Video Review: Pirates of the Caribbean 4

Couple of Spoilers do their first video-scopic review here on the latest in the new piratey adventures of people who are pirates!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG9W9gARgO0&feature=channel_video_title

Check it out, mother truckers!

IR: Source Code

Source Code was overall good, please do go and watch it despite the coming onslaught of criticism, because though I did enjoy it I can only think that it could have been improved in so many ways.

Firstly, the romance element is done far too quickly for anyone who isn't a fairy princess who believes in love at first sight. In the film, our main character basically decides to love this girl on the basis of hearing her say one slightly nice thing. Then, BOOM; he has his heart set on her. Unrealistic.

Secondly, (and I'm assuming you know from trailers the basic premise otherwise it's about to get spoiled now,) the way that he had multiple chances at reliving the same eight minutes over and over wasn't done in the best way. First time he lived it, I was thrilled because I could see all these little details that would vary in the future from slight differences that he made. 'Coke!' 'Coffee!' 'Phone call!' 'Ticket!' Bliss! How would he learn to manipulate these and gain ever more knowledge as his tries accumulate?? Meh. He shows off a bit about the coffee and the phone call but the film never explores the full potential of it all.

And surely 'explore' should be the word here? If you we in the same space and time over and over, wouldn't you explore absolutely everything and take risks because you know that your actions have no repercussions? I don't want to get too Groundhog Day on your ass but seriously they did it so much better there. Instead, he un-methodically runs about accusing apparently randomly the first poor schmuk to attract his attention. I thought he was army trained??

A second film that did it better was Run Lola Run, where because of her actions she responded to the world in slightly different ways each time and there were very different results from this. For example, one time she hurt her leg and so came to everything a little later than before, when they were at a slightly progressed state, and this caused people to react differently to her.

Another example I can think of where repeated attempts at the same scenario are undertaken is when you or I play a computer game. You don't duck, you loose a life. You duck this time, you jump too far, you land on spikes. You duck, jump just right, reach your goal. This process of 'progress by elimination' is the compelling driving-force that makes us hit the 'continue' button every time we die, knowing full well we will die again, but also that we will eventually figure it out and get a perfect win.

Noooooooooo! Curse you robotnik!!
[SOURCE]

The scope for a little experimentation (OK; a little MORE experimentation) was there in the film and I just feel it would have been so much better for it.

Briefly now; a couple of other things that bothered me, that you can agree with once you've watched it. Why did the army waste time talking to him in a way they knew he wouldn't respond to as a soldier? And how did he get her phone number?

3/5

I admit it, I was wrong.
After seeing the trailer of Source Code I proclaimed it would be incredibly silly and pretty damn awful. And although it was, indeed, incredibly silly, it was not at all bad. Its a solid piece of work, not as good as Moon perhaps, but certainly enough to say that Mr. Duncan Jones has a bright career ahead of him.

Jake Gyllenhall is cast as Captain Colter Stevens who has inexplicably been given the task of travelling back in time to the scene of a terrorist bombing to discover who done it.
In fact, I am starting to think he has been typecast as 'the guy who goes a bit back in time to slightly change things.

See what I mean?

He gives a credible performance and thankfully his natural charisma (a blend of believable tough nut and puppy-dog charm) gives strength to what is a pretty underwritten part.
In fact, that is one of the real clangers of the film. The plot is so tight and fast paced the script has little time left for character development. However, there is just enough to make you feel short changed. The noble effort is nullified by the restrictions of a feature film.
The upshot is that the romance elements seem a little forced, the love interest (played with charm by the impish Michelle Monaghan) comes across more like an incidental background character and the various musings on the ethics of science, the importance of duty and the human spirit are either boring or mawkish.
Did I say science?
Yes, there is some of that.
And it arrives like this: one quarter into the film, the appropriately slimy but strangely unconvincing head of the project Dr Rutledge (Jeffery Wright), is forced by Captain Stevens to give an account of himself and what the hell Source Code is all about.
He replies:

'Blah blah brain patterns blah blah quantum blah blah parabolic blah thousands of lives in danger. And that's why you our bitch.'

Aside from the fact that, like the much-mocked Architect scene in the Matrix, it is nonsensical gibberish with a few science words in there to impress the plebs, its all dropped in one go like a science bomb. No more mystery, get on with the plot.

Here's the explanation you ordered, sir;
I'm afraid that we didn't have an subtly to go with it.
[SOURCE]

I LIKE technobabble, its fun and really works in some places. But here it is really clumsy.
Overall, the problems I have with Sourceocde they are these: it shows its hand too quickly and it doesn't have enough teeth. Its quite easy to see where potentially darker bits have been painted over with big-budget exposition and fluff.

There is loads to like about the film, but I can't help thinking the concept would have been better used as a TV series, possibly produced by JJ Abrams. It does have a bit of prime-time sci-fi about it...I mean, Scott Bakula makes an offscreen cameo; how could that be a coincidence?!
really works in some places. But here it is really clumsy.

Overall, the problems I have with Sourceocde they are these: it shows its hand too quickly and it doesn't have enough teeth. Its quite easy to see where potentially darker bits have been painted over with big-budget exposition and fluff.

There is loads to like about the film, but I can't help thinking the concept would have been better used as a TV series, possibly produced by JJ Abrams. It does have a bit of prime-time sci-fi about it...I mean, Scott Bakula makes an offscreen cameo; how could that be a coincidence?!

3/5

IR: The Eagle

The Eagle is a very sexy slash fiction fodder action film. What I have learnt from it is that Romans are awesome! I knew this already in the depths of my mind but I was reminded by their ingenious army formations (Square! Tortoise!).

Pictured: Military Might

[SOURCE]

The fight scenes are very good, involving the necessary hand-to-hand fighting without sophisticated weaponry or ninja fighting skills, just lots of down-to-earth metal clanging against metal (that's if you're lucky, otherwise it's metal against your bone). I loved the chariots with wheel spikes and the wooden fortifications behind which the Romans lived, it reminded me of all the Asterix books I used to love.

My only real criticism of the film is that it was too short; after a certain point the plot just runs away and refuses to stand still and be filmed. It was a long enough film but I could have done with a few more scenes in the middle of it, since the set-up and conclusion are good but it jumps between them a bit too quickly for my liking.
4/5

I have to say from the get go that The Eagle was a lot better than I expected. Or rather, a lot more interesting. I always expected it to be well made, but the plot and themes are a lot more subtle and the script a lot smarter than the trailer made out. Not that the piece is without its flaws...Donald Sutherland as a Southern American Roman 'Dude' for one.

Man, that Gladiator is like, totally cool.

[SOURCE]

Maybe part of this slightly elevated script is that it is based on a novel, 'The Eagle' by Rosemary Sutcliff.

I'm not a student of ancient history and so I cannot say whether the film is well researched, but it definitely FEELS well researched. There is a sense of reality about the costumes, the locations and the people; for example the Garrison which Marcus Flavius Aquila (Channing Tatum) is posted looks and feels functional - somewhere people actually live, eat, fight and die.
Tatum himself makes a very credible Roman Officer; noble and brave,concerned with Roman values of family honour (and of course, family shame), admirable but also capable of ruthless and merciless action. And Jamie Bell, also, is great as Esca the seething, wooden faced slave who will not break a bond of honour even if means serving a man he hates.
That central relationship can, I believe, be legitimately read as a love story or as a straightforward buddy movie. The subtlety of the script means that either is as likely and a credible as the other, and I can't really see the Romans having a problem with relationships between men and men.

Oh, yes, by the way, this film is about MEN. Lots of MEN. Women are in evidence and in the pict/celt tribes they look pretty badass, but the film is about MEN.
And even though the film may be about MEN and HONOUR and FIGHTING at points it is also surprisingly reflective and gentle. We end up routing for Marcus and Esca despite the many problems that their quest flags up (are the Romans just crazy expansionists? Who are the real savages? Is it okay to waste this much time just to recover a symbol?) because they do it with such determination. And there is a central philosophy in the film that many soldiers have come to appreciate; that they actually have far more in common with their military enemy than their own leaders.

However, that's not to say that there ins't violence. And some actually quite nasty things as well...not hugely graphic, in fact the film cuts away most of the really gory stuff, but enough is left to make you wince. Its a 12A, but I DO NOT advise taking 12 year olds in.
Overall the Eagle is well worth a watch, even if, like Britta, you like it mainly because of the undertones.

[SOURCE]

The sexy, sexy undertones.

3/5

IR: Of Gods and Men

In Algeria a small monestry of eight monks live in harmony with their village, providing medicine and support for the largely Muslim population. But when extremist violence rears its ugly head the monks are faced with a choice: do they stay and risk their lives or go and leave those who rely on them?

Of Gods and Men was very good because of its slow depiction of the monks in everyday life. It is a film about bravery, faith, brotherhood and compassion. Depressing, but not as much as other films we've seen recently. Refreshing to see something so slow, and with such sympathetic main characters. There are a few very powerful scenes that hold it together and keep the story moving, and these are done well.

3 stars

As someone who grows more secular in my leanings every day, it may seem strange that the monastic life has, for as long as I can remember, had an appeal for me.

Maybe it is the readings of the excellent and beautiful Brother Cadfael novels written by Edith Pargeter (under the pen-name Ellis Peters) I enjoyed as a child along side the works of PG Wodehouse and Dick King Smith.

Maybe it is the inherent simplicity and peacefulness of the monks life; the cessation of personal desires and the giving up of all property to make way for ritual, brotherhood and reverence.

This life, so far away from our normal lives of materialism and ambition, is communicated with admirable realism by Of Gods and Men. The audience are drawn into the brothers' world. Bit by bit, scene by scene, we are introduced to their comfortable lives of contemplation and study at the Monastery and their more lively excursions into the poverty stricken but vibrant world of their community. We grow accustomed to the stillness and peace so that we, like them, are shocked and afraid when the calm is broken by terrorism and civil war.

Civil war? Cadfael is disappoint.
[SOURCE]

One of the great things about the film is its rejection of hollywood looks and a sole focus on actors (and actresses)with interesting faces. There is a scene which focuses almost exclusively on minute examination of the brothers' expressions reacting to music, and they are so interesting to look at it never becomes boring.

Overall the film expertly examines the troubles of violence and non-violence, of keeping true to ones beliefs, love, friendship and community. The fact that it is based on true events, and the tragic end to which it eventually comes, makes it even more poignant, and reminds of the true evil of war: that those who die for it often don't even know why.

4/5

IR: The Adjustment Bureau

David Norris is a young, handsome up-and-coming politician who apparently cannot lose...except that he does. Before he makes his post-defeat address to his supporters, he meets the enigmatic Elise and falls for her. Then, luckily, he meets her again. This seemingly innocuous event attracts the attention of some mystertious men who are very intent of keeping them apart and will perform the 'adjustments' necessary to see this happens...

The Adjustment Bureau was a pretty good film, with an interesting concept that they didn't milk enough for its pulling power. They could have had Matt Damon dangling from puppet strings for a lot longer for my liking.

Save the scene where he finds out about them, the Adjustment Bureau men weren't very scary or powerful-seeming, and even their threat to wipe his brain never seemed in real danger of being carried out. The conclusion is wimpy and an anticlimax.

I won't tell you how M.D. wins in the end but it's something to do with putting sprinkles and hundreds and thousands and cherries on top of something very pretty.

Rhymes with 'knees'
[SOURCE]

In conclusion, good enough film, could have been so much better.

2 stars.

Ever since I saw the trailer a month ago, I have been worried that 'The Adjustment Bureau' would be the spiritual sequel to Richard Kelly's 2009 film 'The Box'. And I was pretty much on track, although The Adjustment Bureau does have a slightly more upbeat feel and I think I liked it better.
I was very disappointed by The Box, mostly because I loved Richard Kelly's previous films (even Southland Tales which everybody else seems to hate with a passion) and I am a sucker for weird paranoid sci-fi.

The set up of the film is a sort of Tales of the Unexpected Twilight Zone affair where people with seemingly godlike powers meddle in the affairs of mere mortals...like 'The Box'. The baddies are dressed in official looking suits and hats and are 'just doing a job'...like in 'The Box'.

Seriously, guys. Seriously.

It is about destiny, choice, love and free will...like 'The Box'. And it is based on a short story by a respected Sci Fi author who has previously had his work adapted into films...like 'The Box'. And due to this last one, it is baggy and clearly padded out in the middle...etcetra.

Although this may seem a little out there for casual cinema goers, its been seen quite a few times in many variants. Even at its most esoteric, it is borrowing from other, better films and even tv shows. I have mentioned Tales and Twilight Zone before, but what about Dark City (my 2nd favourite film of all time) Sapphire and Steel (TV) or the Matrix? In fact as the film drew into its final chapter I realised that I myself had written and filmed something.

It was called 'Gods Dicebox' and also focussed on two not-quite-human troubleshooters who ventured into our realm to make sure things went according to plan AND was also filled with widgety odd-tech not too dissimilar from the 'Marauders Map' style destiny books you will have seen in the trailers.

The concept is smart but ill handled and despite a strong start it shows its hand way too quickly, reducing bad guys who could have been utterly terrifying with better direction to vaguely clown-like sub-Goodfellas workaday schlubs in the space of ten minutes.
The central romance is well played and its impossible not to like Matt Damon and Emily Blunt as the star-crossed leads. There are also some interesting political bits akin to the adaptation of State of Play that popped up last year (with Ben Affleck as a young, dynamic politician...coincidence?!)

Awww, come on!

The film is fun and frolicksome, but I can't help thinking there was a better film struggling to get out. The ending has a weird, incongruous 'Oh, its all okay really!' ending that seems to have been tagged on, with some softly-softly Christian overtones. Granted, that is better than the 'Women are all evil and for that your son will SUFFER!' rubbish at the end of The Box, but I would have preferred something with a little more teeth.

3/5

IR: Never Let Me Go

Famed author Kazuo Ishiguro, respected screenwriter Alex Garland and music-video veteran Mark Romanek bring us a film in which love cannot save the day.

It was my slight misfortune to listen to a radio play some years back (I won't mention the name or that will give it away) that had a very similar concept to Never Let Me Go. You won't know the actual concept
of Never Let Me Go unless you have read the novel or spoiler-full reviews/synopses, but suffice it to say that this concept drives the film and is best kept a secret before you watch it.

Now this radio play made me aware of the true nature of the world pretty much from the first five minutes, and that tempered my experiences somewhat.
I felt a little bit 'oh, go on, get on with it' in a way which I imagine was quite unfair to the plot.
Anyway, yes.

Suffocating.

That is what this film is. Deliberately, I may add, so thats no bad thing. The film is based around the idea that the main characters in are prisoners. Not in a place, as such, even though there are boundaries on their world, but prisoners in a mindset and a system. This is in much the same way Red describes being 'institutionalised' in the Shawshank Redemption; becoming so used to the life of imprisonment that freedom itself is alien. Sometimes Not even alien, but unthinkable. An impossibility.

And unlike Shawshank, there is not redemption in Never Let Me Go. This becomes pretty clear as early as the first twenty minutes, but it does not alleviate the tension.
When I say it is suffocating, I literally felt like the story was wrapping itself round my chest and squeezing like a boa constrictor. The principle characters are caught in a loop of life, an airless, claustrophobic world in which they only have each other and those of their kind.

Their lives have been planned out before them by forces unseen. The audience will, if they are like me, be screaming with ever fibre of their being: 'ESCAPE! ESCAPE! ESCAPE!'…but they are so utterly complacent and resigned to their fate that they can no more escape than fly to the moon.

The beautiful locations such as the idyllic Hailsham school in fist act and the Aga-and-oak beam cottages in the second only serve to heighten the incestuous, inescapable loneliness of their lives. They are trapped in a world of twee routine only broken by the mildest of distractions.

At the centre of the plot is a love story, but that too is so tense and stretched you could use it to skin a drum. It starts in Hailsham where all the children are a cute as individually polished buttons, especially Chalie Rowe who plays the young Tommy. In fact they are so well turned out with apple cheeks and Loreal-ad hair that it all feels a bit Midwitch Cuckoos.

Especially with the starey eyes.
[SOURCE]

It progresses through the next stage of life when the principles have aged into Carey Mulligan, Kiera Knightly (who deserves special mention because she is EXCELLENT in this role) and sexy sexy Andrew Garfield.

However the film does drag a little as the near-solipsistic lives of these downtrodden prisoners carries on with inevitably predictability and the end, though tragic and heartfelt, feels like going through the motions.

It is quite a relief to escape from this place, but you will not come out feeling happy.
I do have issues with the social realise of the central concept, which I won't go into here, but if you do see the film see what you think of this statement:
Does it seem to you that the writer, Kazuo Ishiguro, has made up a ghastly situation just so he can deplore of it?

3/5


Never Let Me Go was so depressing to watch. We seem to be watching a few of those recently. The characters are, without spoiling the plot too much, doomed like free range chickens. Pretty much exactly like free-range chickens, really. But you'll have to watch the film to see why. It is creepy, in a very English-apple-pie-with-arsenic-in-it way.

Eat up.

[SOURCE]

Under strict instructions not to spoil the concept, which apparently the trailers don't so I shouldn't, it's hard to describe for you the feelings of the film or remark upon the effects upon the characters or tell you why it was so creepy to see old people walking around town or so tragic to look at porn magazines. Even more tragic than the regular reason, I mean. Suffice to say, I hope, that this film was clever and charming and intriguing and sad, and I want to see it again because the acting is beautiful and the aesthetic of the film is hauntingly wholesome.

A few criticisms; the concept, though powerful, isn't anything that's not been done before, and some aspects of it didn't stand up to analysis as to what we think would happen in a real scenario.

As for the title, think of the film as that bit in Titanic where Kate Winslet is holding on to Leonardo DiCaprio in the water, but drawn out over a decade or so.

5/5

IR: Winter's Bone

Young Ree has to look after her brother, sister, and near cataonic mother in the rough terraine of the Mussouri mountains. When her father jumps bail, having left their home for the capital, she needs to find him before they are all left out in the cold.

Winter’s Bone is a near-perfect film. The central character is a 17-year-old girl who needs to find her bail-jumping father in order to keep her family home. Parallels with True Grit have just occurred to me, and I am told Jim is covering that as I type.

In all the film, there was only one thing that made me feel critical (I won't mention what it was as it might spoil it for you), and considering I habitually watch films scouring for imperfections/ ‘reality checks’, that is very good. Also, it was slightly too long; I felt it was the end long before it actually was, so it dragged a bit before the conclusion wrapped it up.

Things that I liked about it were the consistency and believability of the scene and the characters, the strange woodland community and its society laws. I liked that most scenes had no exposition so you had to pay attention to keep up.

Squirrel spotting
[SOURCE]

I liked the nice army careers officer, who gave us an anchor for an idealised morality to let us gauge just how hostile and awkward the woodland dealings were. I liked seeing the odd background characters that gave the setting with their unattractive faces, and I liked seeing perfect nail varnish on a dirty dealer.


The atmosphere was gritty and wary and on-edge, a bit like The Road but we didn’t come out feeling so low. It did take me a few minutes to feel like talking though, so it did have an emotional impact. I would recommend this film to people who enjoy non-mainstream films.

5 Stars


Watching Winter's Bone only a week after True Grit brings to mind the interesting parallels between the two films. Both are set in desolate landscapes and townships with the stink of poverty hanging over them. Both feature amazingly competent and brave heroines who have, in their fathers' absence and their mothers' inability, become heads of their households. Both are carrying out missions related to their fathers, and both are befriended (if that is the word) and in parts assisted by dangerous older men.

Not in a creepy sweet-giving way.
[SOURCE]

There is a lot of the western about Winter's Bone in the pacing as well. It is slow and steady, with an all-pervasive sense of fear, unease and dread. It is shot with a wonderful bleached quality, and the location is absolutely real,a living, watching, decaying place. Winter's Bone brings into solid existence a world so far from my own comforting materialist middle-class bubble it might as well be on Mars and makes it instantly 'knowable'.

The acting is superb, and with as much low-key brilliance as everything else.
The extended 'family' who make up Ree's world are akin to pack animals. Haunted, weather worn, grizzled and grim. They are laconic and soft spoken, as if they fear that someone is always listening. They are also canny, cunning and mean, and any time they are on screen you feel that fear in the pit of your stomach that something terrible could happen at any moment.
There is a massive amount to say about this film, far more than I can fit into a review. It works on the level of social commentary on crime, drug use and poverty, parable, explorations of values and hidden 'codes of honour', a straight-out narrative about bravery and strength, an analysis of what it means to be family and what familial love really is. I could easily write an essay on it.
This is what you need to know: Jennifer Lawrence is awesome, Debra Granik knows how to direct actors like crazy, and you should never go asking questions to people who don't want to answer.

4/5

IR: True Grit

I wasn't really thrilled to be seeing True Grit, since I have the preconception that all Westerns are just about a load of mean ugly men being stand-offish in the dust. However, it was actually really good, and though it did include ugly men and dust, the film made up for it in other ways.


The main character is a girl (!!) of fourteen, who has taken it upon herself to avenge her fathers death since she figures no-one else is up to the task. She reminds me of Tiffany Aching from the Terry Pratchett books, being very brave and resolute and taking on responsibilities that grown men shy away from.

Jim told me she was nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress, which is absurd, since she is plainly in the leading role.

The acting is solid, and the locations, costumes and houses look faithful enough. It also reminded me of Carnivale, with the faith and the dirt and the cruelty and the strange people. I think I recognise one of the actors from it even - the clerk at the beginning could be the man in Carnivale who makes the white masks. They managed to source people with actual interesting faces, flobbly chops and skinny noses and the like, which added to the authenticity.

Pictured: Realism
(SOURCE)

The storyline had a few poignant moments that I thought would never happen, for instance...

SPOILER ALERT
the girl ends up spending non-fighty time with her fathers killer.
SPOILER OVER.

Only one bit bothered me, which was that Matt Damon at one point has his mouth smashed up being dragged along by a lasso, but a few scenes later his teeth have regrown and it is perfect again. Overall though, brilliant film, and I am looking forward to seeing it again when it comes out on DVD.

4 stars


I can't remember when I last left a cinema feeling so satisfied.
True Grit delivers on every level, striking a great balance between morality and lawlessness, gore and heroics, the real old west and the old west of fantasy.

The central trio of two lawmen and an unbelievably badass 14-year old girl are all very well drawn and well acted. Rooster Cogburn is morally questionable, undeniably filthy but also downright indomitable which makes him worthy of our admiration. Jeff Bridges plays him with a voice like a sack full of gravel being dragged around in a deep well, which I love. Matt Damon(as LeBeouf or 'LaBeef') is wonderfully dandyish and full of high-falutin Texan verbosity. And finally Hailee (eeeee) Steinfeld is amazing as Mattie Ross, who is smarter than a horse-seller, brave as a ranger and considerably tougher than old boots.

Not as tough as Mattie Ross.
(SOURCE)

She does more, and more believably, than an actress twice her age generally gets to do in a dozen mainstream films. She rides a horse, shoots a gun, gives everyone a thorough dressing down and of course seeks revenge for her murdered Daddy. The fact that she was not nominated for a best actress Oscar (only best supporting actress) is quite atrocious, especially since she is not only the main actress but the main character.

The settings are impeccable and long term Coen-colloborator DOP Roger Deakins deserves merit for shooting such an authentically western Western.

I could go on for ages deconstructing the costumes, lighting, dialogue, baddies, moral issues, comparisons with other great westerns (not to mention the original John Wayne version which I haven't seen) and so forth, but it would simply end up restating my first point: this film delivers on every level.

You will come out feeling like you want to go and watch it again, and I certainly plan on doing so.

5/5

IR: Tangled

Rapunzel has lived nearly 18 years in a tall tower, her 'mother' seems overly concerned about her chances out there in the big world. But Rapunzel wants to leave to see one thing: the beautiful lanterns that appear every year for some reason...on her birthday. Enter the tricksy Flynn Rider, on the run from the law and with something very valuable in his satchel...

Tangled was very sweet and entertaining. It follows the basic storyline of Princess and lovable criminal get together (Maid Marion/Robin Hood, Jasmine/Aladdin etc.) However it is fresh and bright and fun and a bit more grown-up and insightful into troubled mother/daughter relationships. Rapunzel herself is creative and self-motivated and sweet which I liked, because yay art and boo swanning about putting on make-up all day. It continues the current trend of self-satirising cartoons which try to twist the classic story-telling to show that it identifies what it is and humorously references this within the story. For example, the 'Mother' at one point spells out for us, “Fine, I'm the bad guy now” and male lead Flynn self-consciously tries on the smouldering handsome man look that in earlier Disney films would cue a smooching scene. The rest of the film includes lots more grood (great/good) parts, like when Rapunzel talks to a horse like he's a dog (who's a good horsie?! Yes you are!) and going to a pub called The Snuggly Duckling (I love ducklings! Awwww! Me too!).

There is no caption, only cute.

We cried a few times at the emotional bits, and laughed at the yay bits. Picked it apart a bit on the way home but nothing damning, it is a very fun film and I would happily see it again!

4 Stars

Since I missed out on the Princess and the Frog, this is the first Disney film I have seen in a while. And I gotta tell ya, they still got it.
This was a genuine solid piece all the way through. It had all the requisite stuff; action, cool animals, romance and a bona fide happy ending...plus one of the best female lead roles I have seen in a while. Rapunzel (Mandy Moore) is definitely up there with the best of the Disney Princesses with the added bonus that she kicks ass with her hair and a frying pan.
The supporting cast are all well done, but more on that in a mo.
We saw it in 3D which was pretty pointless. Hardly anything jumped out at you, literally...the most beautiful scene in the film (about half way through) was mostly not in 3D and the bit that was was the rubbish bit. Still, the whole thing is impossibly gorgeous in digimation, especially the aforementioned heroine and her teasy-squeeze Flynn Rider (Zach Levi off of Chuck- who knew? IMDB, thats who!). Speaking of which there is some serious fetish fuel in this movie- forget the hair, Rapunzel spends the whole film barefoot. Quentin Tarantino probably wants some of that action.

These little piggies had a massage.

The reason I say this piece is 'solid' and 'good' and not 'great' were the following: the songs, though up to a fair standard, felt more like filler than anything. They weren't bad by any means, but I every time the singing started I wished (and bear in mind I LOVE musicals) that they'd just get on with the plot. I remember studying musicals, and how the key to a good one is that a song number is an integral part of the plot rather than a decoration. Maybe I'm being unfair.
Next, Zach 'Flynn Rider and Chuck' Levi is an alright voice actor but...meh. There seems something a little lacking in his dialogue. In Disney heritage terms his character is closest to Aladdin, a lovable thief with a heart of gold. But there just wasn't the snap to his lines there was with Scott Wienger in Aladdin. Maybe its the direction. He brightens up in the third act but by then he's become more responsible. He doesn't quite make the loveable rouge thing work.
Finally, the plot.

Not as 'tangled' as you might think, schnah schnah!

Tangled is probably the most grown up of the Disney films I have seen because it HINTS that things are not always as easy, simple and carefree as they might seem. But crucially NOT ENOUGH. I want subversion and post-modernism, damn it! With Shrek now 10 years old and Disney getting the crap deconstructed out of it, we need the original to get smarter. Particularly in the relationship between Rapunzel and her 'mother', which seems like it might be interesting and ambiguous, but ultimately falls back on the wicked step-mother mythology the Bros Grimm immortalised back in 1812.
Like I said, I haven't seen Princess and the Frog, but going from Tangled it seems Disney are still a little behind the curve...but not by much.
See it, laugh, shed a happy tear and dream your dream.

3/5

IR: Black Swan

Black Swan is a damn good film, marred though it was by an audience who giggled and chatted though it like the scum I suspect all general public to be. A disturbing scene in which Natalie Portman's character, Nina, braves some experimental masturbation to further her career, is apparently lost on all the mindless f*cks whose brains just went “Ooooh sex! That's naaauuuuuggghty!” The fact that this is done tastefully and points to a dark change in her character apparently counts for nothing.

NOT AMUSED.

We watched Black Swan from digital and right up against the screen (it was packed), so unfortunately the image quality was grainy. However, the shots were still beautiful (as far as I can tell) and the subject matter being what it was helped too I'm sure. The dancing is amazingly professional, being done as it is by an actress, not a ballerina who has trained since birth like real ones have to. Either they are very swish with the body doubles or Natalie P and girl from That 70s Show actually managed to get on point (on their tippy toes) which is a pretty advanced thing and usually takes years to achieve. Unless you're a basilik.

Pictured: A digitally enhanced Natalie Portman.

The story itself is pretty cool and things get very trippy and confused (and, unfortunately, gruesome) as the plot progresses, and we become increasingly unsure of what is real. Nina is opened to a new world in her task to learn to dance the Black Swan, a role she has hitherto been too innocent for. This is a chilling coming-of-age tale, and I highly recommend seeing it!

5 stars.

Black Swan is a film into which a lot of thought has been poured.
I could analyse it for pages and not plumb the depths.
Naturally I was aware of it since it was talked about for months, tipped at the Oscars and directed by Darren Aronofsky, whose film The Fountain holds to this day the singular honour of having a sex scene I actually find sexy.

Despite not being able to move without seeing some kind of behind the scenes press about Black Swan, it did surprise me. I was expecting a straight forward arthouse melodrama. And indeed Black Swan is an arthouse melodrama, but it is in no way straight forward.

The kindest way to put it is that it is a film with a rich heritage. The cruelest would be that it is unoriginal. However the reality is somewhere in between. The closest I could get to give you a real impression of what its like is Jacob's Ladder with ballet instead of Vietnam. Or a feature long episode of the Twilight Zone produced by Merchant Ivory. If that sounds crazy, its just crazy enough to work.

Miss Kenton...it can never be. Please pass me another muffin.

It borrows from a dozen other works as well...I noticed a strong resemblance to Perfect Blue (the Satoshi Kon animation), Cat People, Roman Polanski's Repulsion, a whole bunch of body horrors and the raft of identity crisis films of the 90s of which Fight Club is the most well known.
I am not bashing this. I think it great to have so many reference, and I even noticed a few nods to Pi, Aronofsky's first feature, but anyone who calls this film original doesn't know an awful lot about cinema.


However maybe I should stop being a snob and remember that for some people cinema is entertainment, not life. It was certainly entertainment for the sack-headed goons we were forced to share a packed cinema with, who giggled along merrily at parts which would have made a more sensitive audience draw in breath. Seriously if you are reading this and you laughed, I would happily punch you in the throat.
Anyway...

To set the record straight about the hype, its mostly true...the performances are really great from every corner...the actors ham it up a bit but that is right for the piece and the setting. And if nothing else it proves once and for all how terribly, criminally badly Ms Natalie of the Portman Clan was misused in the Star Wars prequals. The lighting is great and creepy, the camera gives a real sense, perhaps one of the best I've seen, of being on stage. The dancing is completely real and not for a second did I doubt how much effort every one of the cast had put into it.
There are problems...some of the metaphors are a bit heavy handed (oh look, Natalie Portman's house is filled with soft toys. And one of them is...A BLACK SWAN!

Pictured: A digitially enhanced Natalie Portman.

And look, the tempestuous bullet-eyed Director (Vincent Cassel) loves BLACK and WHITE to the extent that he actually has a Rorschach blot test on his wall...perhaps a reference to the bleak philosophy of nihilistic vigilante Rorschach from Alan Moores seminal graphic novel Watchmen?), there are body horror/identity cliches everywhere you look and you can pretty much see some of the twists coming as if they were steam trains...but I'm nitpicking.

One final point. In all the reviews I have heard not once do people site the fact that the film highlights the problems with the culture of ballet itself; that masochistic obsession with beauty and perfection, the whispering lies, the back stabbing, the paranoia and cruelty. There may be some reviewers who have (give me links if you know of any) and I wish I could spread myself on the subject, but I should wrap up.
Its beautiful, its scary, its mad and dark. Go see it.

4/5