Flixens - Movie Review

New Bond: "Royale" With Some Cheese

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:33:35 -0800

Ian Fleming's licensed-to-kill superspy James Bond is back in both his first and his latest adventure in Casino Royale, the reboot of the venerable film franchise that shows no sign of mellowing with age.

It seems as if each time a new Bond film comes out, the nay-sayers reiterate how Bond has become an anachronism and that his adventures have become old hat. Daniel Craig's debut as 007 will be the main reason that people go to see the movie, I'm sure. I'm happy to report that Craig fills out the tuxedo quite nicely, thank you, dare I say even delivering the best Bond since Sean Connery? At least, I think he's closer to Fleming's original character than Pierce Brosnan and certainly Roger Moore... rougher than either but smoother than Timothy Dalton.

The plot of the film is relatively straight-forward and uncharacteristically low-key. After earning his 00-status and his licence to kill (after fulfilling the 2-kill prerequisite which we've all seen in the trailer, James Bond is assigned his first mission, which takes him to Madagascar to capture a bomb-making terrorist, played by real-life "freerunner" Sebastien Foucan. Simply put, freerunning is the art of running as fast as you can, avoiding all obstacles in your path as gracefully as possible, and Foucan is the inventor of the sport. His talents are put to incredible use in the film's first big action sequence (there are only three). I've never seen anyone move quite like Foucan before, and the sequence is both thrilling and mesmerizing.

Bond sort of blunders the mission and earns the disdain of M, played once again by Dame Judi Dench. Trying to set things right, James teams up with Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), one of Her Majesty's Treasury agents and eventually gets involved in a game of high-stakes poker in Montenegro with Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelson), a global money-launderer to various terrorist organizations who just so happens to be gambling with his clients' money. James' hopes to beat Le Chiffre at his own game in order to leave the villain no safe purchase in the world except with MI6's interrogators.

If you are familiar with the story, then you will know there are some twists along the way, but nothing you won't see coming down Fleet Street.

For the most part, the film succeeds in its mission. As I said, Craig makes a great Bond, the locales are gorgeous and places we will never see otherwise, the stunts are physical (Craig may be the most bloodied and bruised Bond yet), and the story is interesting.

The film falls apart in its final act, which suffers from "LOTR Multiple Ending Syndrome" and just about grinds to a halt before the 3rd and final action piece. At 144 minutes, it's about 20 minutes longer than it needs to be, and could have used some judicious editing to keep the momentum going.

Long-time fans may be upset to see Texas Hold 'Em being played instead of Baccarat, or by the absence of Q and his gadgets and Miss Moneypenny, or by the jumbled timeline of Bond's first mission with the M who replaced a previous M, but it is nice to see Bond back in his Aston Martin again (sorry BMW), and there are some nice moments related to previous Bond traditions, i.e. his response to "Shaken or stirred?" is perfect.

Oh, and it's a Columbia Picture, so get ready for the Sony product placements that we've all come to know and despise. The film is loaded with them, although I was honestly surprised that the PS3 wasn't a major plot point. There may be hope for Sony yet.

Movie MILF Gets "Flushed Away"

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:09:19 -0800

A while back I saw an early trailer for Flushed Away that, while funny, looked horrible. The CGI animation looked years behind anything that we've grown accustomed to over the last few years, and it seemed as if Aardman Animations first foray into a CGI feature film was a bit of a misstep.

Well, I'm happy to say that my initial misgivings were ALMOST unfounded.

The plot is relatively straight-forward. My man Hugh Jackman voices Roddy St. James, a well-kept pet mouse, living a posh but lonely life in a nice London townhouse. While his "family" is on vacation, Roddy gets invaded by Sid, a sewer rat up from the depths of London's underbelly, who immediately makes himself comfortable in Roddy's domain. An effort to flush Sid down the "whirlpool" backfires, and Roddy finds himself swept down into the sewers, where he meets an entire city full of mice, rats, frogs, slugs, and other icky creatures far beneath his stature.

Roddy soon crosses paths with Rita, played by Kate Winslet, a plucky Lara Croft-type mouse who's being chased by some thugs of The Toad (played by Ian McKellan who has clearly been spending too much time with Patrick Stewart) regarding some jewels. Roddy's desire to be with company overrides his fear of getting his hands dirty, and soon he's off on a rollicking good adventure.

Flushed Away ends up being an amusing tale, full of the charm that we've come to expect from the British studio that gave us Wallace & Gromit and Chicken Run, although I'm afraid a lot of the humor will go right over the heads of most American audiences. There's a subtlety to Aardman humor that is easily missed, which is one of the reasons Chicken Run did so poorly, despite the fact that it's a terrific WWII prison camp escape yarn.

The other problem with the humor is that it is distinctly British. For someone who grew up with two brothers constantly spouting off Monty Python skits, it's not an issue, but again, I think most American audiences will find it as over their heads as London Bridge.

The CGI, while much improved from the original trailer, still looked a bit odd in places. I think this was due to a conscious effort to make the film LOOK like it was being animated using clay figures and stop motion. This was semi-successful. I think the animators were having a hard time with this concept, as the effort is uneven. It's most noticeable in the movement of the character's mouths, which had a distinct stop-motion look to them for the most part, but other movements were a bit to fluid and CGI-ish. It's hard to describe, but it's one of those things you'll notice when you see it. What's cute is that the CGI models actually do look like clay, with subtle thumbprints and pits and dimples here and there. If you watch the credits, you'll see a number of people attached to the project as "surfacers."

The voice acting is solid, with Hugh even getting a chance to sing like we all know he loves to do. Bill Nighy and Andy Serkis have a nice "Mutt-n-Jeff" chemistry in their scenes together as the thugs, and Jean Reno as Le Frog is the butt of some great jokes about the French.

There's a running gag in the film with the little slimy sewer slugs providing the sound effects and music that never gets tired, and is even used all through the closing credits, and is just so darn cute and whimsical.

Keep your eyes peeled for a TON of sight-gags as well. The London underbelly scenes are loaded with them. This is one of those films made for DVD where you can freeze-frame and catch everything. Look closely for a humorous wardrobe gag early in the film when Roddy is looking through his closet of doll clothes for something to wear.

Movie MILF Relives "Nightmare"

Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:07:22 -0800

Regular readers of this site will know that I have said in the past that I HATE Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. It's one of those esoteric things I can't quite place my finger on... whether it's the overdone Broadway wannaba score by Danny Elfman, or the kitchen sink chaos of the Halloweentown scenes, or the general attitude of co-dependent goth teens who love the movie and seem to be saying "look at me! I'm different because I love Tim Burton!"... I don't know... so many reasons to choose.

And do you know who I bet hates it even more? Henry Selick. Because HE'S the guy who directed it but no one remembers that. They only remember Tim Burton.

So when you are the mother of three, you see a lot of movies that you know you won't like... you do it for the children. Because they don't know any better.

So it was that I finally gave in and took the young-uns to see the 3D re-release of Tim Burton's double-holiday extravaganza.

And do you know what?

I STILL hate it.

BUT... The Movie MILF is here to tell you... if you like this movie, and you know who you are, then I can happily tell you with mirth and joy that the digital 3D release is THE way to see this movie. I dare say that it was the way this film was MEANT to be seen.

I'm not going to bother with an in-depth review of the movie itself. You've probably all seen it. Chris Sarandon plays Jack Skellington (except for his singing voice, which is Danny Elfman's), the Pumpkin King, who's tired of Halloween and wants to do something different, so blah blah blah he ends up doing Christmas with severed heads and haunted gifts and then Santa sets everything right and Jack learns that what he was looking for was really inside him all along. End of story. The whole thing is stop-motion. If you like Tim Burton, then this film is a pre-requisite to get into the Goth section of Hot Topic.

But I have to tell you... the digital 3D made ALL the difference in the world for me. It made this movie actually bearable. I somewhat even enjoyed it, and that's saying a LOT. I was continually amazed at the difference that the addition of depth made for this film.

One of my biggest complaints with the stop motion techniques used in this movie in the past was that the sets were so bizarrely intricate and there was so much happening on screen in every scene, and none of it with that subtle hint of motion-blur that we've been spoiled with in CGI animation, that it was hard for my brain to process the information. Maybe it was just me, but the darn thing always gave me a headache. Join that with the incessant choral chanting of "Halloween! Halloween! This is Halloween!" over and over and I'm ready to tear my own brain out to end the madness. Thank God for Cosmos.

But with this new third dimension, suddenly every scene is given the proper focus, no pun intended. You're able to view the scene as the animators saw it and the sets are actually quite gorgeous in this new format. The "kitchen sink" effect isn't so bad anymore, now that your brain can focus on foreground and background elements properly.

The digital transfer was rock-solid, and I never realized just how colorful the film actually is. The DLP dramatically improved the 3D effect as well. I was not impressed with the 3D in Superman Returns, even though I saw it in the IMAX format. Like Superman, Nightmare was not originally filmed in 3D and has been converted using a painstaking digital process that maps 2D elements to 3D geometry. It's crazy, but it works... I don't know if they had more time to do it for this movie or what, but the difference was night and day. You would never know that the film was not originally shot in 3D... it's THAT good. Perhaps even the best 3D I've seen to date, and I've seen a LOT of 3D. BIG thumbs up for the effort there.

The score has been given a nice digital overhaul as well, at least that's how it sounded to my ears. While I'm still not a big fan of the music (it's just SO the "Danny Elfman Show" saying "Look at me! Look at me!"), the choral singing was much more distinct and I could actually make out the lyrics in the big group numbers. Stereo effects were well-done and immersive.

So... if you HAVEN'T seen the film in 3D yet, give it a go. It was a great experience, which, as I said before, is saying a LOT because I still hate the movie. But I liked it. Go figure.

Oh, and some woman behind me knew ALL the lyrics and sang along with every song. If by chance, that was you and you are reading this, I HATE you. HATE YOU HATE YOU HATE YOU!

Borat... I Like!

Fri, 03 Nov 2006 04:37:56 -0800

If you are already a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen's Kazakh journalist, Borat, then I probably do not need to do much convincing for you to see the film adaptation, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

I have always been slightly ashamed that Borat's spell has always worked effectively to make me laugh, but the film has removed that shame and replaced it with some embarrassment. It is, however, undeniable that Borat is one of the funniest films I have seen in many years, but still there is some depth and insight for those that want at least a little social commentary.

If you were planning on watching this film, you don't need to read the rest of this review. Borat is extremely entertaining, and I am giving it a 4-stiletto score.

If you are still reading, I would like to begin by stating that I did not need very much convincing to see this film, as I had been anticipating it for quite some time. I was originally introduced to Borat by my friend and source of much geek information, Sofiane, with whom I went to see Borat.

As I reported on some of the marketing for this movie, I had feared that too much of the movie was being revealed in the hilarious trailer (see HERE). My fear turned out to be true for the first half of the film, which is only one hour and twenty-five minutes long. Nevertheless, even in the first half there are still some surprises, and the funniest moments of the entire film have not been spoiled in any way by the trailer. Since watching that trailer, I had been avoiding any other marketing materials, but I was sad to see that they were trying so hard to spread the hype around Borat. I am certain that in North America at least, people must have been getting sick of the over-marketing.

There is not much in terms of a story, and the film is largely made up in the same style as the various Borat sketches that have been made for Da Ali G Show, but I think that director Larry Charles deserves praise for successfully putting together such an entertaining film. It is the mark of confidence in a director, in my opinion, when he or she can take a cult phenomenon such as Borat, and remain unobtrusive in his or her approach. The result is a genuine piece of work that will certainly not disappoint the fans, but will surely attract new ones among those who discover Borat through this film.

Sacha Baron Cohen delivers a terrific performance as the Kazakh journalist, and it is truly impressive to see him remain in character when placed in some riotous and awkward situations. Cohen is joined here by Ken Davitian as Borat's producer, Azamat. This is the only other fictional character in the film, and their adventures across America bring about not only some painful funny moments, but some truly frightening, and in a couple of other cases endearing moments.

The music is very much in tune with the general whimsical mood of the film, and is largely composed of gypsy music. I noticed several bits of music from Goran Bregovic, and Sacha Baron Cohen’s brother, Erran, composed all the original music used in the film. It is very suitable to the tone of the film, and perhaps not very noticeable, but in the first minutes it helps to put the viewer in the right mood.

One of the major difficulties of any comedy, even some of the funniest comedies of the past few years, has been to make a story that is not formulaic. It seems that the stories are always strung together with the focus being made on the various gags or jokes in a comedy (with some exceptions of course, notably Shaun of the Dead). In Borat, there was really no attempt at doing such a thing, and this decision was perhaps not very difficult to make since it adds to the genuineness of the film, and also because the gags and interviews themselves are diverse and strong enough to work without much added padding. This lack of pretentiousness in putting the film together also fits very nicely to the unpretentious Borat, and the candid approach taken through the character in general exposes the ugly aspects of some of the people that were "interviewed." When watching the film, it could be interesting to see which people turn out to be the most amiable toward Borat, but the aggressiveness or ignorance of others is chilling.

Since the story is virtually non-existent, it can be quite difficult to judge this film. Nevertheless, its saving grace as a film is that what little story there may be comes to a glorious finish, an end that is truly shocking and hysterical.

His name a Borat, he like you. And you will like him.

Dougie Digs "Pan's Labryinth"

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:52:03 -0800

Hi everyone, Nina here with a quick review from our favorite UK-er Dougie, who was kind enough to send us a review of Guillermo del Toro's latest film, Pan's Labryinth. We've all been looking forward to this one, and Dougie says it does not disappoint. Too bad, considering that it would have been cute to say "Dougie Pans Labryinth!" if he didn't like it. Oh well. Read on!

Remember when you were young, and because your parents were no good at remembering bedtime stories, they'd make one up, to try and get you to sleep. Remember how they always had huge plot holes, no real flow to the plot, and unimaginative characters. After watching Pan's Labyrinth, I kind of wish Guillermo del Toro was my dad.

It's Spain, 1944. a young girl (Ivana Baquero), her pregnant mother and strict stepfather move to the countryside. Captain Vidal (Sergi López), the stepfather, has been posted there to rid the area of rebels. Upon exploring her new home, young Ofelia discovers an ancient labyrinth guarded by a faun (Doug Jones), who sends the girl on a life-changing quest.

How good a story is that? And, as an added bonus, none of my relatives or friends play badger versions of themselves, like the made-up bedtime stories I was once told.

I've been looking forward to this film for some time now, and was not disappointed. Scene after scene, the movie is simultaneously mercilessly cold, and strikingly beautiful. Even during the darkest parts, del Toro's love for his project warms the screen.

And let me assure you, its a dark, dark film. There's extreme violence in Ofelia's real world, and when she attempts to enter the magical land through the labyrinth, she is constantly confronted by gruesome creatures that would be better suited in a trip to Narnia fuelled by the type of nightmares experienced by eating a lot of cheese right before bedtime.

Doug Jones is back as del Toro's bitch, excellently playing both the faun (Pan, himself), and The Pale Man (who you should never trick into a hi-5). With Jones returning for the Hellboy sequel, he really becoming the Serkis to Guillermo's Peter Jackson. I wonder who would win in a fight between the two. I reckon Serkis, if only because he seems like a biter.

My one real problem with the film is that I don't speak Spanish that well. I have to rely on the subtitles (under no circumstances should this film be dubbed), but my eyes kept drifting from the text, to the on-screen action, meaning I often missed out on what could be an important piece of dialogue.

If only I had a babelfish....

Just as great a movie as I had hoped for, everyone go see! Five fauns out of five for Del Toro and his wonderfully twisted, dark little bedtime story.

"Beowulf" Cleaves 3D Release Records

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:35:22 -0700

Beowulf, Robert Zemeckis' digital adaptation of the classic 9th-century Anglo-Saxon poem is set to hit theaters November 16, 2007, debuting day-and-date in over 1000 Real D theaters as well as other large-format 3D screens (i.e. IMAX), making it the largest 3D release ever, says the Hollywood Reporter.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty excited for this film. To be honest, I haven't been a big fan of Zemeckis since his Back to the Future days, but I do like his "damn the torpedoes" approach to digital filmmaking. Plus, it will give me a chance to actually see what I should have read in high school, but didn't. I expect that Zemeckis' motion capture technique, will really be able to bring this story to life in a way that the Cliff's Notes never could. I mean, I know the basic gist... Beowulf, the great hero, chops off a monster's arm and then kills the mother. It SOUNDS exciting, but reading Old English just isn't my cup of tea. Wasn't that what the Canterbury Tales was written in? Although I remember some of the boys in my class laughing that Chaucer talked about farting. Who knew?

The script is from Roger Avary and Neil Gaman, so how can you go wrong there? Plus, there will be NO digital Tom Hanks, with his dead, soulless eyes, like in Zemeckis' CGI Polar Express. In fact, apparently this film will use a technique called "electrooculography," or EOG, where the performance capture involves placing tiny sensors around the actor's eyes to catch tiny eye movements.

AND I'm excited to see Angelina Jolie show off her monstrous and vicious motherly instincts as well. You just KNOW she has them...

Oh, and if you're curious to know if you live near a Real D theater, check the map.

Dougie on "Borat": Funniest. Film. EVER!

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:15:39 -0700

I was in the shower this morning, thinking about the trailer for Borat. Don't ask. Anyway, I was chuckling to myself about the cinematography, how the camera pans around to reveal cows here and there, and the general editing of the trailer as an overall piece of hilarity.

Imagine my surprise when I open up my inbox to find a Borat review from our favorite UK correspondent, Dougie, who heaps lavish praise upon the film....

"It is the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

Comedy is becoming overcrowded, with just about anyone getting the chance now to say "I want in", and getting a spotlight, as they try to entertain. More and more, comedians feel they have to cross that line in order to get the recognition and fame they feel they deserve. To some extent, it works. Comedy films can get the box office figures it wants by running a trailer for the film with the same old joke thats been on the silver screen for decades, but putting it in a different situation (I'm on to you, Wayans brothers). I don't want to see the line of taste or moral decency stumpled across, with visibile effort. I don't want pointless controversy. I want a film like Borat.

Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan follows Borat, the best journalist in his country, on his trip to America, where he intends to study the American way of life, to make Kazakhstan a better place to live. Although only meant to be filming in New York, Borat decides to cross the United States, filming his report, while in search of his new found love, CJ Parker (Pamela Anderson, on an episode of Baywatch on TV in Borat's hotel room).

To reveal almost anything else about the movie would spoil it immensely, but I found myself laughing so hard, almost non stop through the movie, that my head hurt. I was never really a huge fan of Sacha Baron Cohen's characters, be it Ali G (who's already been in an almost forgettable flick), Borat, or Bruno. I always preferred the Borat sketches, but never considered it must-see TV.

The film, however, allows Cohen to let his character loose, in some of the finest physical comedy I've ever witnessed (Lee Evans/John Cleese/Michael Crawford standard), and say things I'm almost certain will be cut before the general cinema relase on November 3rd. In the space of 5 minutes, Borat manages to say things that would easily offend women, men, children, any person of any colour, and even animals. But what's the difference between Borat using the term "chocolate face", and the racist cop in this years Little Man? I think it's because you're constantly reminded that Borat is speaking with pure innocence, he is obviously a fish out of water in the culturally diverse USA.

Contrary to my expectations, the film does have a real story arc to follow, which is does so with great ease. It can't afford to be complicated, as you'll be too busy laughing at the bear in the ice cream truck to take anything else in.

I was fortunate enough to get hold of six tickets for this screening. I gave two to my sister, who is a teenager. I went with one of my friends (I'm a twentysomething and he is in his 30's), and I gave the remaining tickets to my parents (late 40's and very early 50's). Each of us had different exposure to Borat on TV, from my sister's friend the devout fan with all the merchandise, to my parents, who had only heard of him on Radio 4, being labelled as disgusting and perverse. At the end, a simple survey decreed Borat as the funniest film of the year (and funniest film ever, according to two members of the survey). I was quite impressed that this film appealed to people born in five different decades. It's a simply tremendous film. 5 out of 5, 10 out of 10, 100%, five stiletto's, however you want to say it.

I can see why the Kazakhstan Government are so unhappy about this movie, despite it being completely obvious that the character of Borat is an extended parody of a stereotype. I started this with a quote from one genius of comedy, and want to end with that of another, which I hope those who find Borat to be in poor taste, can appreciate

"In the end, everything is a gag."
- Charlie Chaplin

Dougie Laments "Death of a President"

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:25:38 -0700

Hi everyone... speaking of UK readers, Dougie was kind enough to pass along a review of Death of a President, the controversial film about the "future" assassination of President Bush which premiered at the Toronto International Film Fest in September and debuted on the More4 channel in the UK on October 9.

Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy. For some, just the short list for the name of Madonna's African baby, but for those who paid attention in school, it's the US presidents that have been assassinated. This year, however, Gabriel Range wants you to consider just what would happen if the current leader of the United States of America, was to become the fifth president to join that exclusive club.

I first heard of Death Of A President a couple weeks before it was going to be shown at the Toronto Film Festival. I remember giggling at the thought of the problems the film might cause when it eventually gets shown in the States, no doubt in some smokey, sticky, New York film house. Then I hear that Channel 4 will be showing it on one of it's 'freeview' channels shortly, and I make a mental note not to miss this provocative story.

The film is shot documentary style, from a few years in the future. It looks back on the events of October 2007, when President George W. Bush is shot by a sniper as he leaves the Sheraton hotel in Chicago. The film looks at how the world changes in the wake of his death, and ultimately explores the assssination, trying to shed light on what really happened.

In the build up to the scene where Bush gets shot, I was really expecting to be experiencing that weird feeling of uneasyness, like most people felt in the build up to the initial hijacking scene in United 93. However, it never came. There's the sense that Range wants you to relive your feelings the first time you saw the Zapruder film of JFKs death, but instead, the shooting passes like some extra in a low budget teen slasher film.

I had thought for a while now, that surely the film was just controversy for controversy's sake. Within five minutes, that had been confirmed. The director wants this film to based heavily on the real world, to pull the viewer in to what happens to America in the aftermath. It fails. The film would not lose anything, apart from the free publicity, by inventing a new president for the story.

It IS an interesting film, with a very interesting story. Unfortunately, it's a struggle to actually watch the story unravel, as you're constantly being reminded that the film is about George Dubya. The acting in the film is great, also. Fictitious bodyguards and script writers, protestors and suspects, are all filmed 'talking head style', reliving their memories of what happened.

It's a shame a good story, and ultimately, a good film, had to be sort of ruined by a filmmaker seemingly desperate to bathe in the controversy this film creates. I'd give this film 6 out of 10, because it doesn't sound as much as 3 out of 5, and it's certainly worth more than 2 and a half.

Across the Pond, October 11, 2006

Wed, 11 Oct 2006 07:24:39 -0700

Hello everyone... Nina here to present another installment of "Across the Pond," Dominique Taylor's semi-regular column focusing on the UK entertainment scene. This week, Dominique is fresh from the preview of The History Boys, where she had a chance to meet the director and the titular "boys".

A+ for The History Boys

By Dominique Taylor

The momentum created by Alan Bennett’s production, The History Boys, doesn’t seem to have stopped since its West End and Broadway success and has sky-rocketed since the release date of the film version draws ever closer. Prince Charles attended the premiere last week and since then, it has received rave reviews from every publication going. I was lucky enough to attend a preview of the film and a Q&A session with director Nicholas Hytner and the eight history boys, who were involved in both the stage production and the film, and I have to say, I could not help but join the ride.

Made on a budget of just £2million, the film is set to a backdrop of 80’s Thatcherite Britain and focuses on eight Yorkshire grammar school boys as they prepare for Oxbridge entrance exams. This enables Bennett to raise hot topics such as homosexuality, education, social equality and the old chestnut, coming of age, but also to focus more readily on the issue of identity, an area in which teachers and students alike appear to struggle. And all this is done with a splattering of wit and a sort of sad, sympathetic humour. As Nicholas Hytner said when asked about his reasons for making a film version: “People actually become interested in the lives of these characters. The writing is so good, you want to know them.”

And I have to agree. While watching, I could not help but care for every character on screen, a feeling largely helped not only by the writing, but by the performances of the boys who clearly knew their characters inside and out. James Corden, who plays Timms (one of the eight boys), hints that this was not just good acting: “Some of the boys’ parts just had boy one, boy two, boy three next to them and Alan [Bennett] just went away and filled in the parts and made characters that were exactly like us when we were at school after just having a two minute conversation with us. It was great”

There are also a couple of film veterans that add to the performance, Frances De La Tour (of Harry Potter Fame) and Richard Griffiths, play teachers Mrs. Lintott and Hector with ease, making the film not just about the eight boys in its title, but also the struggles and strains of their educators. Knowing eyebrows will be raised by teachers throughout the cinema at Hector bemoaning wasting his life in this ‘shithole’.

The thing is, there are so many experiences we can sympathise with in this film. First off, we’ve all been to school. Then, if anyone has attempted to enter a swish university, you’ll know what a bugger that is. Then there’s the whole virginity-losing thing, and the list could go on. Yet again Bennett has managed to hit on our shared consciousness with precision, creating laughs and shrieks and leaving his audience with warm satisfaction.

Finally, a few words on the music. Opening with New Order, swiftly moving to The Smiths and including The Clash, I was not disappointed. This is the 80’s without the hairspray (well, apart from Morrisey), it’s got grime, it’s got dreariness and it’s steeped in reality. Nicholas Hytner set out to make a movie that was true, not glossy and he’s achieved just that.

Release dates.
UK: 13 October.
US: 21 November.

Go and see it. This is screenwriting at its best.

Dougie Digs "Departed"

Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:19:14 -0700

Hi everyone... By now you've read Leather Lass' opinion of Martin Scorsese's latest crime-and-punishment opera of violence. Now it's reader Dougie's turn to share the Scorsese Love with you. Take it away, Dougie!

With films like Accepted, Click, Little Miss Sunshine, Talladega Nights, The Children Of Men and The Devil Wears Prada all having a lot of daily showings at my local cinema, I didn't think it would be too difficult to get a couple tickets for Martin Scorsese's The Departed. Boy was I wrong. I was three people away from the ticket desk, when a rather large girl dressed in black and marroon leaned over the desk, bellowing the bad news "The 8:15 screening of The Departed is now sold out". Luckily, there was one showing left this evening, I bought my tickets, and headed to the pub until the screen was opened.

I really honestly didn't expect such a big turn out for Scorsese. I recall going to see The Aviator and Gangs of New York on their opening night, and there not being nearly as big a crowd as this ( I found out the 9:20 showing I had tickets for also sold out). I guess word was getting around that this film was supposed to be his return to Casino, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver form.

Firstly, the trailers. Saw 3, Tenacious D: The Pick Of Destiny, and Casino Royale. The third in the Saw series promises to amp up the gore and violence from the second one, in the same way the second one promised to 'better' the first. I will probably end up seeing this, but the Saw films always seem to be very contrived, always pushing for easy scares instead of actually doing anything with the audience. Tenacious D's new trailer is just awesome, I guess it's depicting the first meeting of Jack Black and Kyle Gass, and everything about looks fun. I like watching movies where you can see that the actors and actresses are having fun, and I'm really looking forward to this. I can't say the same for Casino Royle however. I still don't think it's the right Bond, I don't think Casino Royale should be the movie, and I don't really like the theme song either, Nina.

"What about The Departed?" I hear you scream, silently, in your mind. Good question. Personally, I loved it. It's very long (just under 3 hours) and could really do with an intermission, but not a single frame of the movie should be cut to bring the movie into a more comfortable watch. The film follows Billy Costigan ( Leo DiCaprio) and Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon [done in the Team America voice]). They're both working for the Boston Police, and the mafia, and trying to discover who the other one is. This certainly isn't a story you can skip in and out of, if you miss a couple minutes, you'll be totally confused. Both Leo and Matt do excellent jobs in their roles, and I think I only caught Damon out of accent once, and was just barely.

Although the film is really Billy and Colin's story, the film is about Frank Costello, the Irish mafia boss, played perfectly by Jack Nicholson. I tend to feel Jack's acting has been hit or miss recently, for every About Schimdt or The Shining, there's a Mars Attacks! or an Anger Management. Following Costello's accellerating descent into madness is absolutley immersive, all aspects of the outside world fade away as Nicholson constantly steals scenes, with anything from a lift of an eyebrow, to a usually very quick, very witty monologue. Nicholson's character gets 90% of the best lines in the script, and not a single word is wasted.

Most of the other cast nail their performances too, and I only really felt Alec Baldwin was kind of phoning it in on this one. Martin Sheen and Mark Wahlberg on the hand, have this great chemistry between them shows through in the fake father-son relationship their characters share.

Although every single second of every shot is just perfect, about half way through the film, a nervous chase takes place between Billy and Colin in the backstreets of Chinatown. For some reason, this causes a shift in things, as the great cinematography raises up to a new art form, with gorgeous results.

As I said, the film is long, and can get a bit slow and trail at times, but putting an intermission halfway through would solve that problem, and give you the chance to re-enact conversations from the film. The soundtrack keeps rocking throughout the movie, a great sign that shows Scorsese hasn't lost his touch.

So the big question about the departed, is, of course, whether it will earn Scorsese that Oscar that's been snatched out his hands oh so many times. And honestly, I think it might. Tthe film isn't quite as good as classic Scorsese, but its a damn good film and easily on par, at least, to anything else suspected to be nominated for that prestigious Acadamy Award. Although entirely deserving, a Lifetime Acheivement Award just isn't enough, and with Scorsese admitting recently that he may only work on a few more projects before throwing in the towel, its about time the man was recognised.

I give The Departed five stars, but just hope when you go to see it it's a bit less busy, so you can relax in your seat.

Leather Lass Goes Retarded For 'Departed'

Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:03:35 -0700

Much like Fox's Prison Break, or 24, the premise behind Martin Scorsese's new film, The Departed, is obviously ludicrous. In the Boston area, a mobster puts a kid through school so he can have a plant inside the Police Department, all the while the police plant a young man inside said mobster's gang. The headspinning premise is actually a remake of an Asian movie called Infernal Affairs, which I have not seen, but previous knowledge of that movie doesn't make this one any less enjoyable.

The Departed is one of those all-star casts that we rarely get to see in movies anymore, and with an excellent script by William Monahan and under the hand of director Scorsese, everyone really rises to the top of their game. Of course the three big guns in the movie are Jack Nicholson, Leonardo DiCaprio and the delicious Matt Damon. All three do exemplary work here, but the cast is rounded out with people like Ray Winstone, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin. Frankly it's amazing to me how much these people bring to the table. Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg are particularly delightful, both somehow managing to coax some wicked funny lines from an otherwise serious movie.

Another source for a lot of the films lighter moments come from the deranged performance of Jack Nicholson. Nicholson's Irish mobster is quite the scene chewer, but at the start of the film he underplays the role. It's not until the movie becomes more outlandish that Nicholson get's into full Joker mode. Personally, I have never really understood the appeal of the actor. Yes, I am too young to have seen Five Easy Pieces or One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, but I always have to ask this of legacy actors like Nicholson. What have they done for me lately? Anger Management? Right. So his performance here comes as somewhat of a surprise to me. Nicholson walks a fine line between being fatherly and severe, between sexy and grotesque. And as his paranoia mounts, we seem him lose it, but in a way that is plausible within the framework of the narrative.

DiCaprio and Damon play an interesting pair. The cat and mouse game between the two of them is the heart of the movie, and audiencs won't be disappointed. The inverted nature of their characters makes for some interesting drama. DiCaprio is from an upper class background, but has plenty of experience playing as a southie, while Damon is a southie thrust into the world of the police where he rises to the top. Damon is really one of the finest young actors we have today, and part of the reason is that he seems to get lost in his roles. Here, his character seems fully fleshed and real. Someone you would encounter at a golf club, or bump into while christmas shopping. His character oozes with menacing confidence, but he still seems like the kind of guy who would have you over for dinner than throw you through a plate glass window. DiCaprio on the other hand is all deep, underseated rage. Not only at the hard luck life he has lived, but also recognizing that his time in the police department academy has been wasted and now, hidden from the world, and deeply undercover, he sees himself cut off from a more peaceful world.

So you are probably wondering about Scorsese right? Well I am too. The one chink I can find in this movies armor is that for all of Scorsese's talent, you don't really see it much here. That's not a criticism mind you. There are certain hallmarks of a Scorsese movie. Talented actors, punctuated violence, wild direction. The first two we have in force, but I suspect Scorsese dialed back his more artistic flourishes because the movie was enough of a worldwind as it stands. In fact, this is probably Scorsese's most mainstream movie he's ever made, and it is exceptional.

The movie twists and turns until it's ultimate downer ending, but the ride to get there is filled with suspense, violence and characters the audience will loath and admire. It's not often that movie goers get such a well crafted treat this early in the Fall, so I really recommend you get out and see it.

Movie MILF Demotes "Employee of the Month"

Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:15:17 -0700

Hi all... I had some time to kill today before my nail appointment, so I thought I'd catch an early matinee and report on it for you nice people. I figured the fans would want me to go see Martin Scorcese's new film, The Departed, and to be honest, I would have liked to have seen it too, what with Nicholson, Damon, DiCaprio, etc.

But unfortunately, an appointment is an appointment, and Pheng Wu is like the Scorcese of nails, and he's booked solid for the month... so with my 2:00, there was NO way I'd get out of the movie in time AND make the nail appointment.

So if was that I decided to catch the early-bird showing of Employee of the Month, the new comedy from Greg Coolidge starring Jessica Simpson's boobies and some guy who looked like Riker from that Star Trek TNG episode where he wore the "proto-Vulcan" make-up.

Guys, don't get your panties in a bunch... trust me when I say you do NOT want to sit through this movie, even to catch the faintest jiggle of Jessica's twins. It's just not worth it.

The film centers on Dane Cook plays Zack, which rhymes with "slack," which is what his character does. Zack works at a Costco wannabe called Super Club, where he and his pack of underdogs watches in vain each month as Vince, played by Dax Shepard, is selected for Employee of the Month for the 17th straight month in a row... if he makes it to 18, he wins a "newish" car. Jessica plays Amy, the stores new cashier with the possibly disreputable past, which causes both men to vie for her breas... er, affections. Since word on the street is that she only dates Employees of the Month, Zack decides he must take down Vince at all costs.

That's it really... the plot is paper-thin. The acting is unremarkable in most ways, with Cook showing very little charisma and Shepard figuratively sucking the life out of every scene he's in. I understand that you are supposed to find Vince repugnant, but Shepard does a really horrible job of making us care enough about Vince to hate him. Jessica plays pretty much herself, I imagine, and at the end of many of her scenes it almost seems as if she's just standing there, waiting patiently for the director to yell "cut!"

The one standout in the acting department is Andy Dick, who plays Lon, a bespectacled loser with massive coke-bottle lenses... a nerd for whom the world is one big blur. He is never looking in the same direction that everyone else is and he has many of the best lines, including the PG-13's singularly-allowed F-bomb, which he utters so wonderfully that it was worth the cost of the early-bird admission.

Tim Bagley is sort of funny as Glen Gary, the store's manager, whose older brother Glen Ross is played by Danny Woodburn, who slums it up and provides the film with some low-class "midget" humor.

Efren Ramirez also has some moments as Jorge, Vince's wingman and wannabe-protogé, and the two share a sort of strange master/pupil homoerotic relationship that provides for a few laughs. Ramirez, who everyone remembers as Pedro in Napoleon Dynamite, sort of looks like a cross between Johnny Depp and Ren the chihuaha from Ren and Stimpy. His underplayment of his part contrasts well with Shepard, who, as I mentioned earlier, is busily sucking the life out of his scenes with aimless ad-libbing. I can't understate how horrible Shepard is as Vince.

And as thin as the plot is, the movie goes on forever... with VERY little comedy bang for the buck. While there are a few humorous moments, the film tries WAY too hard to make you laugh, and you actually become embarassed for the actors as you watch them mug it up for a camera that doesn't know when to stop. It's almost as if the entire film is made of the "deleted scenes" section of the DVD release. Towards the end, you'll find yourself looking at your watch thinking, "when will this END?" Seriously, they could have chopped out SO much fluff in the beginning and middle to crank this puppy out in under 90 minutes, but combined with trailers, expect to find yourself in the theater for 2 hours.

I ALMOST missed my nail appointment, which is another reason to say this movie sucked.

Oh, and keep the kiddies home... the film earns its PG-13 rating with lots of sexual innuendo that isn't so much innuendo as it is blatant references to "doin' the nasty." This public service message was brought to you by the Movie MILF.

"49 Up!" Has It Been 7 Years Already?

Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:34:40 -0700

The seventh installment of Michael Apted's British documentary film series, 49 Up, arrives in U.S. theaters today. For many, they have been waiting patiently for the last seven years for this day to arrive.

For those of you who have never heard of it, the series started as a Granada television project, with Seven Up being broadcast in 1964. The film took its name from the old Jesuit adage, "Give me the child until he is seven, and I will show you the man." In the film, fourteen British schoolchildren were interviewed at age 7, and they (or most of them, depending on the year) are re-interviewed every seven years, at ages 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, and now of course, at 49. While the adage has proved somewhat true, there have been a number of surprises along the way, with some stark turnarounds, both positive and negative, for the participants.

Apted has directed all but the first film, on which he served as a researcher and was also instrumental in selecting the participants. He keeps in touch with each of the participants throughout their lives, and their participation in the project is completely voluntary, although they are paid for each film. Some choose to not participate for one installment, only to return in the next.

What started out as politally-inspired exploration of Britain's social class system has become a fascinating, emotionally-charged series, and the experience of watching it is difficult to describe, with each viewer taking away something very different, I'm sure, based on their own life's experiences.

While archival footage is often included in each new installment, I'm not sure how a new viewer coming in at 49 Up would fare in terms of being emotionally invested in the lives of the participants. Watching from the start (and the movies are available now in a DVD set), you can see it all... the fulfillment of destiny, the rise to prominence, the dashing of dreams, the waste of potential, and the coming of age.

As the physical effects of aging begin to make themselves very apparent in this current installment, I'm sure many viewers will look ahead with some trepidation to the next installment seven years from now, 56 Up.

I Love "Paris, Je T'aime"!

Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:36:16 -0700

One city

10 million hearts

One love story

One film

That is what's written on the poster for Paris, Je T'aime, which is a collection of 18 5-minute short films made by a total of 20 directors. A film about love in Paris... can anything be more clichéd, more worn out as a premise for a film? In the end, how is Paris, Je T'aime? Is it a glorious and self-indulgent disaster? The short answer is that Paris, Je T'aime is not only a delightful celebration of love, with each short film a unique and wonderfully crafted piece, but the entire affair flows quite beautifully, and ultimately the film as a whole is also a celebration of modern cinema. This is, without any doubt, the best film that I've seen in the theaters this year.

The gathering together of so many talented directors and actors is truly an impressive accomplishment in itself, but this gimmick is completely elevated by the simple fact that everyone involved in this project has given so much care, and invested so much love! This is cinema in a very pure form, and though we will all have our favorites among this collection of shorts, it cannot be denied that each has its own peculiar flavor and unique touch.

The most common display of love in these stories is of course through couples, but several do not take that approach. The couples may be meeting for the first time, or may have been together for decades. One of the love stories lasts only an instant, and others deal rather with loss and sacrifice.

Watching the film feels like a journey through complete lives, and you are taken from the quirky, to the tragic, to the comic, to the heartbreaking, and back to the quirky, and so on. I will not be giving a synopsis for each of the shorts, since this will spoil almost the entire experience of watching the film.

I have no idea how this enormous team coordinated the project, because even though each film is independent of the other, they all play in a very organic manner. The film starts with a simple story, and ends on the most perfect note. The film is mostly in French, despite a heavy American presence. Most of the American actors speak at least a little bit of French in the film, but I was particularly impressed by Maggie Gyllenhaal's fluency (though she has a very cute American accent). I cannot imagine this film being dubbed, so if you have the choice between watching it dubbed or subtitled, please watch it subtitled, as a few of the special moments are somehow language-related.

Each story begins with the title and director's name, and each title is the name of a particular corner of the sprawling city of Paris.

The most socially poignant of the stories was Gurinder Chadha's Quais de Seine, which was one of my favorite stories. The Coen brothers, reuniting with Steve Buscemi, are in incredible shape with Tuileries, which is completely funny and absurd as the Coen brothers do best. Wes Craven did not direct the short I thought he would, but he does have an interesting cameo appearance. His piece, Père-Lachaise was charming, and I think it was the only story that was completely in English.

The most painful stories were Bastille (Isabel Coixet), Loin du 16e (Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas) and Place des fêtes (Oliver Schmitz).

The oddest stories were Porte de Choisy (Christopher Doyle) and Quartier de la Madeleine (Vincenzo Natali).

The funnier stories were Tuileries (the Coen brothers), Tour Eiffel (Sylvain Chomet) and Pigalle (Richard LaGravenese). Tour Eiffel is perhaps the cutest of all the films, and Pigalle is a joy to watch as it unites one of France's greatest veteran actors (Fanny Ardant) with one of England's (Bob Hoskins).

The others also have their own unique touches, and Alfonso Cuaron's Parc Monceau has Nick Nolte in perhaps his most delightfully sleazy role. Tom Tykwer worked with Natalie Portman and Melchior Beslon (who was in Tykwer's The Princess and the Warrior) for the stylish Faubourg Saint-Denis.

I honestly feel like writing so much about each piece, but I will stop with Alexander Payne's 14e arrondissement, the last short film of Paris, Je T'aime, and what I referred to as the "perfect note." Payne's story is at the same time the funniest, sweetest, and most heart-warming of all the films. He managed to convey such honesty in his story, and Margo Martindale also deserves a very special mention for her straightforward and earnest performance in this piece. Ending Paris, Je T'aime with this short was a brilliant decision, and it left me with feelings of complete bliss as I walked out of the theatre.

Paris, Je T'aime really is something special, and I've only broached several aspects of the film in this review, but I wish that people will watch this hidden gem. It's beginning to be released in more European countries, and it seems that it will arrive to North American cinemas in April of 2007.

It's a completely engrossing film, and a terrific exploration of love from various unique and yet wholly unpretentious perspectives.

(out of a maximum of 5)

If you have to wait a long time for the movie to play near you, hopefully the trailer will keep you satisfied in the meantime:

Movie MILF Takes Aim on "Open Season"

Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:41:15 -0700

So everyone's talking about how the animated Ashton Kutcher in Open Season beat out the real-life Ashton Kutcher in The Guardian for the top spot at the box office this weekend. I think possibly it's that these days, with the economy in the dumps and gas prices so high (thank you Bush administration) that families can't afford to go on nice trips anymore for vacations, so they just go to the movies instead.

Either that or it was just that The Guardian looked like a REALLY dumb movie from the trailer.

Which isn't saying much, since Open Season didn't look all that great either... but it did have the gimmick of IMAX 3D. And so it was, on Saturday, when the MILF brood found themselves sitting in the IMAX theater with the goofy glasses on our faces, ready to be thrilled and amazed. The verdict?

"Meh."

The two older kids thought that the movie was basically just a Shrek knock-off while the youngest said that the glasses made her eyes hurt.

From an adult standpoint, the movie has two things going for it... the 3D gimmick, which is put to very good use in a number of scenes, and some very talented CGI animators. The movie suffers from a pedestrian plot where Boog (Martin Lawrence), a grizzly bear that has been rescued by a park ranger, has become accustomed to the domestic life. After a series of unfortunate events, he meets up with Donkey, er... I mean, Elliot (Kutcher), an unfortunate deer who has been run down by a hunter's truck. Through a misunderstanding caused by Elliot, Boog loses his happy home and is sent back to live in the wild, which he is totally unaccustomed to. Along the way, he meets lots of fuzzy little animals with little to no personality, although Billy Connolly, as McSquizzy the squirrel, is funny in the same way that Groundskeeper Willy is funny on The Simpsons... i.e. thick Scottish brogue accents are inherently comical in this country.

Patrick Warburton does his "Putty" thing as king of the deer or elk or whatever... he's become ubiquitous in cartoons these days it seems, and he always just does his same regular voice. Patrick, you can only coast so long.

Lawrence's Boog is serviceable, but he just does a fairly uninspired "street thang" that is basically just his regular voice with maybe a little deepened growl to it. Kutcher on the other hand, while not doing anything special for the voice of Elliot, manages to impart a nice sense of personality to the character, wisely underplayed considering the success of Eddie Murphy's Donkey.

The movie seems to acknowledge that it's a Shrek rip-off early on... right in the very first scene, where we get a Boog roar that's right out of Shrek, complete with saliva spray and similar camera angle. Later on, when Boog's "talent show" for the park visitors is interrupted by Elliot, one person in the crowd shouts "look! A donkey!" There were also a number of scenes from other films, for example the scene where Boog and Elliot cut loose inside a Kwik-E-Mart to a musical montage is right out of The Breakfast Club.

The character designs are also all over the map... It's unfortunate because there is no cohesiveness to any of the designs. (Can you tell? I see a LOT of kid's cartoons.) It looks as if each one was designed by a different artist, without any one director having final say. Strangely, while you would expect that similarity from a live-action film, it's essential in an animated feature to provide a distinct vision, and it's lacking here. Park Ranger Beth is essentially The Man with the Yellow Hat in drag, the town's sheriff is essentially one of those old dried-up "apple dolls," and the main hunter/villain looks like he's out of Redneck Rampage with a little bit of Wile E. Coyote thrown in for good measure. Even the animals don't look like they're from the same forest.

On the other hand, the animation, is very well done, with Boog's fur being a particularly awesome effect, especially in 3D. It looked completely realistic, and made you want to just snuggle up next to that big ol' furry body and cozy up for the night. The film, which I think might be the first effort for Sony Pictures Animation, is a homerun as far as the actual animation and 3D goes. It made me realize just how much better TRUE 3D is versus the fake 3D they used in Superman Returns (and what they will use for The Nightmare Before Christmas, so beware) and how unfortunate it is that they decided not to use for the IMAX release of Happy Feet, which was originally meant to be in 3D, including many scenes from the trailer where things are flying out at you, but now won't.

So... in a nutshell... if you're going to go see it, see it on IMAX 3D. Otherwise, there's not much point.