Film 2012

[Meade's Ball]

Got tickets for a preview this morning of Lawless, the new film by John Hillcoat, director of The Road and Proposition, a very enjoyable and mesmerisingly gripping Australian cowboy film. Adopted Brightonian Nick Cave was responsible for the screenplay and the music through most of it. He and Hillcoat are clear collaboraters as the grim and gruelling tone of it was similar to their previous work, particularly Proposition. Their past productions have clearly been applauded enough to warrant a stream of high-quality actors looking to join in their play. This time we have Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce and Shia LeBeouf, even. The females involved are Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska, so there's barely a face throughout unrecognised.

The film is a true to life story, apparently, of the bootlegging trade in the backwaters of America in the 1930s. We're used to seeing images and scenes set in the windy city of shoulder-padded gangster unions at war with the law, and each other, but here it's more the lawlessness of an American outback, merely farming communities together and a sense that the wild west hasn't lost its gunslinging grip on a society still forming. It's 3 brothers, The Bondurants, the chief of whom is Hardy, who live off of the myth of their invincibility to keep fear in the hearts of those who dare challenge their vegetable-whisky-producing business. Hardy is unflinching and brutal when necessary. An emotionless rock. His youngest brother is LeBeouf, a miniscule rodent in his larger siblings' shadow and desperate to sort of man up and find is place in the team. Into the town, if you can call it that, comes Guy Pearce as a rather hilarious pantomime villain. He's hugely camp and nazistic in his look and thoroughly evil in his ridding of criminals trading homemade alcohols to make an illicit living.
The violence is sometimes unapologetically bloody and the mood of it all rather dour with the aid of Cave's plucked musical grumblings. But the scenery, seemingly naturally crafted, is on occasion breath-taking, and LeBeouf's wet juvenility brings a lighthearted mirth to the piece here and there.

I have to say i preferred Proposition with its rawness and felt this mirrored it somewhat. Still, a good just under a couple of hours of action, tension and some grizzled acting that manages to charm the screen and in parts sicken enough. Oldman can and should have been used more. It seems like he was edited out a bit. Hardy in fine form and Pearce entertaining as a sort of Herr Flick of the Gestapo. All in all a good morning out for film was had and pleased that Hillcoat and Cave are able to bring big names to their films and have a wider audience maybe with them. Go see. If you're 18 or over or look 18 or over.

 

[vegster]

Had the spare time to get to The DoY to catch the Hitchcock classic, North by Northwest. I forgot how great this was, the writing, directing etc is first class and despite the films age,it has stood the test of time.
It's being shown again on Tuesday so catch it if you can.
As mentioned earlier, the re-furb in the DoY is very comfortable too as a bonus.

 

[Acker79]

Total Recall
I'm really struggling to decide if I liked it or not. There were some cool action set pieces that felt quite original. I kinda like kick-butt Kate Beckinsale, even if her characters are otherwise quite flat (humorously I don't think we ever see her use stairs, she only ever changes levels off screen or by shooting the ground and jumping through holes in the floor). Not a fan of Jessica Biel. Bill Nighy was barely in it and seemed quite sedate for him (and had an american accent that sounded weird). Speaking of accents, in either a brilliant decision, or terrible consistency, Kate's and Colin's accents changed over the course of the film. As you can tell from the trailer (if you haven't seen the Verhoeven version) that she is masquerading as his wife and she goes from american to english roughly when her cover is exposed. Whereas he is someone who is struggling with who he really is, and as the film goes on he becomes more irish. If I had to guess, I'd say hers was deliberate (but unnecessary), but his was unintentional.

It also seemed quite light on females. Sure, the two main women were "strong female characters" (well, hollywood's idea of strong females - i.e. they fight men) the only other women we see are in the usual female roles (secretary, nurse, sex workers, etc), men have the power, men do the hard grafting, etc. even though it's set in the future. This is either the typical hollywood bias, or a clever comment on the regression of women's right in politics in america and the dismal future that is coming. (I suspect the former). The performances were fine, the action was good, but although it changed a fair bit from the old film, it still didn't feel particularly fresh or original.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Paranorman 3d

At last, first great film for me this year. Not perfect as it's inconsistant, not quite knowing what it should be.....but a lovely gently humour to it and truly hilarious in at least three places. Great little homages (?) to other classic horrors films of the past also. Definitely NOT for young kids though (it's a PG not a U). Nothing spectular in 3d but i think it definitely improved the experience (usually not a fan of 3d). Highly recommended for goofy horror fans. Opening night at 9pm had an audience of 12 only, sadly. A massive 9 out of 10 from me. A delight.

 

[Barry Izbak]

I've been looking forward to seeing The Sweeney because I loved the old TV show and I really like Ray Winstone.

So I am afraid to report that I was disappointed with the film I watched last night. It wasn't as "real" as the old John Thaw / Dennis Waterman TV show. You couldn't believe he really was shagging the gorgeous bird. You couldn't believe the lack of traffic in London. You couldn't believe that with the number of shots that went off, there were so few injuries and fatalities.

Never mind. 6/10

 

[Acker79]

Killing Them Softly
Brad Pitt and James Gandolfini both gave very god performances, but I'm ot sureit was enough. Perspectives changed and it felt like there was no sense of this is X's story. Just when you think it's one person's story, we start to follow someone else, but there wasn't enough narrative substance to pull such a choice off, imo. I don't know, maybe I just wasn't in the right mood, my friend likened it to Drive - which I was also not particularly enamoured with.

House at the End of the Street
Not very enjoyable. It takes too long trying to establish characters you care about, but they are all so unpleasant or uninteresting that you don't ever care about them Then parts of th story are too heavily explained and other parts are not explained enough. Disappointing.

Savages
Also disappointing. Again, suffering from characters who are not pleasant enough for you to care about them, or their fates. The ending was ridiculous, with several "huh?" moments throughout. John Travolta gave a good performance, though I don't think any actor was bad, it was just the story and the characters that didn't work.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Saw Killing Them Softly tonight and it was a reasonable effort at best. For me it failed to all meld together though, lingering for spells in the decidedly unimportant, and it lacked a bit of bite. Brad Pitt, as well, tends to speedily suck weight from a film, but this was rarely too serious and it would be wrong to suggest he's the flaw to a film that he often is. Some tense moments and a cool slow-mo death, and the semi-humourous fumble with even mob criminals cutting costs and watching their pockets in this recognisably faulty and amoral financial period, made it good enough to see if not quite thrill.
9 out of 14. At least 1 point deducted for the Pittance of charm it dared to wield.

 

[Meade's Ball]

If i were an actor with a growing reputation and recent co-star in two absolute blockbusters and also likely to be seen as just a bit hunky by some young fillies, then i don't think i would agree to be the younger version of someone of the acting calibre of Bruce Willis. It'd feel the same as appearing in a Steven Seagal biopic and squinting at teachers with a glue-on ponytail throughout his teen years, and likely his early twenties as he still sought to complete his Mr Miyagi led SATs at a high enough level to go to Samo Hung University.
Anyway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt must have said yes to the chance to pretend to be the smug young Willis, effectively, with the aid of computer graphics that bent his nose and wrinkled his brow and reshaped his chin a little, in Looper. He does a reasonable job, to be honest, with the smirk and knowitall chuckle, and the very basic-level acting. And Willis isn't in it constantly, so that's something of a relief. In the main scene in which Willis, a man from the future sent back to be shot dead by his earlier self, and GL sit face to face, Willis' lines do seem to be as much criticising the younger version of the character he's playing as much as he is to the actor he might have once pretended to be.

Looper is described as the Matrix of the decade, like a few other films that fail to match up, but it doesn't attempt to really be all that airily profound and only mirrors in its partial nonsensicalness and collection black-suited goons ready for our hero to shoot and swipe. I kept more being reminded of the Terminator in areas and Blade Runner in its early noirishness, and Chronicle too, and that is no real bad thing. It had a mixture of a reasonable script, unrational tale that demands not too many questions asked or wished to be answered, some humour in the hairstyle they pinned to Willis' head when near the beginning looking to blend the young him to the old one, and some decent slightly bloody action scenes that fail to sicken but sometimes suitably mildly shock. It also had some dark morality in it too with some thoughts on how harsh justice can sometimes be and we as viewers have to wonder who we're really supporting in all this.

I quite enjoyed Brick, the last collaboration between Rian Johnson, director and writer, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Looper had enough edge to it to keep one absorbed for long enough, in spite of the actionless emo-dip in the middle that had me thinking of the boringer parts of Nowhere to Run, the JCVD classic. Not fantabulous, but worth a funtime watch.



PS - i am rather annoyed to see Barbara, the film they describe as perfect for a doublebill with the Lives of Others, seemingly on in only 5 London cinemas and none along the south coast. That better change. It's supposed to be great and i'll go see tomorrow night in the big smoke. Hopefully it'll get enough fullhouses in the places it's showing and other cinemas will take a very slight chance on it too. Well, i'll find out tomorrow if it's as good as the write-ups i've read.

 

[Acker79]

If i were an actor with a growing reputation and recent co-star in two absolute blockbusters and also likely to be seen as just a bit hunky by some young fillies, then i don't think i would agree to be the younger version of someone of the acting calibre of Bruce Willis. It'd feel the same as appearing in a Steven Seagal biopic and squinting at teachers with a glue-on ponytail throughout his teen years, and likely his early twenties as he still sought to complete his Mr Miyagi led SATs at a high enough level to go to Samo Hung University.
Anyway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt must have said yes to the chance to pretend to be the smug young Willis, effectively, with the aid of computer graphics that bent his nose and wrinkled his brow and reshaped his chin a little, in Looper. He does a reasonable job, to be honest, with the smirk and knowitall chuckle, and the very basic-level acting. And Willis isn't in it constantly, so that's something of a relief. In the main scene in which Willis, a man from the future sent back to be shot dead by his earlier self, and GL sit face to face, Willis' lines do seem to be as much criticising the younger version of the character he's playing as much as he is to the actor he might have once pretended to be.

Perhaps he said yes because he'd be co-starring with Emily Blunt. Would be enough for me.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I've tried to keep it myself, but i cannae any longer. I ventured into a cinema at my girlfriend's behest for the second time in three days. The first was to witness the fair to middling Anna Karenina made decent for moments thanks to the captivating dance sequence some thirty minutes in or so. The second, though, for which i'll hold my loved one responsible for making me sit through, and retaliate toward with a Steven Seagal weekend, was Perks of Being a Wallflower. She'd read the book, you see, and the film was director by the writer of the "popular", maybe that should be well-sold, novel. Gladly, i hadn't. Although, maybe if i had, i'd have a little bit of feeling for the glibly-etched characters i grew to emit a heaving groan at for so many times during this corny tripe. I grabbed my face a number of times and even yelped an oh my god once or twice at how truly terrible it was, in this over-polished and shockingly-dialogued take on stereotypically tortured teendom.

If Stu Francis was alive and still had the strength in one arm to crush the grape he bragged of one day splatting, then i would beg him to go to work on Emma Watson's head. I simply can't bear to look at her. Listening was even worse. She is down there with Keira Knightley in the snooty actress group who look as emotionally filled and complex as one of our retarded royals when trying their hardest to like they care in the direction of an oik they're forced to pity. Frozen stiff players who when sent to extreme become immediately laughable. Knightley in David Cronenberg's Dangerous Method, for instance, is one of cinema's most hilariously asexual performances that should choke that spindly goat with embarrassment. In this film, though, Watson is pretending to be American. It doesn't work. Maybe thanks to some of the hideously cliched speakies she's to deliver, but also simply because she lacks an ounce of beauty in her performance. The only partly saving grace is that of the hugely gay Ezra Miller, who made his name with me in We Need to Talk About Kevin last year. His face is strangely shaped and his actions are loud and intrusive, but he remains slightly fascinating. Other than that, it was honestly god-awful.

There.

Thankfully, i have the London Film Festival tomorrow to embed myself in with partial mysteries. Starts for me with the possibly bad Doomsday Book (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2297164/ but with the tale of a boy who's a zombie, i was intrigued. And straight after is Wadjda. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2258858/ Who knows, eh?

 

[Meade's Ball]

The first day of the London Film festival for me today and i feel it necessary for whatever reason to announce and briefly (and unexpertly) critique what was spied with my little eyes. First up was Doomsday Book, a Korean triptych that had died a death in its pre-release and took a few years to finish. The first of the three tales concerns man reprocessing the rot and rubbish that's been built up over the years, and upon the completion of the loop fundamentally eating it, making him zombiastically viral. It was not the best, but largely comical. The second was the most stylish and appealed to my eyes and ears. It was by the wielder of the camera for Tale of Two Sisters, a creepy ghost tale i enjoyed in about 2005, and i like the way he does things. The camera creeps and suspends and the colour is ever-crisp and pure. His tale is in the fairly near future and a robot who does handiwork in a monastery believed to be the new Buddha. His philosophical debates with the organisation that invented him, which now wish to destroy him as no non-human creature should be permitted to attain enlightenment, were decent. The theme continued with man destroying the world or things of beauty and depth around him. The final part was of a comet crashing to earth, mocking the the vapidity of modern culture by screening clips of news broadcasts and of shopping channels trying to make a fast buck on portable shelters. It was amusing for a few seconds here and there, but not greatly appealing.
As i said, i liked the middle one and man's relation with machine.

Second up after a nice wander and walk through central London and up to Leicester Square, was Wadjda. This was good. Had me thinking of Children of Heaven which i only watched earlier this year and liked a lot. This one is the first film to be filmed in Saudi Arabia, so it seemed like a breakthrough piece. Also, director by a woman. It is the story of a girl of about 12 years old wanting to get the money to buy a bike she's seen in a shop window. This girl is Wadjda. Her mother and father are not married - the father is still choosing which of the possibilities of bride he ought go for, but this is mostly a subtle little tale, heartwarming, humourous and mildly distressing in unison, of the hardship of being a woman in Saudi Arabia. The little actress who plays Wadjda is an absolute charmer, combining beautifully a connivingness of this youthful chancer determined to get what she wants, and someone restricted of emotion the more she ages. The message of crushed and invisible femininity is clear, but it's never screamed out. It's just as much or more about a girl who just wanted that bike.

The director came out at the end for a Q&A and i applauded authentically. All the questions tossed at her were laced with praise, but concentrated on how difficult it must have been for her to make a film in a country in which there are no cinemas and women are not allowed to appear as any form of sexual figure on screen. She answered repeatedly that it wasn't that bad and not as revolutionary as some might think and that all she wants to do is make good films that Saudi people get to see, of themselves, and maybe ponder change afterwards.

I enjoyed it and i hope it gets a good release at some cinemas around the country whenever it can.

 

[Barry Izbak]

I loved Taken and was looking forward to Taken 2, although prepared for it not to be as good as the first film.

So that was pretty much they way it went. Not the same drama of the first film, but a similar body count. Worthwhile 7/10

 

[Meade's Ball]

Today was a quite good day again. It opened with Ship of Theseus, an Indian movie up for best newcomer type award. Another 3-chapter piece concerning lives in Mumbai and how long a revised and reconstructed thing can keep to its name. The first part was of a photographer blinded by a cornea infection some years ago and after having an eye transplant feels a certain disconnection from her work and finding images anew. A very naturalistic and charming piece that glitters in authenticity and feeling. Halfway through this all the screen goes blank and we all must wonder if we're supposed to feel as blind as our lead once did, but in fact the film hit a glitch and in the dark we sat for 10 minutes or so. Once the problem had been fixed, the second part started and this was an excellent chapter too. It concerned a monk who walks barefooted everywhere and has a court case ongoing of looking to improve the conditions of animals lined up for medicine testing. The monk develops cancer and has to decide between taking the drugs necessary, betraying his beliefs, or fasting himself to death. Always a smile on his face and under the duress of his supporters he continues to talk about his philosophies and how they justify his refusal to save himself. In spite of the depth of its subject matter, it spoke of itself without horrid misery and was thoroughly engrossing and admirable. The final chapter didn't grip me as much of the other two, but i think that was partly thanks to me still having them firmly on my mind. Still, it linked to the other two and in the end they were all tied together sweetly.
Very annoyingly, thanks to the equipment stalling, i had to sprint from the cinema to get on to my next film. I wanted to hear what the director of Ship of Theseus had to say about it all and was forced to miss it. It was a very good film in its first 90 minutes and i very much liked its straight and unstark realism.

Next was Paul Bettany, Stephen Graham, Brian Cox and Mark Strong in Blood. It claimed at the end to be an adaptation of a tv drama, and by jingo you could get the taste of a fairly average ITV police drama throughout. Not uninteresting to watch but it didn't really build up the tension it wished to. Some of the imagery good and the performances steady enough from a half-decent cast, but as thrillers go a little tame and untwisty. The director spoke afterwards of looking to bend the mythology of family memories, but it didn't seem to have anything that strong to say of itself. It was ok, i suppose, but i am preferring foreign stuff thus far.

 

[Meade's Ball]

What a generally miserable pair of films viewed today. That isn't to question their decency, though, or to say that the experience of sitting through them was entirely unpleasant. First of them was the soon to be released Rust and Bone. I was excited in some ways thanks to it being by Jacque Audiard, the rather brilliant director of un Prophet and the Beat That Skipped My Heart. This however, no matter how well it was made, lacked the same punch as those two. The camerawork was shaky on occasion and ever neatly held, hovering pertinently in each shot. The performances by Marion Cotillard and relative newcomer Julien Schoenaerts were decent enough - although something annoys me about Cotillard's face, perhaps her chin. But i didn't have any sort of love or wish for success for either of the characters really. Flawed, of course, and that's generally forgivable, but i lacked feeling for their difficulties and didn't empathise greatly with their struggles. It was a good film, strikingly memorable for a couple of moments, but it was a bit grim and corny in the wrong places. Maybe i expected too much. Or more killer whale in it.

The second was two and half hours and by the director of the epicly tragic and gruelling 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. It was intensely slow moving and detailed, but generally gripping, all the way into a startling and darkly reasoned ending. Beyond the Hills was its name. It concerns the arrival at a smalltown Romanian station of Alina, by the friend she physically clasps for minutes, Voichita. They were best friends, and lovers no doubt, in the orphanage they were residents of throughout their childhood. No, Voichita lives in a monastery in the hills nearby and is quite comforted by the simple life led there by the slightly cultish leader of a small flock. Alina wishes for their love to be reborn and to head away to be together in Germany as they'd always planned, but Voichita is hooked and has a sense of belonging in the life she's leading. ALina goes to extremes, more than likely the result of a rather difficult upbringing, causing Voichita to often question her sense of belonging, whilst the religious leaders, archaic to many an eye, but not as sinister as they could have been, look to upset and delete and horrendously cure this evil in their flock. The tensions rise and i remember my eyes broadening glaringly when i thought of what it seemed like they were about to do to Alina. Holy christ it was worth waiting for. Also a great scene of one of the younger nuns reading out the insides of the book of sins, 487 of them, for Alina to tick off and list for her to go into her first confession. Brilliant direction. It's not one for anyone looking for a feelgood factor, but very worth a viewing if you are in the mood for some intelligent and well-composed drama one dark evening.

 

[Nibble]

Looper. It was quite good.

 

[Meade's Ball]

I realised yesterday that i need to take the rest of the week off of work. I went in for 8am. Answered phonecalls for 3 hours. Then went off to watch 4 films. I am crackered. I was that during the first two in all honesty.
First up was a Spanish film called Painless. It had the twin stories of a set of children in the 1930s, as fascism roared through the country, having a condition in which they feel no pain, and in the modern age a doctor who survives a car crash. The stories, unsurprisingly, are linked. As i said, i was quite tired already so struggled through it a bit. I enjoyed the start when it's found out some kids have this genetic "mutation"when they're playing with their bodies, setting fire to themselves and pulling out their fingernails, and enjoying it thanks to having no sense of agony. The backing music became more standard, though, and the acting style a bit 80s soap opera style. Still, it was alright and had some mildly haunting scenes.

Second was A Respectable Family. An Iranian film about lecturer returning "home" from Europe to work in Shiraz University. The lessons he teaches are rule-breaking and his free-thinking pamphlets are confiscated by management. His real problem lies in leaving, though. And when money is involved, parts of his wider family converge in a possibly sinister way. It was quite good. The manner of being by many involved showed a society in conflict in Iran and so much going on under the surface. A good sort of twist to it too. During this i kept awake fully thanks to a nattering set of Iranians in the seats behind me.

Thirdly was Helpless. This was a Korean take on a popular Japanese novel, i am told. A man and his fiance are travelling back to meet his parents as the wedding day approaches. They pull in to a petrol station, and when the groom to be returns to his car, she is missing. The hunt is on to find her. At first we imagine she's been abducted, thoughts of The Vanishing flooding through minds, but we quickly discover she's not the person she said she was. So, it's a hunt for her physically to find out where she's gone, and also to find some of the increasingly horrible things she might have truly been. Fairly standard, but alright. Didn't seem to fit into the more odd centre of the festival. But the performances were fun.

Finally, i had Ultraviral. A fairly cutprice product from Canada concerning celebrity addiction and how in the near future there is a popular market for members of the public to be injected with samples of the diseases the most famed recently had, in order to feel closer to their favourite star. It was by Brandon Cronenberg, son of the bodyhorror legend David, and it had a similar way to it. The budget was clearly not the highest, but some of the odd bodytech gross-out effects were good. I quite liked it. Maybe partly for not having to read subtitles. The lead in it with a body of endless freckles was good as the bug he's infected with causes hunchbackery and blood-puking and likely death. He has a constant intensity and his forehead's veins ever-seen and protruding with stress. The others seemed to be rather inexperienced, but Malcolm MacDowell turns up for a while and you get to see the difference between those who have a screen presence of any size and those who just don't really where they are. Not bad.

 

[Nibble]

Watched that Jeff, who lives at home. It was okay but thinks it has more to say than it does. It also contains the ever annoyingly casted Susan Sarandon. She always seems to be cast when the makers want a film to be taken seriously. There were some funny moments and some touching moments but it was all a bit 6th form attempt at meaningful that the yanks specialise in.

 

[Meade's Ball]

Ok.
So, the day before yesterday i had two fillums. The first was a British London-based "thriller" starring Gabriel Byrne and Charlotte Rampling. It were called I Anna and the intentions are for some early December release. Set in London's eastern centre it concerns Rampling attending her first speed-dating sort of evening in a fairly cultured venue. A murder occurs. Gabriel Byrne is a mildly grizzled cop who takes an interest in Rampling prior to any knowledge of the murder. Thankfully it's not really a mature Basic Instinct. Although their closeness and the notion of growing old and lonely does come into it, so romance is in the air. I thought it was alright. Not great, but alright. The opening 20 minutes or so had no real zing to them, and the camera seemed to wobble when it shouldn't have. The actors were fine though and they grow upon you. The thrills increase as the past is reflected upon more and a quite surprising twist turns up as it goes on. It was not bad.

Next was the very enjoyable comedic French film In The House by the constantly-working Francois Ozon. Maybe it would be funnier if French was one's natural tonque, but it tickled at times. Mostly, though, it's a brilliantly-handled stageplay-to-film piece that's edited untiringly and has a beautiful backing track to it. It was about a mature literature teacher who takes an interest in the rather dark writings of one his students. This interest encourages the 16 year old boy to write more, and in doing so, considering his penned tales are of happenings in his actual life, he is persuaded to effectively do more to make the next chapter more outlandish and interesting. The teacher eggs him on and becomes intensely eager for the next installment, as does his wife played Kristen Scott Thomas who is addicted to the ongoing fable. So it's a story within a story, and the question is self-asked of how much of it is real and who is to blame for this growing farce.
I enjoyed it and recommend a viewing when it comes out.

Right, yesterday. 3 films. First up was Sessions. I am a big fan of John Hawkes in Winter's Bone and Martha Marcy May Marlene, so thought this comedy would pay off. Sadly it mainly didn't. He plays a 38 year old man crippled for life by Polio as a child. It's a true story, or so they make out, and is about this bent-bodied man who spends much of his life in an iron lung losing his virginity. A therapist suggests a sex therapist, who is fundamentally a king-hearted and psychology-trained prostitute. Who turns up? Helen Hunt. She's 49 now is Hunt and they create a golden glow around her, a little like they did on Sharon Gless in Cagney and Lacey all those years ago, to hide the wrinkles all over her. In this case i do mean all over her as she's stone-cold naked for long spells. I get the idea they did some extreme muff-trimming and dying. It was all very alarming. A woman of age is no bad thing, but when they try to make her a sexual character made out to be a decade younger and with lines of life impossible to hide, then it just becomes odd and difficult to look at. Also, Hawkes only shows a tiny bit of bush. Not sure why Hunt is completely clothesless whilst Hawkes' privates remain hidden. Maybe they didn't want to show that his body hadn't been so maimed by Polio, but they had no reason to really show off Hunt for such long spells without garb. Anyway, besides that, it became a rather wet (fnar) comedy that lost any sense of itself the more it went along and came to a strange halt. Not very good.

Next was Easy Money, a film Scorsese has been going on about, apparently. And i can see why. My girlfriend's sister watched it and shook her head when i saw her after. I, on the other hand, liked it. It's a like a Danish Scarface. Some great action scenes and the tension was completely gripping. Not sure the ending could have been what it perhaps hoped to be, but it was the first part of a trilogy, and i am off to the second one today. A macho beauty.

Finally, late in the evening, i sat through a documentary about the Voina art collective in Russia. They're silly anarchists really, but were likable enough in ways. More political Jackass than anything else, but without all that many hi-jinx. The film/documentary was called Tomorrow and was interesting enough. They're linked with the Pussy Riot group so rottenly jailed for upsetting authorities earlier this year, but all we really saw was their plan to flip over cars - one a police car that had two members imprisoned for carrying out - and draw a massive penis on a bridge. The police are painted in a bad light, but that doesn't seem unfitting here. It were ok.

 

[SpongebobSquarepants]

Looper - Above average sci/fi thriller with a change of pace halfway through, to more of story based style, rather than action which worked well. 7/10
On the Road - Overlong working of Kerouac novel which while visually works well on big screen is just one road trip after another mostly involving drugs with no real story or likeable characters 4/10
Perks of being a Wallflower - Really enjoyable and brilliantly acted piece about troubled teen at high school being befriended by a couple of on the edge seniors. Emma Watson really good in this and even plays a convincing American 8/10

 

[Nibble]

Howl, interesting but ultimately vacuous.