365 Days. 365 Films.

I usually begin these reviews with a brief plot synopsis. That way, anyone reading this blog can instantly tell whether or not they may like a film. Unfortunately I cannot do the same for this feature length debut by John Carpenter since I have absolutely no idea what was going on throughout.
But here is what I made of the story anyway: A group of BeeGees look-alikes decide to make a film one day with a single camera, and by the sounds of it, they don’t even have a boom. They cut out a piece of paper in the shape of a space ship, flick some white paint onto a black sheet and call it outer space. By the time the story actually begins they seemed to have exhausted all their so called ‘special effects’ and so we just see them fooling around with some classic comedy props, which is where I get confused – I don’t know whether or not this is supposed to be a comedy! Anyway, after a lot of fooling around, shouting at each other and sunbathing (why?) the ship, Mother, (this film is written by the same guy who did Alien) asks one of the men to “feed the alien”. If, by this point, you are still interested/sane then the worst is not over… The astronaut goes into a room holding a brush, beckoning an alien toward him – this is the point where the film could have redeemed itself with a naff yet scary-in-a-50s-horror-kind-of-way alien. The alien was a beach ball with bird-like claws! After that the beach ball gets on the loose and there is a confusing incident with an elevator, a lot of shouting, a frozen guy and a Hal9000 type bomb, the end!

It’s not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, and it’s not just because of the terrible ‘special effects’ (they used a torch as the sun) because that can be forgiven given the fact that this is from the mid-70s, but what cannot be forgiven is the God awful acting, frankly inexperienced direction, choice of props (a beach ball??? Really?) and the overall quality of the script. If you need an example of how terrible the script is then just watch the last 10 minutes – this was their chance to bring some action, tension and emotion into the film, but instead it’s as if they were trying to wrap it up as quick as possible – no wonder it’s only 82 minutes long, they were probably too embarrassed with it to go on!

Daniel Day-Lewis stars as Daniel Plainview, an oil prospector rising to the top of his career through the ages. The story begins in the late 1800s as Plainview single handedly begins his hunt for riches until a couple of years later, his friend joins him. Filled with greed after stumbling upon some oil, Plainview murders his friend and gets away with the money, but filled with guilt he also takes ownership of his friend’s son.

The character of Daniel Plainview has been scripted beautifully and so well thought out. He is greedy, selfish yet charming and witty and wonderfully complex. Daniel Day-Lewis does do a great job in this role with a performance initially resembling some of Sean Connery’s better work, but before too long it becomes clear that the character is his, and his alone. With his rise to fame and fortune comes his inevitable downfall and Day-Lewis manages to maintain a strong emotional bond with the audience throughout his character’s mental breakdown and distanciation is never suffered through his weaker moments.

I think one actor who really stood out in this film is Paul Dano playing the part of Eli, a religious young boy who tips off Plainview for a load of oil in his town. His performance through every aspect and emotion of his character is completely flawless and believable and it’s a wonder he never received an Oscar for this.

Besides the stunning performances, the cinematography is also something to behold. Each and every technical and creative application has been well thought out to add to the tension or emotions of the audience as well as the plot and, all in all, the combination of a great plot, brilliantly written characters, stunning visuals and unbelievable talent make this film one to watch!

When Mr Dashwood dies he leaves his wife and her daughters poor and alone by leaving all of his assets to his son from his first marriage. Three daughters Marianne, Elinor and Margaret (Winslet, Thompson and François) struggle to cope as they move in with a relative and try to marry themselves back into a wealthy family.

Austen’s original story has been handled well with great detail to the subtlest of characteristics with Marianne and Elinor in particular. These things can partly be accredited to Winslet for her stunning and in depth performance in a fairly early stage of her movie career, but Thompson is mainly to thank for the genius of this film as she also wrote the screenplay adaptation. Ang Lee’s direction is also perfectly subtle and classic and, combined with a beautiful score by Patrick Doyle, this truly is a film to remember.

The casting was perhaps a little off — I wouldn’t have expected Hugh Grant to appear as anyone in this film, never mind as Edward Ferrars. His nervous and slightly geeky acting style is charming in a fluffy romantic comedy, but this is one of the greatest novels ever written, and quite a complex character. His style didn’t play well in this film because he can apparently do nothing else, but it wasn’t something which bugged me for the whole film, and certainly not enough to ruin the brilliance of the acting from Winslet and Thompson.

Dangerous Liaisons is a period drama with a twist. Glenn Close and John Malkovich play aristocrats, bored with their mundane every day lives and so they begin to cause mischief with others’ love lives. Playing around with passion and betrayal they plot to seduce and ruin the lives of those who hurt them.

It’s sexy, edgy and everything you wouldn’t expect from a film within its genre but it plays out with such ease and disregard for convention and controversy. Glenn Close is absolutely amazing playing the cold-hearted and vicious Isabelle, but John Malkovich is equally stunning in his role as Sebastian – similarly cold and callous but obliging all of Isabelle’s needs with an endearing but sinister quality.

Stephen Frears can apparently not make a bad film – his film making far surpasses the levels of what I would normally expect from a ‘conventional’ director, in that his techniques are often very subtle (i.e. not in the style of Edgar Wright or Baz Luhrmann who seem to favour the more visually stunning techniques – and to great effect!). Frears has the capacity to capture his audience to the point of no return and even though his technical applications are subtle, he executes them well with the slightest hint of genius – perfect for a film of this caliber.

This is a film about a man and a woman meeting on a train in Europe, and that’s it… There is nothing else to the plot besides them falling in love and going on a spontaneous mini break around Europe, but it works! The conversations they have are the ground for both the characters and the story rather than any actions, yet you never get bored of their endless chatting.

Jesse (Ethan Hawke) is an American, unsure of where his journey will take him or what he will do, and Celine (Julie Delpy) is a beautiful French woman teaching him European culture as someone who apparently travels a lot. I think that the charm of this movie comes from the natural chemistry between the stars and what feels like improvised dialogue. In the style of Woody Allen the dialogue is hesitant, imperfect and beautifully suited to the characters emotions within each scene. It really does create a sense of realism, effectively bringing the audience closer to the characters.

The direction of this film blends beautifully into the background too, making you forget you’re watching a film and enhances the sense of realism. From the director of School of Rock, Richard Linklater here shows off his talents, and a very different style too.

It’s definitely one to watch but possibly not for those who are impatient or don’t like romance, because this is very much a romance film a la Woody Allen – just with less of a plot…

An Education is set in the 1960s, about a coming-of-age girl being seduced by a man twice her age. With maturity and taste beyond her years, Jenny (Carey Mulligan) falls in love with David (Peter Sarsgaard) because of their common interests in art, literature and music, and like most romances between people with a certain age distance, the relationship is fatally flawed.

I have to admit that I was initially repulsed by the film, opening with the title: ‘BBC Films’, but after only a few minutes it got into full swing thanks to stunning direction by Lone Scherfig. Scherfig manipulates the audience with her use of cinematography, inspiring emotions ranging from discomfort to romance and the performances she managed to pull from the actors are untouchable.
Carey Mulligan, being 23/24 at the time of filming and release effectively persuades the audience to her young naivety as a 16 year old and Peter Sarsgaard swings effortlessly from romantic lead to villan as the story progresses. The film is packed with British talent such as Olivia Williams and Emma Thompson and encompasses every great thing about British cinema and Britain in general.

The film is primarily about a romance between a young woman and an older man but also portrays views of feminism during the 1960s in a very happy-go-lucky way. This could be the downfall of the film as it quite comfortably ignores further intellectual stimulation in favour of a traditional structure, although if the film had gone down this route, it could have failed in prompting the same emotions concerning the romantic side of the story. Giving into commercial structure, however, does not downgrade the film – it’s still thoroughly enjoyable and thought provoking in equal measure; a true characteristic of a British Film, and hopefully the future for BBC Films…

Ever since America first declared their intentions of going to war with Iraq late in 2002 there have been a string of films dedicated to it, however Katheryn Bigelow’s interpretation of the Iraqi War seems to draw from common perceptions. The film diverts attention from the war itself in favour of a character study, revolving around a few select soldiers in a bomb squad. The characterization of bomb expert William James (Jeremy Renner) is the focal point of the film and anyone expecting an action-packed thrill ride will be sorely disappointed. Similarly anyone interested in the study of the war itself will find that the Iraqi War is merely a backdrop and a setting for the characters rather than a narrative device.

Jeremy Renner brings heart and soul to the film with his galvanizing performance, taking the film to a new level of affect upon his character’s introduction. Anthony Mackie’s Sergeant Sanborn is also a distinguishing character in the story, learning from Sergeant James that conventional methods are not always appropriate. The friendship between these characters builds with the story as the audience get a more intimate glimpse of soldiers’ lives both on and off duty.

Bigelow’s cinematic construction within the film surpasses others within the genre in building tension and proximity to characters’ emotions. The use of ‘shaky’, documentary style camera work puts you right in the action and her use of slow motion intensifies it. Bigelow manages to capture audience’s attention with a typical opening scene and later subverting their expectations by disassociating the war to accommodate the brilliantly written characters. This disassociation fixates the audience on the screen, leaving them wondering what will come next.

With seven Academy Awards, including Best Direction and Best Film it is difficult not to expect a lot from this film, but distanciation from the primary theme (Iraqi War) should leave room for you to thoroughly enjoy the characters.

This is a Canadian, French language film which was recommended to me through a friend on Facebook and I’m so glad I watched it, it is visually stunning. The story follows the life of Zac and his family as he tries to make his parents proud and struggles with some sibling rivalry with one of his older brothers Raymond. As they get older, Raymond turns to sex and drugs while Zac turns to music, going through all the familiar fazes of adolescence. Being accused of being gay turns Zac into a rebel and he eventually gets alienated from his family, though his striving for attention never seems to falter.

As I’ve said, the cinematography is awe-inspiring and the choice and placement of music is brilliantly devised. What I found about this movie as well is that the characters are so well written that by the end of the movie, it feels like you know them personally. I didn’t want the film to end and shortly after it had I found myself missing the characters, wishing there was more to see of them. The dialogue is great and although nothing much happens in the film it never gets boring. There isn’t much to say about the plot without giving something away, so I won’t, but I cannot stress enough how fixated I was by the camera work and the characters.

This is a film I would definitely recommend if you can get hold of it so watch the trailer (posted above) and if you like that, you’ll love this film!

If this is supposed to be a comedy, it’s amazing. Frighteningly, I don’t think it is. This film is about a half-shark, half-octopus genetic experiment gone wrong. The monster escapes it’s mechanical implant which allows it’s creators to control it and it starts to kill everyone it can get it’s tentacles on.

I realise that disbelief must be suspended when watching any film that involves a half-shark, half-octopus monster, and that it’s hardly a documentary, but there are certain things which should have been scripted/directed better (or at all). Firstly the monster doesn’t seem to have a motive for killing other than to carry the plot – it doesn’t kill for food or defence, it just likes to rip the heads off casual sunbathers minding their own business (which neither a shark, not an octopus would do). More importantly, no one seems that arsed about the mass killings, with the greatest exclamation of terror being a surprisingly nonchalant ”oh no!”. Furthermore, I recall a scene in which the monster is attacking someone in an open-air restaurant and the people sitting at the next table are so engrossed in their delicious meals that they don’t even notice the chaos before them. People seem to run towards the monster, no one can shoot straight at it despite the fact that it’s about as big as a cruise ship (and then smaller, and then bigger again) and the friends and family of those killed by it laugh it off and then continue with their business.

There is very little charicterisation in the film, partly because of terrible scripting and acting, and otherwise because of the amount of characters introduced. With no explanation randomers are introduced to the plot for no other reason than to be killed, one character who stands out is a girl in a bikini using a metal detector on a beach – a beach which should have been closed down due to the slight risk of death by Sharktopus, but never is for the entire film.

With the shaky cinematography this is less Cloverfield and more like the cameraman was drunk (which you probably would have to be to agree to do this film), and the only redeeming factor is that the film includes a Wilhelm Scream, displaying a certain level of self-humour. Another point I would like to make is about the CGI – just to remind all fimmakers, if you have a budget of zero (as I imagine this film had) don’t try to use GCI.

I would definitely recommend this film, purely because it’s so shit, it will make you laugh a hell of a lot and/or inspire a new level of appreciation for good films.

I actually watched this film the other day but thought it would make a good review because, if you haven’t seen it before, you probably should. It was my first viewing of this French New Wave movie and it was pretty much as expected – weird. The plot is confused but I’m fairly sure it’s about a couple having a rather bizarre weekend and in true Godard form, it’s a postmodernist’s wet dream.

There are certain scenes which don’t seem relevant, including a scene involving a long discussion of what seems like lesbian rape, turning into a discussion of a threesome which was wholly enjoyed. It  seems to go on forever, and with the woman involved seeming upset and distraught the shocking element comes when the discussion is waved off and then the experience is never spoken of again. The ending of the film is also shocking with some unflinching cinematography showing animals getting slaughtered – which doesn’t ruin the ending for you, because it’s hardly conclusive.

The main thing I want to say about this film is that I do think it’s a good film, but if you’re not the type of person to watch ‘artsy’ films then you won’t really enjoy this film. Similarly you won’t enjoy it if you bore easily as the film involves a ten minute tracking shot of traffic… Again, you won’t enjoy this film if you don’t understand/enjoy postmodernism, surrealism or symbolism in films. I study Film at university and this film gave me a headache, but it’s a very intellectual film which will open your mind up to new possibilities and visual styles in cinema.