FILM CHALLENGE: 86) Harry Brown

86) Harry Brown

Director: Daniel Barber

Year: 2009

Plot Summary: Retired widower Harry Brown spends his lonely life playing chess with his only friend Leonard Attwell. However, one night, Len is beaten to death in an underground passage by a young gang. Inspector Alice Frampton and her partner Sergeant Terry Hicock are sent to investigate but don't find any evidence in order to arrest the hoodlums. Upon hearing this, Harry Brown sees that justice will not be granted and decides to take matters into his own hands.

Having been unenthusiastic about seeing this British thriller, I was surprisingly impressed with Harry Brown.

It's far more than just the silly old-man-teaching-the-young'uns-a-lesson action romp that I thought it would be; kicking off with a heart-stoppingly shocking scene of violence filmed from a mobile phone, it becomes clear that the movie is, in fact, a disturbing portrait of suburban fear.

This fear comes from the senselessly violent kids on Harry Brown's estate who nest in the underground walkway near his home. This walkway symbolises the anxiety that Brown feels and that many of the more vulnerable citizens who live near him also feel. After all, they refuse to walk through the tunnel in fear that they'll be mugged, stabbed or maybe even killed.

Harry Brown is also a fairly involving character study too. He's a man who fought in the war for our country, but is now living alone after his wife passed on and his only friend died trying to defend himself against the kids. The change that he makes over the course of the film as he leaves behind the fearful onlooker who is afraid to step in and becomes the vigilante driven to clean the streets when he realises the police can't makes for entertaining viewing. Moreover, the contrast between Brown's motivated violence and the way that the kids on the estate indulge in it simply for laughs makes for an interesting contrast.

It all sounds very similar to the Clint Eastwood movie Gran Torino. Sure, in concept it is, but in execution it's entirely different because of the gritty, realistic style. While the former is very mainstream and safe, Harry Brown doesn't pull its punches with many of the violent scenes being bloody, brutal and shocking.

However, there are things that Harry Brown falls short and that Gran Torino certainly excelled in. The first, and the most obvious, is the way that teenagers are presented. Eastwood's picture showed a fair portrait of the youth of today presenting a number of them in the neighbourhood as violent and ruthless, but also presenting the family next door who were loyal, respectful, kind and honest. Here, though, it seems like Harry Brown plays on the stereotypes that the media has enforced on British society: That all teenagers are drug using, knife waving, alcohol swigging yobs. Personally, I find this particularly offensive and I think these kinds of representations of teenagers are the last thing our country needs. Moreover, the same can be said of the representation of homosexuality which is synonymous, according to Harry Brown, with violence and evil.

There also seemed to be a lack of morality about it. The police officer, performed by Emily Mortimer, is the moral standpoint in Harry Brown, someone who is on the right side of the law and fights against the broken system to achieve the justice that's deserved. But, in the end, it's Brown who is the hero for taking the law into his own hands and the officer, instead, covers up his acts to keep him out of trouble. Not that anyone would watch Brown and decide to become a vigilante, but it seems to send out a bad message unlike Gran Torino that, in it's finale, showed that non-violent means are more effective than any gun-firing.

The ending, in fact, is something I had particular issues with as, after all the build up, it ended on a rather over-the-top and obvious note. There's riots, a stand off between the young gang and the police and how many times, may I ask, will evil be brought to justice by the fact that it was secretly recorded all along? Along with the line 'Okay, now enhance it' when looking at CCTV footage or a photograph including the criminal in the background, and the ironic loss of mobile reception in horror movies, it's one of those cliches that I just can't stand.

Maybe I'm looking too deep into it though, because Harry Brown is still an entertaining, gritty, bold and impressive British thriller despite it's flaws. Michael Caine is still on top of his game.

3/5

By Daniel Sarath with 2 comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 85) Moon

85) Moon

Director: Duncan Jones

Year: 2009

Plot Summary: With only 3 weeks left in his three year contract, Sam Bell is getting anxious to finally return to Earth. He is the only occupant of a Moon-based manufacturing facility along with his computer and assistant Gerty. The long period of time alone however has resulted in him talking to himself for the most part, or to his plants. Direct communication with Earth is not possible due to a long-standing communication malfunction but he does get an occasional message from his wife Tess. When he has an accident, however, he wakens to find that he is not alone.

The winner of the top prize at the Edinburgh Film Festival last year, where I first saw the movie, Moon is a science fiction flick that, instead of being heavy on the special effects and the action, is carried by an intriguing mystery and a fantastic study of isolation and loneliness.

Sam Rockwell plays the main character and is the only actor in the movie for 99% of the time. Alone on the moon base, he has an accident when repairing one of the generators and later wakes up to discover another Sam Bell standing over him. Therefore, not only that but he also has to play two characters: The 'original' Sam and the 'new' Sam who is a representation of the man he was when he first arrived at the moon base. Despite how hard it must have been, Rockwell plays the roles effortlessly giving each of the Sam Bell's a different personality and character while carrying the entire weight of the movie on his back.

So who is the other Sam Bell and why is he there? Understanding the main enigma requires you to use your brain and put the pieces of the puzzle together. However, at no point does it feel like Duncan Jones has tried to make it hard to follow. He very admirably treats his audience with the intelligence they deserve while refraining from making it pretentious or convoluted. Moreover, the mystery is one that will have you hooked from the very first few minutes. Jones takes care of most of the exposition in the very the opening scene, an advert for the company that Bell is working for, allowing the audience to get right into the drama.

Like I said, the low budget, therefore, means Jones has a limited use of special effects. But nevertheless, he manages to make Moon equally as realistic as any movie by Michael Bay or Steven Spielberg. Taking a leaf out of 2001: A Space Odyssey, much of what he does is achieved through simple camera tricks and effective set design. A very rare and commendable approach in era of $100 million budgets and amazing technology.

Despite how enigmatic and arty I have made it sound, Moon is simply a very entertaining movie. It has its moments of sadness when the truth about Tess and his daughter is revealed, it's spine-chillingly haunting and suspenseful throughout, and even mixes in some humour with the best use of a pop song in a sci-fi film ever as "I am the one and only" blasts out of Bell's alarm clock.

5/5

By Daniel Sarath with 4 comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 84) Twilight

84) Twilight

Director: Catherine Hardwicke

Year: 2008

Plot Summary: A teenage girl risks everything when she falls in love with a vampire.

After being strapped to a chair with my eyes held open by machinery, I was forced to endure the first part of the Twilight saga, a franchise that has teenage girls flocking to the cinema like moths to a flame, for the second time last night. Unfortunately, the obsession and the adoration that these girls have for the films is the only thing about Twilight that somewhat resembles emotion. It's one of the most lifeless, cold and empty movies that I've ever seen. If the Cullen family think they're deprived of life, they clearly haven't sat through their movie yet.

The reason why is that the film's main characters, Bella Swan and Edward Cullen, have no chemistry, no spark and no connection whatsoever to make their romance at all emotionally involving to the viewers. Essentially, it's two hours of nervous glances, awkward conversations and uncomfortable passion.

Moreover, neither character has any personality - no likes or dislikes for example - and, therefore, it feels like you're watching two inanimate objects for the most of Twilight's running length. Many of the Twi-hards will argue that Edward is supposed to be mysterious. Be that as it may, what's their excuse for Bella? Almost everyone in the school and the town seems to be making a fuss over her, but there's actually nothing likeable about her whatsoever. She doesn't do anything that would attract anyone to her, she treats her friends like shit and she spends the whole time - despite having everything a girl could want - walking around in a sulk. Her spoiled, emotionless, miserable attitude makes her the single worst character to be conceived in this generation's pop culture. It doesn't help, mind you, that Kristen Stewart's acting is nothing short of abysmal.

Furthermore, there's so much of the story that feels, well, pointless. I know that Jacob becomes very important in the following films, but what does he actually do here except to turn up every now again and have a little chat with Bella? The same thing can be said for the likes of Victoria who's power and dangerousness is built up in the start of the third act and only then appears on screen in the final shot. Hell, I don't think she does anything in the second film either!

Even the minor characters suffer from this same fate as Bella's high school friends seem to exist only for the sole purpose of comic relief. Even then, aside from one fairly amusing line by Anna Kendrick, who is a wonderful actress, they really aren't that funny.

In terms of its style, well, Twilight is an embarrassment. While the far superior TV series True Blood has been able to craft a sensual yet eerie atmosphere, and the Swedish movie Let The Right One In, which doesn't deserve to be compared to Twilight in the slightest frankly, was poetically haunting, Catherine Hardwicke has no idea what to do with the film.

The same can be said for both Melissa Rosenberg and the novel's author Stephanie Meyer who quite clearly try their best to make all of the ideas fit together to the point of becoming forced. At one point, I asked my girlfriend, who I watched the film with, "Why are the bad guys so determined to kill Bella?" to which she tried to explain that they enjoyed 'the hunt' and 'the challenge'. To me this feels like a pathetic attempt by the writers to find some motivation behind their actions even when it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

How people find enjoyment in this I just don't understand. There's nothing touching or moving about it whatsoever, the main character makes me want to scratch my eyes out and the whole thing is so badly made.

However, I'm giving it one star just for the fact that it uses a Radiohead song in the credits. Sure, it doesn't suit the mood of the film at all, but at least it'll turn some people onto what enjoyment really is.

1/5

By Daniel Sarath with 4 comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 83) Monty Python and the Holy Grail

83) Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Director: Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones

Year: 1975

Plot Summary: King Arthur and his knights embark on a search for the Holy Grail.

Monty Python need no introduction. Their unique brand of quirky, bizarre and sometimes downright nonsensical humour done in an amateur style has made them iconic in British cinema. This, their parody of English history, is renowned as being their best work and it's easy to see why.

Right from the opening titles, which are supposedly messed up by a member of the crew who has added fake Swedish subtitles and extra names to the credits, it's a laugh-a-minute ride. Every single scene will have you chuckling so hard your jaw hurts while shaking your head at how ridiculous it all is. From the classic fight against the black knight in which all his arms are cut off but he continues to want to fight calling his dismemberment "only a flesh would" to the brilliant moment which pokes fun at Britain's infamous way of treating 'witches'.

Many people have tried to recreate the style of Monthy Python and failed miserably. Most notably, the creators of the spoof movies Epic Movie, Meet The Spartans, Disaster Movie, etc. But what these knock-offs lack is the intelligence. After all, behind all the stupidity and the nonsense, there is some very, very clever humour in The Holy Grail. Monty Python clearly know a lot about English history and are educated well enough, therefore, to be able to joke about it superbly. The role of the monarchy, their power and how they looked down on the poor people is poked fun at tremendously in the opening scenes. They use the way we used to treat the dead to comic effect early on too, spoofing the people who collected to dead as everyday bin men. And, best of all, are the jokes about the titles Kings used to earn with a character named Sir Robin the not-quite-so-brave-as-Sir Lancelot.

Monty Python are also, in my opinion, one of the very few comedy filmmakers that really exercise the medium of film. Constantly, Python breaks the fourth wall and lets the audience know that its just a movie in the way that couldn't be achieved in other mediums. Characters make reference to whether a scene should be cut, one part is known by the characters as Scene 24 and let's not forget the utterly unconventional final scene in which, before the final battle, the police put a stop to the filming and arrest the lead characters. It also brilliantly wears its low budget on its sleeve with the ingenious way they present the King's horses and the purposely terrible special effects.

There is very little plot development, the storytelling is awful and the character don't make any kind of changes over the course of the film, so as a narrative, The Holy Grail is terrible. But, really, I don't think narrative has anything to do with it. It sets out, simply, to make you laugh from start to finish and, to me, The Holy Grail succeeds at this. Towards the end, you're so laughed out and the jokes keep coming so fast that it's a little exhausting, but Python have once again created 90 minutes of genuine hilarity that will keep you laughing time and time again.

4/5

By Daniel Sarath with 2 comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 82) Dog Day Afternoon

82) Dog Day Afternoon

Director: Sidney Lumet

Year: 1975

Plot Summary: On a hot summer afternoon, a Brooklyn bank is held up by the down-and-out Sonny and Sal, but they find that there's actually nothing much to steal as most of the cash has been picked up for the day. Sonny then gets an unexpected phone call from Police Captain Moretti, who tells him the place is surrounded by the city's entire police force. Having few options under the circumstances, Sonny nervously bargains with Moretti, demanding safe escort to the airport and a plane out of the country in return for the bank employees' safety.

Set over the course of one hot New York summers day and taking place in only five or six different locations with a small cast of characters, it's amazing to think that Dog Day Afternoon is able to say so much about 1970s America.

Sonny, played incredibly by Al Pacino in one of the finest roles of his career, is someone who bought into the American system totally; he's a practicing catholic who worked for Goldman in 1964 and fought for his country in the Vietnam. However, upon returning home from the war, like many people in this era, he found himself disillusioned by the country he once stood by. He came back to work on a petty wage as a bank teller, unable to readjust to life with his wife and children and finding the pressures of life far too great to deal with. From being the majority, he became the minority.

His repeated phrase, "I'm dying here", seems to not only speak of the fact he's running out of options when the police surround the bank, but also of his life in America which he expected more from.

However, Dog Day Afternoon isn't just a film about the disillusionment of those who returned from Vietnam, it's also a film about the death of the 1960s movement as America rolled over into a new decade. The movement aimed to challenge the establishment and Sonny seems to represent this in Dog Day Afternoon. He's as a man who is, in many ways, fighting against the system, who are, of course, the police and the FBI. They swarm around the bank in an attempt to silence Sonny, in both a metaphorical and literal way, the way that Vietnam protestors were silenced in the Kent State shootings in 1970.

During the movie, he is able to cause some kind of change through the hostages. Initially the bank is presented as the ultimate Conservative bastion where the tellers are all rigid, uptight, religious, and eager to correct Sonny's grammar and condone his foul language. This offers some kind of hope that the minority can make a difference.

The crowd, on the other hand, offers a negative critique of liberal revolutionaries. When Sonny is a political symbol, they embrace him and join him in jeering the police. They, essentially, make a hero of him. But as Sonny shifts into a social symbol, the true colors of the crowd come through as they mock him for his sexuality and they boo him for shunning his mother. Politically the crowd is liberal, but they still believe in certain values of heterosexual patriarchy and they still respect the family unit. Sonny can be a symbol for them when they think he's just a married man with kids, but when his life is revealed to be more complicated, they have trouble dealing with it. In the end, Sonny is only being cheered by a group of gay activists. There's no unity - only fractured America.

It's one of the most thematically complex movies I've ever encountered despite its simple premises and also features one of the most complex characters too. He starts off as a simple somewhat crazed bank robber, but over the course of the movie, we learn more and more about Sonny through his conversations with the police, hostages family and partners, drawing up a rich, sympathetic and three dimensional portrait of a troubled human being. Lumet's style perfectly complements this as he directs the film like two different men. The films half of Dog Day Afternoon has a frantic, kinetic, documentary style in which the camera zips up and down lines at the bank, paces around Pacino like a caged animal, and soars above the mess in a helicopter. The second half, however, is intimate as the camera slows down, everything becomes more close up and scenes begin to elongate.

Also worth a mention is the performance from John Cazale who is mind-blowing in just about everything he does and, certainly, the fact that Dog Day Afternoon was one of the first un-stereotypical, realistic portrayals of homosexuality in cinema. As someone constantly enraged by cliched gay characters, Dog Day Afternoon was a welcome breathe of fresh air.

Funny, tragic, action packed and also very intimate, Dog Day Afternoon is everything you could want from a movie and is one of the highlights of the 1970s.

5/5

By Daniel Sarath with 3 comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 81) The Road

81) The Road

Director: John Hillcoat
Year: 2009

Plot Summary: A father and his son walk alone through burned America. Nothing moves in the ravaged landscape save the ash on the wind and water. It is cold enough to crack stones, and, when the snow falls it is gray. Their destination is the warmer south, although they don't know what, if anything, awaits them there. They have nothing: just a pistol to defend themselves against the lawless cannibalistic bands that stalk the road, the clothes they are wearing, a rusting shopping cart of scavenged food--and each other.

The Road by Cormac McCarthy is my favourite novel of all time. Therefore, the first time I saw the adaptation of the movie I was, obviously, a little disappointed. While the book had me staying up reading for nights on end because I cared so deeply about the father and his son, the film didn't grip me quite as emotion as McCarthy's Pulitzer prize winner did. While the book was so harrowing that it altered my entire view of the world, the movie isn't anywhere near as unforgettable. And while I read The Road with tears constantly running down my cheeks, Hillcoat's adaptation was mostly unable to provide the same emotional response.

However, to compare the two, I have realised on my second viewing of the movie, is unfair. The film isn't the book and, despite how hard it is, I tried my best to separate my love for the novel from my expectations of the movie. By doing this, I realised that there is a lot to admire about Hillcoat's adaptation.

After all, the desperate measures that Viggo Mortenson's unnamed character goes to in order to maintain his son's innocence, safety and well-being in the face of such suffering and evil remains as powerful as it did in the book. Seeing him teach his son how to shoot himself to avoid suffering at the hands of cannibals, for example, will leave even the most hard of hearts touched. Mortenson's performance as the man is stunning and he proves that he is one of the most dedicated, hard-working actors in Hollywood today.

The boy is also a fantastic character as someone who has born after the disaster and only had his father's stories to understand what the world before it was like. When he is given a drink of coke found at the bottom of an old vending machine, his wonder provides one of the most touching moments of the movie while his questions about whether the sea will be blue when they reach the coast provides some of the most heart-aching. For such a young actor in such a demanding role, Kodi Smit McPhee is very impressive.

While it's these characters and their relationship that provides the heart of the movie, it's Robert Duvall who steals the show though as an old man they encounter on the road. His character simply provides a further inside into the harsh world of the story and helps bring to light many of the biblical, philosophical undertones of the movie, but if you take one look into Duvall's sad eyes you see a character who has years of memories behind him. It's only a small role, but Duvall gives it a level of depth that even McCarthy's book couldn't rival.

Moreover, the film of The Road has been able to capture the stark yet poetic style of the author's prose rather well through the direction and cinematography that is filled with both hopelessness and beauty. Using many real locations in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina also gives it the realistic gut-punch that McCarthy achieved through his words. The shots of long stretches of road left in ruins and an old ship washed up in the middle of a highway among some of the movie's most breathtaking moments.

Sure, it's nowhere near as good as the source novel as it still feels rushed and lacks the emotional punch that makes Cormac McCarthy's masterpiece unforgettable, but The Road is nevertheless a good adaptation and remains a heartbreaking study of a father's love for his son.

4/5

By Daniel Sarath with 3 comments

Toronto International Film Festival 2010

TIFF is the film festival that I have always wanted to attend. Sure, it's Sundance that is the most highly regarded in the industry as it showcases many of the underground, independent movies that will go on to be hits. Sure, it's Cannes that is renowned for its glamour and bringing many of world cinema's best movies into the mainstream. But it's Toronto that has consistently brought us the big, highly anticipated, Oscar contending films of the year. And this year, they've managed to somehow even out-do themselves. Take a look at some of the films in the 2010 line up:

Another Year

The new Mike Leigh movie that was a huge hit at Cannes and one of the frontrunners to win the Palme D'Or.

Biutiful

Javier Bardem won Best Actor award at Cannes for his performance in this film from the director of Babel and Amores Perros.

Black Swan

The highly anticipated new release from Darren Arronofsky who has brought us the cult classic Requiem For A Dream and Oscar nominated The Wrestler.

Blue Valentine

Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams star in this romantic drama that has already drummed up some Oscar talk.

Buried

The suspense movie that shook Sundance featuring only Ryan Reynolds, a mobile phone, and a coffin buried underground.

The Conspirator

Appearing high on my list of films to see this year, The Conspirator is Robert Redford's period thriller starring James McAvoy and Robin Wright Penn.

Conviction

Sam Rockwell and Hilary Swank in a true story about a mother who put herself through law school to save her wrongly convicted brother. It already sounds like a huge hit in the making.

The Illusionist

When I went to the Edinburgh Film Festival earlier this year, this new animated film based on a screenplay by the legendary Jacques Tati was the talk of the town.

It's Kind Of A Funny Story

The Half Nelson directors are back with this unique coming of age drama set in an adult psych ward.

Jack Goes Boating

Directed by the actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jack Goes Boating promises to be a moving, touching, heartfelt independent drama about the lengths someone would go for love.

The King's Speech

Period dramas about monarchy make me want to be sick. But with a cast as stunning as this, with a story that sounds this remarkable and all helmed by upcoming director Tom Hooper, this is a movie I'm very interested in seeing.

Never Let Me Go

I'd never heard of this story until a friend told me that it's based on one of best books he'd read in years. Therefore, this thriller promises to be a great watch.

The Town

Ben Affleck surprised critics behind the lens with his brilliant debut Gone Baby Gone. He's back, surrounded by an awesome cast and a great story for his newest effort The Town.

Trust

Friends star David Schwimmer has once again gone behind the lens after his comedy Run Fatboy Run was a huge success in 2007. However, he's certainly left his comedy roots behind in this one as it's the harrowing story of the build-up and aftermath of a teenager's seduction by an online sexual predator.

Anyone want to buy me a plane ticket?

By Daniel Sarath with No comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 80) Open Your Eyes

80) Open Your Eyes

Director: Alejandro Amenabar

Year: 1997

Plot Summary: A very handsome man finds the love of his life, but he suffers an accident and needs to have his face rebuilt by surgery after it is severely disfigured.

Many of my friends rave about Vanilla Sky, the Cameron Crowe directed movie starring Tom Cruise. However, aside from Almost Famous I'm not a fan of Crowe's work and Tom Cruise has, in my opinion, only ever gave one noteworthy performance throughout his career in the terrific Magnolia. Therefore, I chose to, instead, check out the Spanish original of Vanilla Sky entitled Open Your Eyes.

There's a lot to enjoy about the film as it, first of all, boasts two brilliant performances by Eduardo Noriega and Penelope Cruz. Secondly, it's a story that admirably never slips into cliche or genre conventions as it morphs from a touching romance into a dark drama and later even incorporates many elements of a science fiction movie. Thirdly, it's also very ambitious, telling a story that from the very first scene is puzzling and enigmatic and will require some thinking on the audiences behalf to understand the whole plot.

However, while its intentions are good and Alejandro Amenabar deserves some recognition for creating a fairly unique picture that seems to incorporate the visual style of Lynch and Kubrick with the storytelling of Charlie Kaufman, Open Your Eyes isn't necessarily fantastic.

The main problem that I found with Open Your Eyes is that, while I mentioned before that it's admirable for not conforming to one genre, the many different tones, themes and styles that appear in the film don't quite complement each other. Unlike a movie such as Synecdoche New York which found a great balance between the darkness and sadness and the comedy and romance, Open Your Eyes ultimately feels rather disjointed.

Moreover, the story becomes very far-fetched towards the end. The opening hour, in which Cesar is forced to cope with living with a disfigured face after always being so popular because of his good looks, is grounded in reality through universal themes like rejection, heartbreak and desperation, therefore making it involving viewing. But then Open Your Eyes reaches the last act, and as the story morphs into science fiction the narrative becomes so ridiculous that you end up feeling a little perplexed by the whole thing. After all, it feels so out of place and disorientating considering how realistic the opening half of the movie was.

Nevertheless, despite its glaring faults and its confused storyline which too often diverges from the point, Open Your Eyes is ambitious, visually arresting and has two startling lead performances which certainly make it worthy of a watch if you fancy this kind of thing. Besides, I bet it's a damn sight better than Vanilla Sky.

3/5

By Daniel Sarath with No comments

Could Inception change Blockbuster cinema forever?

"It's the Blockbuster movie that will set the bar for all the others to come," I said in my review of Christopher Nolan's latest release Inception some days ago.

Over the last decade Blockbuster cinema, in my opinion, has hit an all time low. Most of these movies, from Transformers and Pirates Of The Caribbean to 2012 and Valentines Day, have treated the audience like idiots and have continued to do so because they've made a profit.

Transformers, for example, which didn't even have any kind of story line and simply tried to entertain its viewers through special effects, immature gags and Megan Fox in skimpy clothes, made £300,000,000. The Pirates Of The Caribbean saga, with the exception of the first movie which wasn't terrible, ran along the same lines with convoluted and faulty story lines disguised beneath pointless special effect scenes, childish humour and Johnny Depp's swaggering, quirky Jack Sparrow character. Nevertheless, seeing as it also made £300,000,000, who cares if the film didn't make any sense or didn't have any story? Clearly, people don't care about about a story, they just want to see a spectacle and just want to be entertained.

But, now, Inception has come along. A complex, thought-provoking, intelligent story that is also hugely entertaining. Most of all, however, it treats the audience as smart people who are able to listen, are able to use their brains, and are able to connect the pieces of Nolan's puzzle together. And so far, within just two weeks of its release, it's already made a third of what both of the movies above have grossed, Also, it has received incredible reviews and an outstanding reaction from its audience. On Twitter, it's been high on the 'recent trends' list ever since it hit cinemas. On IMDB, it stands in the top 5 highest rated movies of all time. And, wherever I have done over the last 2 weeks, I've been asked by friends and family alike: "Have you seen Inception yet?"

Therefore, movie producers will have to ask some serious questions from an industry point of view now: Do we carry on making the same old spectacle movies that have nothing new or intelligent about them yet draw in enough money regardless? Are the audience dumb enough to keep coming back for more of this kind of stuff? Or do we start making films that will make people think now that Inception has become a huge international hit? Do audiences actually want something that will both excite and puzzle? Will these kinds of stories make more money?

Moreover, it will beg the question about whether original stories should be more frequent in the summer Blockbuster season. After all, for the last decade, it has been mainly populated by comic book adaptations, sequels, reboots, TV show adaptations and novel adaptations such as Sex And The City, Iron Man, The A-Team, Die Hard, etc. All of which, although they made a lot of money, could well be overshadowed by the success of Inception, a story conceived in the mind of Christopher Nolan, if its audience appeal carries on. So do producers, therefore, find more original stories for this blockbuster season? Do people actually want to see something new instead of the tired old sequels and adaptations that we all know what to expect from?

What I'm trying to say here is this: Inception has the potential to show studio bosses that they are wrong; that people don't want dumb movies. Inception also has the potential to kill off the tired old excuse that many filmmakers have used this decade of 'we had to dumb it down to get a mainstream audience'. Because, if this film goes on to be one of the highest grossing movies of all time, it will show that people are able to keep up, and be hugely entertained, by a complex, intelligent and original movie.

After all, it's so intelligent and thought-provoking that the pay off is more rewarding than any Blockbuster that's been released in the last 10 years.

By Daniel Sarath with 3 comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 79) Happy Go Lucky

79) Happy Go Lucky

Director: Mike Leigh

Year: 2008

Plot Summary: A look at a few chapters in the life of Poppy, a cheery, colourful, North London schoolteacher whose optimism tends to exasperate those around her.

The first time I watched Happy Go Lucky in 2008, my very first experience of a Mike Leigh movie, I was left underwhelmed. Lacking in much plot and featuring an annoying lead character, I found it to be a boring, monotonous series of encounters with little connecting them. However, on my second viewing, I enjoyed it very much. Having seen more of Leigh's movies, Secrets And Lies and Vera Drake, I was more aware of the style and I was able to understand what he was trying to say here.

Last night was the third time I watched Happy Go Lucky and what I experienced this time was somewhat of an epiphany.

Poppy is a 30 year old primary school teacher who still just wants to enjoy living and has an optimistic view on the life. In the face of the world's sinister nature - whether it's when she has her bike robbed or when a student becomes violent and it's later revealed he's beaten by his step dad - she has the ability to remain unaffected and continue to find joy and happiness.

Poppy, who is spectacularly performed by Sally Hawkins, is someone who refuses to grow out of her childlike outlook on life despite her age and become a cynical, jaded adult - in the scene where she goes to get her back healed, her colourful, joyous nature contrasts with the situation in an extraordinary way to help enforce the idea that she's perhaps too old for such optimism. When her sister asks her about pensions and investments, for example, she laughs it off with the breezy attitude of someone who couldn't care less, and when a colleague quizzes her about her love life she responds in a way that makes it clear that Poppy isn't looking to settle down and commit any time soon.

Her job as a primary school teacher symbolises her childlike view of the world: she just wants to have fun and worry about the serious stuff later. Moreover, her clothes, which would be more appropriate for a 16 year old girl enforces this idea that Poppy is someone who has never grown up in the way that most other people have done.

After her aforementioned bike is stolen, she takes driving lessons from Scott. Brought to life by the always incredible Eddie Marson, Scott's an only child with a troubled relationship with his parents and, therefore, he's been forced to see the world as an evil place. He makes reference to satanic beliefs very often and sports a nihilistic view on life that conflicts with Poppy's. His job as a driving instructor, in my opinion, symbolises the transition between between the childlike optimism of youth and the cynical, jaded perspective that results from growing up. After all, learning to drive is one of the things that take you out of your youth.

This sets into action a subtle dilemma in Poppy's life: Does she continue to live with the same outlook as always and continue to be naive, happy and upbeat enjoying what life has to offer? Or does she come of age and accept the true, horrible, unfair nature of the world?

It's the kind of dilemma that, at some point, we have all or will all have to face in our lives. But, Happy Go Lucky is more than just an examination of what we should do with our lives. It's also a life-affirming piece of work that will leave you inspired to be more like Poppy and continue to hold onto that childlike outlook or seek to get it back.

For a film full of meaning and depth, however, Happy Go Lucky is also laugh out loud funny throughout. Leigh's trademark style of allowing the actors to improvise their dialogue helps pave way to some naturally hilarious lines from Hawkins and the cast that surround her. But, also, Leigh's subtle, unobtrusive style of director allows the dialogue between the characters to flow naturally and lets the meaning and heart of the movie be the focus of the viewer's attention.

It's beautiful, inspirational, moving, expertly made, hilariously funny, terrifically acted and boasts one of the most amazing lead characters that this last decade of cinema has gifted us with. Happy Go Lucky is an underrated masterpiece that makes me proud of British cinema and has shot way up into my top 50 films of all time.

5/5

By Daniel Sarath with 5 comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 78) 2001: A Space Odyssey

78) 2001: A Space Odyssey

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Year: 1968

Plot Summary: When a large black monolith is found beneath the surface of the moon, the reaction immediately is that it was intentionally buried. When the point of origin is confirmed as Jupiter, an expedition is sent in hopes of finding the source.

Stanley Kubrick's science fiction epic has gone down in history as one of the most mysterious films that cinema has ever produced. Ever since its release 42 years ago, those who have watched the film have debated over it's meaning and attempted to explain what exactly Kubrick was trying to achieve with 2001. Therefore, writing about this movie is an almost impossible task seeing as the director leaves almost everything open to interpretation here. Sometimes, it feels like a philosophical journey. At other times, it feels like a statement on technology and its influence on people. Or, perhaps, it's about the search for the meaning of life?

But, whatever it all means, there's no denying that Kubrick has created something incredible here. Starting with the dawn of man, a 20 minute sequence set in the world in apes using no dialogue expect the grunting of these animals, the natural sounds and the classic score, before leaping forward thousands of years into colonised space, it's hard to deny that it's a work of incredible ambition. Moreover, it's one of the most visually stunning movies I have ever encountered. Despite having none of the special effects that most modern sci-fi films have, the shots inside the spaceship and the scenes set in outer space are breathtaking and will leave you in awe. But, most of all, its use of sound is phenomenal. While I don't really take a lot of notice to this aspect of film-making, 2001 used it to so well to complement the images on the screen that its impossible to ignore.

The film has 4 different acts: the aforementioned dawn of man sequence, a part in which a doctor visits a planet where the monolith has been discovered by man, a part in which two astronauts are put in charge of a spaceship headed on a crucial mission, and finally, the mission itself which takes the spacecraft to Jupiter. Undoubtedly the most amazing part of the movie is the one with the two astronauts in which they find themselves in jeopardy because the ship's computer, HAL, has developed an unprogrammed motive of its own. HAL is one of cinemas most villainous characters despite the fact that it's simply just a screen with a red light. The extreme close up shots and the calm, emotionless voice make give you a sense of foreboding from its very first appearance on the screen and, because of its power, you never know when or how HAL will strike. As well as being a great villain, Kubrick seems to have rightly predicted that technology would become a powerful thing in the new millennium and one that humanity would be lost without.

Way ahead of its time and a movie that will continue to inspire debate and stun viewers for years and years to come, Kubrick's movie is a must-see for any film fanatic.

4/5

By Daniel Sarath with 2 comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 77) Leaving

77) Leaving

Director: Cathering Corsini
Year: 2010

Plot Summary: Suzanne is a well to do married woman and mother in the south of France. Her idle bourgeois lifestyle gets her down and she decides to go back to work as a physiotherapist. Her husband agrees to fix up a consulting room for her in their backyard. When Suzanne and the man hired to do the building meet, the mutual attraction is sudden and violent. Suzanne decides to give up everything and live this all engulfing passion to the fullest.

Leaving is an intimate drama about affairs. It explores the reasons why a woman like Suzanne - who, on the outside, seems to have everything - would want to throw it all away for another man and it explores the consequences of these actions.

The former, which makes up the first half of the film, doesn't really amount to anything special. Aside from a few hints at Suzanne's repression, which are symbolised by a contrast in the jail cell like house she lives in and the open countryside of Spain where her the builder lives, it's all very obvious stuff.

However, the latter, which makes up the second half of Leaving, is actually very interesting viewing. While many love stories end on the high note, leaving the audice to assume that the couple will live happily ever after, Leaving's happiest moment appears in the middle of the film as Suzanne tells Ivan that leaving her husband for him was "the happiest day of her life". From here on out, we watch the couple try and make a living for themselves in France while Suzanne's husband uses his political powers to stop Ivan's building company from receiving any contracts and refuses to give Suzanne any money.

Thanks to another unbelievable performance by Kristen Scott Thomas who seems to slip into this character effortlessly, as well as the supporting cast of Sergi Lopez and Yvan Attal, this last 45 minutes of the movie is very moving. Moreover, the subtle and simplistic style of Catherine Corsini should be praised as well.

While it's not a particularly memorable movie, Leaving is interesting, moving and is worth watching simply for some outstanding performances.

3/5

By Daniel Sarath with No comments

FILM CHALLENGE: 76) Maradona By Kusturica

76) Maradona By Kusturica

Director: Emir Kusturica

Year: 2008

Plot Summary: A documentary on Argentinean soccer star Diego Maradona, regarded by many as the world's greatest modern player.

Can a documentary be bad? After the recent success of films like Man On Wire and The Cove, it would be very easy to think not. Documentaries, after all, have the ability to give you a first hand look into a way of life that fiction could never recreate. Last year's Which Way Home, for example, was a chilling and frightening look into Mexican life and how America, for poor people in that country, is their only hope of having a life. They can also inform you about a true event. While fiction can adjust the facts and skip important details to maintain the flow, pace, etc. documentaries rarely have this issue and, moreover, it's easy to present many different sides of the story in this medium. So films like One Day In September make for phenomenal viewing. Last of all, and the reason I love documentaries so much, is because they can give you an incredible look into a person's true self. Man On Wire, Grizzly Man and Gonzo, for example, are all incredible studies of a certain human being's life.

Therefore, when I recorded Maradona By Kusturica, I expected a brilliant examination into one of football's most adored icons and a look into the game itself and the country he represented. However, all I found here was an answer to my question: Documentaries can be bad.

This film is the single most egotistic and self-involved piece of art I have ever seen. I've criticised David Lynch's Inland Empire before on this blog as being too caught up in the director's own image of being 'weird' and 'artsy', but Emir Kusturica takes it to a new level in this documentary. Aside from needlessly putting his name in the title, for a film about Maradona, the football icon actually appears on the screen less than the director himself. Kusturica has selfishly edited reaction shots of himself into every interview, chose footage of the footballer which include him standing next to him and even opens the movie up with a pointless scene of him and his band which I can't even begin to understand the purpose of. Most of all though, he even has the ignorance to include pieces of footage from his own films in the documentary!

Moreover, instead of actually examining the life of Maradona, he chooses to just film his political ravings. I guess it brings to light his strong political views, but surely a man of his stardom has more about him than that! Also, as a documentary film-maker, it's imperative that you look at two sides of a story. I've never made a documentary in my life but even I know this. The aforementioned Grizzly Man showed footage of people who rightly despised Timothy Treadwell for putting his girlfriend in danger while it also presented interviews with loved ones who sympathised with his troubled mind. Even The Cove, which was very one sided, at least tried to explain the reasoning as to why the Whaling companies slaughter so many dolphins. But, here, Kusturica only interviews two people: Maradona and the priest of a church dedicated to him. Therefore, whichever way you look at this documentary, it lacks insight, it's lazy and it's completely one sided.

Voice-over, furthermore, is something I can suffer in a documentary to give exposition that footage and interviews cannot. However, here, Kusturica uses the voice over to simply voice his own philosophical views and his adoration for Maradona. What especially angered me though was how he recited conversations he and the footballer had. No offence, sir, but if you're going to conduct and interview on a film, it's usually wise to show it.

Even in spite of all these things, it's just a terribly made movie that uses the same footage over and over again, has no sense of pace or flow and is horrendously monotonous seeing as, every ten minutes, the film revisits the same animation sequence of Maradona's goal against England set to the song 'God Save The Queen'

By the end of this monotonous, two dimensional, uninformative, hero-worshipping and unbelievably selfish piece of work, I just wanted to scream at Emir Kusturica: "This is about Maradona! Not about you! Shut up and go away!"

Awful in every possible way.

0/5

By Daniel Sarath with 2 comments