arrived), but the integrity of it remains the same. His penchant for stunning vistas, shot on location, isn't removed when working in the studio system.

He uses the Thailand jungle to great effect, particularly in the demoralising section after the break-out. The cinematography is stunningly effective, shying away from the intensified continuity that is the hallmark of studio films, and the location looks fantastic on film, like in all Herzog films. The Steadicam shots through the jungle are highlights, as are the crane shots of the prison and in the jungle.

The writing is well-paced, telling the story well over the two-hour run-time. Dialogue is often sparse and whispered, with Herzog preferring to let the actions speak for the characters as much as what they say. The ending is perhaps a bit out of character, as he gives the big sentimental ending that Hollywood so often has, complete with text at the end explaining what happened to him in the future. The film is so well-paced though, that the ending feels deserved, if a little over-the-top.

The plot has been done before in movies, but I have never seen one that has been quite so effective. The vistas and story-telling combine very effectively to create a tale that strikes the right balance between depressing and up-lifting. Two hours is a long time to fill with quite a sparse story, but you never really feel bored during watching it.

Overall this would be a 4.5/5 for me, a brilliant film by Herzog, who comes into the studio system making a film that is clearly made on his terms. My gripe with the ending is the main thing holding it back from a 5/5

Devil in a Blue Dress (1995)

One thing I have often asked myself while watching film noirs is why aren't there any black people? The cool black person should have played well with the white audiences, even back in those incredibly racist '40's. Maybe not as the lead, but having more black characters would have lent itself to the noir style.

Devil in a Blue Dress however, is so similar to the way a "black guy" noir would have played that I can see why they weren't made. Maybe the message about racism wouldn't have been as heavy-handed as it was in this 1990's film, but no doubt it would have been there. It isn't that message which I disliked, it was more the way it was presented.

Devil in a Blue Dress is set in 1948 L.A., and follows the honest, hard-working black man who is dumped on by the whites, Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins (Denzel Washington, in a role which he so often plays). Out of luck, and employment, he takes a job from a detective DeWitt Albright (Tom Sizemore), who originally says he is employed by mayoral candidate Todd Carter (Terry Kinney), but turns out to be far more sinister. He is employed to find the mayoral candidate's former lover, Daphne Monet (Jennifer Beals) who happens to sympathise and hang out with black people at illegal nightclubs.

Easy then tracks down a friend of hers, Coretta James (Lisa Nicole Carson), at an illegal black nightclub. He goes to her house and sleeps with her, while finding out a fake address for Daphne. Coretta turns out to be dead the next morning, putting detectives Mason and Miller (John Roselius and Beau Starr) on his tail. To help him find and help Daphne once he realises who DeWitt really is (a criminal), He brings in gun-toting badass Mouse Alexander (Don Cheadle) to help him find her.

The movie oozes with class and style. The cinematography is very impressive, and more than suitably in the style, even though it is in colour. The music is suitable, with a very nice rendition of "'Round Midnight" during a montage as well as a generally jazzy score. Denzel Washington has the sound of a typical gumshoe down, and the voice-over is also quite good. Don Cheadle is electrifying as Mouse Alexander, and Sizemore is menacing as well.

The issue is the predictable story. Most neo-noirs try to get a story which is original and fresh, and put it over the classic noir backdrop. This story is quite uninspired by those standards, and by regular noir standards. The plot is twisty, but the resolution only really serves to hammer in the hammy message of tolerance. The message is poorly handled throughout acutally, with some clumsy scenes thrown in there to try to ingratiate the viewer with the plight of the blacks in the '40's. The third act drags a little as well.

Overall it is pretty good neo-noir, oozing with style as well as giving viewers the first noirish black lead since Shaft, though Shaft is a blacksploitation flick. The story is predictable, but most noir stories are. In the end it is very solid, but it lacks the skill of neo-noirs like "Chinatown", "Blue Velvet" and "L.A. Confidential."

3.5/5, good but could have been better without such a heavy-handed message obscuring the already thin plot.

I'm not Harry Jenson. (2009)

New Zealanders have a certain inherent innovativeness about us. We always look for cheaper solutions to complex problems. We often cobble together these solutions with little more than some no.8 wire, and a can-do attitude. We are also beset by small country syndrome, where we often strive to be the best at what we do to prove to others that we aren't just some speck on the map. These two qualities have led New Zealanders to punch well above their weight in many things, including sport and economics.

They also aid our film industry, which is virtually non-existent. Outside of the very few New Zealand Film Commission grants for film funding, there is no other underlying structure except for Peter Jackson's Wellywood, which is primarily geared towards more expensive US productions. This means that New Zealand directors tend to cobble together films on a shoe-string budget, often improvising solutions to staging and technical faults.

I'm not Harry Jenson is a fantastic example of what New Zealand film-makers are capable of achieving on a low budget. Written, Directed and Edited by James Napier, this is a professional-looking production through and through, suggesting the tremendous amount of time that he, and many others, would have put into this movie to make it this good.

The film follows crime novelist Stanley (Gareth Reeves), who wrote a very successful novel under the pseudonym Mike White. He is struggling to write his next book, about serial killer Harry Jenson, who killed 37 people. On the advice of his agent he goes on a trek in the New Zealand woods, with strangers Marissa (Jinny Lee Story), Jon (Ben Mitchell), Bill (Ian Mune), Margaret (Ilona Rodgers), Rick (Cameron Rhodes), Kevin (Tom Hern), Anna (Rachel Blampied). They are led by tour guide Colby ( Renato Bartolomei.)

The first day is all fun and games, but on the second morning they awake to find Jon murdered. This drives a stake through the group as they grow more and more suspicious of each other, eventually settling on Stanley as the killer after another person turns up dead. We follow from Stanley's perspective, often given insights about him via stories told to others.

The story is told with a mixture of present thriller techniques, combined with some Hitchcockian ones as well. The twists at the end are very good, with some great misdirection throughout the film building to them, which throw you off-guard. I will not spoil them here, in case others (Patrick) want to watch this movie.

The film is wonderfully shot by DP Rhys Duncan, with a great colour scheme and some very sophisticated camera work, including some dazzling helicopter shots of the woods. The camera is very good at capturing little details in people's faces and looks very clear over-all. There are a couple of minor shaky-cam issues, but given the logistics of mounting a camera in some of these situations they are easy to overlook.

The editing is mostly pretty slick as well, particularly in some of the transitions between Stanley's thoughts and what is actually happening. The shots are given plenty of time to linger, and the pace seldom feels rushed and events unfold in plenty of time.The acting was good as well, with brilliant performances from Gareth Reeves and Renato Bartolomei, and solid work from the others.

As a young aspiring film-maker it is very heartening to see that such a professional, polished thriller can be achieved in New Zealand on a low budget. There are many great New Zealand comedies, and a few great dramas, but genre films are rarely made by New Zealanders successfully, and this Hitchcockian thriller is in that respect a great achievement.

my rating is a 4/5, a very good film.

Mystery Team (2009)

The Mystery Team is the first feature film from comedy troupe Derrick Comedy, who have many members in US TV comedy shows, mostly on NBC. This is about a team of Hardy Boy-esque young detectives in a small town, who are still solving similar mysteries now that they are 18, and about to finish High School. They are then given the task of solving a murder of two parents by their younger daughter, and then the movie turns from there, with a balance of these immature buffoons solving the case, and some heavier dramatic stuff about who they are, and why they behave like small children still.

The main mystery team member is Jason (the hilarious Donald Glover from "Community"), who really wants to be a detective, while his dumber side-kick Charlie ( Dominic Dierkes), and "boy genius" Duncan (D.C. Pierson) follow along with him. These three do have very good chemistry together and, as they wrote the film, deliver the lines brilliantly. The love interest of Jason, Kelly (Aubrey Plaza), who is the older daughter who had her parents murdered, also has her moments comedically, but serves more to bring out some of the more dramatic moments.

Donald Glover though, is far and away the best of the main actors. He seems to be innately aware of what he looks and sounds like with the camera pointing at him. His every gesture comes across brilliantly and unforced, while he creates a character which is both hilarious and poignant. The only shame about his performance was that he wasn't able to be delivering lines with his "Community" co-star Danny Pudi, who would have fitted in well to the movie.

The cinematography was also surprisingly good for a comedic first feature. Using almost all non-handheld shots, with some great lighting and dolly use. The cinematography would have only appeared competent in a serious feature by an experienced director, but in a movie like this it truly stands out as being a cut above normal.

The film does have some pretty serious flaws unfortunately. The pacing is one thing that really does not work. The opening couple of scenes set the mood very well, but the solving of the murder does drag a bit, and the dramatic scenes between the mystery team don't always fit smoothly with the comedy. The ending scene is also very effective, showing that for all the change they have gone through they are still just as immature as ever.

The music is also not as good as other elements of the movie, with some musical cues that are re-used far too much. The comedy is a bit hit-and-miss, for example a scene where they fetch a ring out of a toilet is comic gold, whereas a scene with a kid that seems just a bit too mature for his age is quite unfunny as he keeps on coming back. The comedy seems just a bit too much to be based around the child-like mental state of the mystery team, and as a result is inconsistent. When it does hit though, it is often hilarious.


In the end, it is a pretty ambitious first attempt from these guys, and it is often hilarious, but in the end it just didn't quite connect well enough for me to be a brilliant comedy. I will definitely be looking forward to their future work though, whether it be on TV, or another feature like this.

3/5, good in parts but inconsistent overall.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

Sometimes a movie can be so enjoyable that you are able to look through shortcomings in story-telling and just focus on the spectacle. Robert Zemeckis has made a few films like this (Back to the Future trilogy), but this would undoubtedly be his best effort at one of these spectacle films. In fact, convincing my twin Stephen to watch was probably the hardest part of watching this movie, which was an enjoyable, easy viewing experience.

A film noir/comedy set in a world where cartoons interact with real-word characters, The film follows private detective Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) as he takes a job for one of the large animation companies, unwittingly taking pictures of Jessica Rabbit (Kathleen Turner, with concept art above) that would help to frame her husband, and popular cartoon star Roger Rabbit (Charles Fleischer) in murdering 'toon creator Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye). This framing turns out to be part of a larger plot to create a freeway system in L.A by destroying 'Toon Town (where the 'toons live), and the tram system. These lead us to the real antagonist Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd), who has had a prior run-in with Eddie Valiant and his dead brother.

The animation is simply superb, and the interaction between the animated characters and the real people is amazingly well done, down to the 'toons shadows. These are not simply characters drawn in post-production, the filming stage was so well designed and planned that the animated characters fit perfectly into the film world. The animated characters appear to move and touch objects just like the actors are, and the timing is perfect with the interactions between the animated and real characters. The brilliant editing and cinematography play a large role in that as well.

The story is told in a straight-forward manner, which is easy to follow for all-ages, particularly small children who were a key audience of the film. This does mean that the story lacks a lot of exploration, with a few exposition-heavy sequences doing the bulk of the story-telling work, while the rest of the movie continues as a spectacle.

"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" also plays with many of the tropes of film noir, as well as a few specific noir films (mostly "Chinatown", as the framework of one of the sequels features prominently in the plot of this movie though there are more direct references). The femme fatale Jessica Rabbit is brilliant at weaving around and showing up suspiciously, but isn't actually bad, she's just drawn that way. She is actually trying to help Valiant and Roger the whole film, subverting the trope via some great misdirection in every aspect of her character.

There are negatives about this movie though. As a family-friendly movie it lacks a certain edge that you would expect from a noir, though it does make it up for it with some hilarious sexual innuendo ("Dabblin' in Watercolours Eddie?", "Pattycake"). The main part which feels poorly done, as a result of the family-friendly tone, is the ending. The relentlessly upbeat ending is a little out of context, and has far too many flukes and twists (even for a noir, which are famous for twists). The end feeling is a bit unsatisfying, though it was definitely a fun ride up until the kidsy ending.

I felt it was just fun to watch. There was no expectation on of anything greater than a fun movie with a good story, and it mostly succeeded. A major technical feat at the very least, in my opinion a cinematic achievement in creating a family-friendly film that you can watch without your family and still enjoy.

A 4/5, as I was let down by a couple of things that are noticeable, but don't detract from the overall sense of fun I had while watching.

Psycho (1960)

Have you ever had that spooky feeling that something isn't right, or that someone isn't right. Psycho is an exploration of those ideas by brilliant director Alfred Hitchcock. I had already seen Rear Window, Vertigo and North by Northwest, along with various episodes of Alfred Hitchock presents, so I was already comfortable with the visual style and storytelling method of his films. Psycho is in many respects similar to that style, but is also a bit different.

Psycho tells the story of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a secretary who is given $40,000 to put in the bank by her employer. She runs off, and we follow her until, after a few days and some close calls, she is forced to pull over due to weather and stay at the Bates Hotel, ran by Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who lives there with his mother. Marion is killed about halfway into the film, in a scene (pictured above) that is so brilliantly executed that, even though it has been referenced and parodied endlessly, it still is terrifying today.

In fact the whole film is so magnificently crafted that though, as an avid film and TV watcher I already knew the plot, the movie was giving me chills as each scene went by, and each new development happened. The shower scene may be the most memorable, but the reveal about Norman's mother and who killed Marion Crane, is equally potent and scary today as it must have been in 1960.

The Black and white cinematography is very good, with some nice touches such as the voyeuristic look through the peephole and the initial discovery of the Bates hotel. The professional quality of the production team makes this into a film that is very slick for such a low budget. The string score is very unsettling in addition to the B/W shots, and perfectly complements the movie, particularly the shower scene though the musical themes are well-managed throughout.

The acting isn't a strong point in the film, with some good performances by Bates and Leigh, but the rest of the cast often seems just a little bit stilted and a little hammy as well. The acting quality though is certainly one of a budgetary issue more than anything else, and doesn't detract from the overall quality of the film.

In the end though, despite a gripping plot and some very impressive shooting, I can't help but feel that this is just a feature-length version of one of the Hitchcock Presents episodes. Though that is partly the intention of the film, it means that it lacks the scope and characterisation that made Vertigo and Rear Window such great films. Characters in Psycho really aren't given elaborate backstories, as the whole thing is largely an exercise in misdirection, as well as experimenting with a low budget. This means that when characters do things, they do them without explanation, until the framing device that is the ending of Psycho.

The film is certainly good on it's own merits though, and certainly a great film in the Hitchcock canon but I can't quite shake the TV show feel of it though and that in my mind puts it below his other works, as his TV show often had problems with the ending, which carries on into the film. Psycho definitely started a massive sub-genre in horror though, and other Hitchcock films merely tended to work from an existing model.

Overall a 4.5/5, so close but not quite a perfect film, let down by some often poor acting by the supporting cast, and the TV show feel of it.

Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Full Metal Jacket is one of Kubrick's later works, and one that is often seen as his last great film. Kubrick is a very polarising director so it could also be seen as just one in a pile of his films.

Full Metal Jacket holds up very well, and has very good pacing, unlike some other Kubrick films like 2001: A Space Odyssey. It follows the Marine Core during the Vietnam war in two stages. It first looks at their eight-week training course, where we are introduced to a group of trainees, focussing on Private Pyle (Vincent D'Onofrio pictured above) and Private Joker (Matthew Modine). It then looks at the Marines in Vietnam, beginning after the Tet offensive and working around that period, where we also follow Joker, and fellow trainee Cowboy (Arliss Howard) and his squad, though not Pyle, as he kills himself in an iconic scene.

Kubrick again shows his meticulous research ethic in portraying what is often called the most realistic look at a boot camp in film. The way that the drill instructor Hartman (R. Lee Ermey) systematically destroys Pyle, while giving the rest of the group someone to hate in the process, is a brilliant story that has a serious emotional punch to it at the end. The whole process is portrayed as very demoralising, only preparing them for what is to come.

There are some very impressive shots in the boot camp, with the opening scene following Hartman as he inspects the new recruits brilliantly setting the film out, but the truly jaw-dropping shots are left for their Vietnam stage. Every scene in Vietnam just looks stunning and incredibly well-staged by cinematographer Douglas Milsome, obviously working very hard to make the scenes work with Kubrick, with a refreshing lack of hand-held camera in heavy war scenes due to the amount of time put into the editing and the filming. The Vietnam story largely looks at the futility of the situation as the soldiers grow more and more demoralised about what they are achieving. We are also introduced to some more colourful characters, including the instantly recognisable Adam Baldwin (Chuck, Firefly) as Animal Mother, a trigger-happy nutcase.

The acting is brilliant as usual from a Kubrick film. He is often able to coax great performances from his actors due to his relentless drive and perfectionism. I would say that R. Lee Erney and Vincent D'Onofrio stood out as doing the best job in this movie, but it was against very steep competition from the rest of the cast.

The power that this film has is a testament to Kubrick's genius. The way that the story is told is masterful, with both segments brilliantly worked to tie together a very demoralising theme. The closing scene shows a large amount of what went wrong with the Vietnam war from a non-American perspective. Three men are downed while going after one well-hidden sniper, as Animal Mother pushes on to get the sniper. This relentless drive is able to show how mis-guided the Americans were during the Vietnam war, with this sequence representing a microcosm of the war effort.

Overall I would say this would be the best war film that I have ever seen, modern "great war movies" like Saving Private Ryan simply cannot compete for strong story-telling and lush cinematography. 5 out 5

Death in Brunswick (1991)

Often films will switch stylistically part-way through, or try to create a film that is equal parts of two or three genres. It is a tough trick to pull off, as you already have to be invested in the characters for the sudden switch to work. When it does work beautifully you get films like "Blue Velvet", which is able to hold two genres in the balance with ease and improves the film by using the two genres to tell the story.

Death in Brunswick isn't exactly in the same league of film as "Blue Velvet" but it does use the stylistic switch effectively, moving between dark comedy and crime quite well.

This Australian film is about 34-year-old man Carl Fitzgerald (Sam Neill), a bit of a loser who is struggling to find jobs as a cook, as he gets another job at his old mothers insistence, and gets himself mixed up in something far worse. He accidentally murders kitchen hand Mustafa, and has to get his friend Dave (John Clarke) to help him cover it up.

It originally seems as though it is going to be a darkly comedic slice-of-life film, up until the murder. From there on the second half of the film has some darker crime elements, which are at the forefront up until the conclusion. The switch is a little sudden, but not jarring as the characters behave much the same just in a different situation.

The comedic elements often work very well, with the sort of fantastic interplay that you would expect from Neill and Clarke, two of New Zealand's best actors. Neill and Yvonne Lawley as Carl's mother also play off each other quite well. Not every joke lands though, which leads to some slightly uncomfortable scenes which come off a little forced.

As mentioned last paragraph, the acting of Neill and Clarke is top-notch as always and they liven up every scene that they are both in. Other actors such as Zoe Carides, who plays Carl's love interest, aren't quite as good and often feel dwarfed when in scenes with Neill and Clarke. In Carides case, that is quite often.

Director and Writer John Ruane clearly knew where he was going with this, and it shows through the slick pace at which the film moves most of the time, and the music by Phil Judd is good at setting the tone as well. There is a little in-joke relating to Phil Judd's involvement in Split Enz which is quite funny in addition to the music.

One aspect which was a little frustrating to me was the time-stuck setting. For older people it would probably have some nostalgic value, and would have seemed quite fresh at the time, but to someone not alive at this time the setting is so very '80s that it leads to some teeth grinding at points in the film.

I think that this is a quite well-made film, with very few major errors, which I enjoyed quite a lot of.

3.5/5

Il Conformista (The Conformist) (1970)

The Conformist is my first taste of Italian new wave films. After recently watching the brilliant documentary on cinematography "Visions of Light", which featured the Conformist quite a bit, I decided to take a look at this movie based on the brilliant scenes that they showed.

It didn't disappoint. Every scene is perfectly photographed and lit (an example of which is the scene that this image is taken from), with the camera being used brilliantly to guide the viewer around this rather complex tale of Marcello Clerici (Jean-Louis Trintignant), a possible homosexual and member of the Facist secret police.

The story constantly plays with the chronology, moving back to his childhood to explain why he is the way he is, moving to a scene in a car which makes no sense at the beginning but becomes far more important later on. The bulk of the story is about his first murder, that of his former Philosophy Professor. He is also engaged to be married and brings his rather interesting wife Giulia (Stefania Sandrelli).

The title also explains one of the key parts of this story, which is that Marcello is weak-willed and, as a result of his past, is desperate to be perceived as normal, despite not knowing what normal people do. This is shown many times through the movie, but none quite as potent as the final scene, where he guides a blind friend down an alley only to out him as a Facist and run away.

The actors in this movie are very good, and create a sense of chemistry between each of them which helps make some of the more emotional points of the movie ring very true. The performances are very low-key and don't overdo dramatic scenes in the way that people are accustomed to.

The people who really shine in this movie though are director Bernardo Bertolucci and cinematographer Vittorio Storaro (who would later go on to photograph Apocalypse Now). Bertolucci, who also adapted the novel by Alberto Moravia, really is able to make all aspects of this film function without a hitch in bringing his vision to screen.

Having lived in Italy for two years (from when I was 8 to 10, though in Milan, not Rome where the film is largely set) Bertolucci really conveys the mentality of the Italians very well, and gets the feeling of the period perfect (based on what I read and was told). A large part of successfully bringing this to the screen is the breathtaking cinematography.

Storaro does some really lavish and brilliant shots through the movie, using pretty much everything done in cinematography up to this point, including the recent (at the time) technique of hand-held cinematography used extensively by French new wave films. Every shot serves a purpose and particular styles are used to convey emotion, such as the hand-held camera to disorientate and crane shots to give a feeling of grandeur and space.

The shots are complimented by some great lighting, that shows that playing with shadows isn't just for black and white films and the changes in lighting often are used to suggest where in the chronology of the film this is set. For example the dawn scene of the eventual murder of the professor is a different colour to the scenes of Marcello's childhood. This easily conveys different time periods without the inter-titles used by so many movies to tell you that the time has changed.

This is one of the all-time great films, and assumes that you are able to keep up with the very dense story at all times, seldom repeating a point. I have yet to see Bertolucci's other work, but this makes me think it should be a high priority.

What else can I give it but a 5 out of 5, a perfect film that seems to be often neglected by people, though I guess an inclusion in "Visions of Light" isn't to be sniffed at.

Kick-Ass (2010)

Kick-Ass is a film that shows many of the good and bad things of superhero movies, though the bad tend to show through more than the good.

Kick-Ass is about average teenager and comic-book enthusiast Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) who, after the death of his mother and a general feeling of impotence, decides to dress up in a superhero costume and fight bad guys. Along the way he becomes an internet sensation and meets "the real deal" father-daughter team of Big Daddy, pictured above (Nicholas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz).

While Kick-Ass is getting his ass kicked these two are killing mob bosses and drug dealers with stunning ease, on the path of revenge against local mob boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong). The plot eventually becomes more and more driven by this revenge story than the story of Kick-Ass.

The acting in this movie is variable, with a fantastic performance from Nicholas Cage, who uses the Adam West Batman voice despite having a character closer to Christian Bale's Batman. Cage shows that though he is often seen as a hack he still is actually a very good actor when the role demands it. On the other end of the spectrum we have a rather indifferent performance from Aaron Johnson, who just seems to exist, much like his character says in the movie.

The story, though adapted from a graphic novel, seems to have a suspicious amount in common with the first Spider-man film. The main character has a love interest rather similar to Mary Jane Watson, though this one has an interest in comic books. The movie also has the son of the gang boss Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who is very similar to Harry Osborn in the Spider-man comics and films, interested in his fathers business, and eventually becoming the adversary to the respective protagonist.

The way that he and his friends behave also seems to invite comparisons to Superbad, with a similar attitude and a few actors from Superbad (including Mintz-Plasse, though not a friend of Kick-Ass). Their geeky obsessions and interplay are quite good, though derivative of Superbad.

The movie also has a narration which shoehorns in cultural references quite a lot, though almost all feel inorganic and designed to relate with the youth audience instead of advance the story.

The visual style of the film is definitely the major high point, with a style that seems in many respects similar to John Woo movies (Face-off, Hard Boiled), as well as the Sam Raimi films (Evil Dead Trilogy, Darkman, the Spider-man trilogy). It does help set the tone very effectively, though it does make the plot invite some unflattering comparisons to the first Spider-man movie (as mentioned earlier).

The violence is beautifully shot, with copious amounts of blood splattering and great choreography, which is the John Woo aspect of the visual style of this movie. The final scene with Hit-girl, and an earlier scene with Big Daddy are without a doubt the most exciting points of the movie. One thing which I really enjoyed was that many of the scenes lingered on shots during the fighting, which is something many movies these days forget to do.

The ending sets up a possible sequel, though not necessarily one starring Kick-Ass, and resolves the plot-points well. In the end though the film is one with a lofty concept that can't quite deliver.

Overall a 3 out of 5. A good film, but not anywhere near as good as people seem to think it is.

Con Air (1997)

A big-budget action movie is a very tough beast to master. If you put the proper amount of time into every aspect of the film you get something that has a great plot and special effects, as well as usually some pretty good actors. If you get the balance wrong, you get movies like Con Air.

Con Air is the sometimes-intentionally, but mostly unintentionally hilarious tale of a group of convicts who steal the plane transferring them between super max prisons, led by Cyrus the Virus (a ridiculously hammy John Malkovich). On the other side of the coin you have recently paroled ex-U.S. Ranger Cameron Poe (Nicholas Cage in a role indicative of his future performances) hitching a ride on the plane to get to see his daughter for the first time trying to stop them, along with U.S. Marshal Vince Larkin (John Cusack).

As the picture attached would lead you to believe, this movie is all about excess. The all-star cast including John Malkovich, Steve Buscemi, and Ving Rhames really ham it up, giving ludicrously over-the-top performances. Dave Chappelle, in one of his earlier roles, gives a hilarious tone to his cameo as well. The fake southern accent of Cage is one of the things which really got to me as I watched this, begging him for whatever reason to go back to a normal voice instead of continue on with the ridiculous charade.

The writing in this film is a real hoot with lines such as "I got a bad feeling, son. I'm feeling like maybe I'm not supposed to make it" from a man who just got shot are hilariously bad, along with the necessary melodramatic scenes being hammed up by the actors to give them an even more humorous touch than usual. The plot is predictable to a tee, equal parts "Die Hard" and "Commando", with other '80's plot devices thrown in for good measure.

The special effects and cinematography are perhaps the strongest point of the movie, with some really convincing explosions, gore and flying shots, mixed with some competent cinematography keeping things going along nicely. The piece of special effects wizardry that was really brilliant was the dead body of Dave Chappelle falling off the plane to land on a car in the middle of a city. the falling looked very good, as did the subsequent crunch on impact.

As I watched it, I wondered if director Simon West was trying to create a loving homage to earlier movies, something new and original, or a spoof of earlier action movies. My gut feeling is that it was a homage that comes off seeming like a spoof because of how over-the-top it is. The direction shows a lack of balance, with a lot of time put into the effects but little into the writing, creating a film that looks good but is even emptier than the average Hollywood action movie.

Perhaps the worst part of this movie is that has actually influenced future directors, with Michael Bay's movies feeling uncannily similar with the ridiculous explosions and lack of plot. Other movies, such as Snakes on a Plane seem to have taken the idea and gone even further, not even bothering to try and seem like a serious film.

Overall a 2 out of 5, but most of that is given to the unintentional hilarity of the whole thing than to the quality of the movie.

The Losers (2010)

Today's action films are starting to develop a distinctive style which differentiates them from some of the other classic era's of action films (1950's, 1980's). The Losers in many respects is a fine example of this new style.

Adapted from a graphic novel, The Losers showcases some pretty slick CGI sequences, mixed with the quick cuts and hand-held shots which, since the Bourne films, have started to dominate the action movie genre.

The movie centers on a CIA black ops team who are betrayed by a mysterious man named Max (Jason Patric) resulting in the deaths of 25 children and supposedly also killing the squad. The team survive and are forced to hide out in Bolivia, as they are unable to get back to the US. They are approached by a woman named Aisha (Zoe Saldana, of Star Trek and Avatar fame), who offers them a way back in to the US, in return for payback on Max.

The actors in this film are often very good, with Chris Evans in particular shining in his role as a wisecracking geek, and showing why he is going to be the next Captain America, among other anticipated roles. Other actors aren't at quite the same standard, with Idris Elba essentially reprising his role on "The Wire", with mixed success.

The cinematography is very sharp, with some very memorable shots (in particular one with the glass falling being used to show Aisha jumping into the bathroom). Unfortunately it is let down by not lingering on the shots enough, particularly in the fight scenes, where one quick cut follows another with almost blinding speed.

The expansive style of the shots invokes the great Hong Kong action movies like Hard Boiled, as well as the American films of the '80's, though you feel a bit stifled by the quick cuts and the distinct lack of blood shown as a result of the low rating.

The CGI is used very effectively as well, such as the destruction of a small island by a sonic device. The devastation of the island is very well shown, with the destruction taking a few seconds (but sticking in your mind for the rest of the movie). The explosions were also surprisingly convincing, considering the $25 million budget. I wasn't completely sure if they were real or not but they definitely did the job in a pinch.

The writing is a weak link in "The Losers". The story is very light on plot, though it is high on great one-liners and references (The Matrix and Reservoir Dogs being two of the more prominent ones). The end product is a fun ride, that leaves you a bit empty at the end as a result of the lack of character development.

The resulting movie from these components is one that feels very much like a generic popcorn movie, though some great moments put it a cut above. The humour in this is really one of the key features in putting it a touch above, as I found myself laughing quite a lot through the short running time.

Overall a 3 out of 5 from me. It was a good way to spend an hour and a half, but nothing more.

Millers Crossing (1990)

This is my first review on this blog, and it is of the 1990 film Miller's Crossing, written and directed by the Coen Brothers. The film centers around a war between Irish and Italian-American gangsters in 1930's America. The main character, Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne), is a lieutenant for the Irish, before switching sides to the Italians.

Tom's allegiances and, by extension, morals in gangster society is the crux of the film, as we see both sides of the war fought by the rivals and see distinctly different moral underpinnings for each side. The Irish set have a loyalty-based system which puts trust and friendship at the forefront, while the Italians have a code of ethics which they follow, with trust and friendship less important.

This is all set about from the brilliant opening monologue of Italian boss Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito), which clearly shows where the key themes lie. This monologue,spoken to Irish boss Leo (Albert Finney), about whether he should be allowed to kill double-crossing underling Bernie Bernbaum (John Turturro) outlines the beliefs of the Italian gangsters, while the firmly negative response by Leo outlines the Irish stance.

The issue of trust and loyalty is further looked at in the romantic relationship between Tom and Verna (Marcia Gay Haden), who is also romantically linked with Leo. Tom's relationship is the key factor in forcing his hand into playing with the Italians until a fiendish manouver at the end.

The film is beautifully shot by Barry Sonnenfield, with some very good obscuring shots, particularly in a bedroom scene which has a suprising twist, and a really nice sense of place is put together, with the time period very obvious and well-shown.

The overall quality of acting is also superb with some great supporting performances, particularly a very small but important cameo by Steve Buscemi among the supporting performances, and Gabriel Byrne's lead performance.

This is a brilliant gangster movie, one which could easily go toe-to-toe with the Godfather in terms of storytelling and cinematography, though not necessarily in scope. A 5 out of 5 from me.