Source Code

As this film is a concept movie that achieves most of its success on a first viewing, that right from the very first scene involves a puzzle that you, and Jake Gyllenhaal’s character, have to unravel, I don’t think it would be a good idea for me to give away much of the plot. I can say though there is not just one puzzle but at least three almost buried inside each other that we have to try to unpick. The problem, though, like most puzzles, is whether once you’ve solved it you want to keep watching, and/or ever see it again? Undoubtedly you want to see how this film ends. It is intriguing, thought-provoking, well-written and acted, and nothing is solved until the last minute, when perhaps even then questions are left unanswered. There are always logical flaws in this type of film, the question is whether they are obtrusive enough, or covered over cleverly enough. In a very similar film, Deja Vu, the viewer is just about convinced. In Source Code, however, the flaws I think are too many, or the one main flaw is too large. You finish the film thinking about that, rather than what the film means, which I think is a failure. It is a cross between Groundhog Day, Vantage Point, Deja Vu and a host of other sci-fi films, as well as perhaps a touch of Quantum Leap. Jake Gyllenhaal is excellent, and the film isn’t claustrophobic as it might seem if I were to describe the plot to you. It is compelling and tragic, but at the same time it is only a concept movie, a genre which is limited in scope by its very nature, and can only point to one inevitable ending which when it is avoided by the director/writer, the viewer feels slightly cheated. Without a doubt, Duncan Jones is a director to keep an eye on, and this is a promising second movie (although I'm wondering if he'll ever move away from sci-fi or not), but there will I hope be better to come.

Super 8

It seems at first that this film sits uncomfortably between several genres or approaches: it mixes elements of horror, emotional drama, comedy, sci-fi and the monster movie, is aimed at adults and kids, and is both postmodern whilst being nostalgic.  This doesn’t appear to make any sense, and yet it does. J. J. Abrams has created something almost entirely new with this film, but I don’t think it’s an experiment that can be repeated. This is like a kids’ film for adults. Or rather, a film for adults who were kids when these movies came out: E.T., Flight of The Navigator, Explorers, The Goonies, and The Last Starfighter. It follows similar lines to these yet obviously ironically, now being set thirty years in the past where those were contemporary. It is also a far more serious, and at times frightening film. Like those films, like indeed all great action films, the main drive of the movie is the emotional development of the characters. It overtakes the terrifying events around them and very neatly, perhaps too neatly, provides a resolution to the whole drama. What I did miss was how the small scale charm with which the film starts, following its predecessors, is swept away, especially towards the end. This is the temptation of the relative ease of modern special effects, perhaps. Like all monster movies, the suspense is better than the explanation. I also regretted how the role of the Super 8 film itself became relatively insignificant, when it could have been (and perhaps was originally intended to be) the crucial element of the movie. Anyway, I don’t know what people who haven’t seen those original films might think of this, but for those of us who have, it’s unmissable.

The Fantastic Mr Fox

I am usually the first person out the door when a new Wes Anderson film is released, but when this movie was in cinemas last year I was hesitant. In fact, when I had heard about its production I already knew I probably wouldn't see it straight away.Why is he making a children's film? I thought. In fact, having now seen the movie, I wonder if anyone under the age of 18 and/or not familiar with Anderson's previous films could have enjoyed this at all. There is so much aimed at adults, and so much Andersonian techniques and trademarks, that with only a few changes it would closely resemble The Royal Tennenbaums, or Bottle Rocket. This in itself is both a good and a bad thing. Anderson's films are an enjoyable indulgence but, like Tarantino in a way, I begin to wonder if he'll ever make a 'serious' film, or deal with real issues. This is perhaps a fictitious division, it could be argued everything in life is real, everything is serious, but there is something undeniably light in Anderson's films that, given his incredible talent and vision, I wish he would turn to drama. The Fantastic Mr Fox is hilarious, surprising and heart-warming, but sadly it is nothing we haven't seen before. I've no complaints if he keeps on making such films, but would feel a tinge of regret each time he did.

Brooklyn Rules

I think this film may have gone straight to video, and once you've read my review you might agree with that decision. It stars Freddie Prinze Jr, Scott Caan and Jerry Ferrara as three close friends growing up in Brooklyn in the 1980s, struggling with what they want to do with their lives, and becoming involved with the Mafia. As you can tell from this summary, it's like a poor version of Goodfellas, The Godfather, Boyz n the Hood, or The Departed. This film fails in more than just its lack of originality, however. I wasn't interested in any of the characters, right from the start. They have no interesting, or new, dilemmas to face, and aren't particularly likeable. There is nothing life-changing or even intriguing here. The romance of Freddie Prinze Jr's character doesn't go through any complex stages that can't be predicted. It stutters along beside the main plot, trying to decide how important it wants to be, and ultimately becomes insignificant. A major problem is that Freddie Prinze Jr just isn't right for this role. He can't do the accent, and he can't pull off character's more complex motivations. Add to this the fact that the film was mis-advertised as an Alec Baldwin vehicle (he appears in literally three or four scenes) and you have a very disappointing movie. There is one particularly gruesome and shocking moment, but that's all, and it's hardly worth paying the rental money just to watch it.

Paranormal Activity

I realise I'm very late in reviewing this film, and that whilst it was immensely popular on its opening, it has now probably faded from your memory. It actually had its first release in 2007, but didn't reach the UK until November last year. However, this was not solely down to the usual time lag between the US and here. The movie was initially made and released with little budget (comparisons to The Blair Witch Project were inevitable), before being picked up by a big studio, altered slightly (with the help of Steven Spielberg) and then re-released. The plan had actually been to remake it entirely, and this almost happened when during a test screening people started walking out. What they soon realised, however, was that these people were walking out because they were terrified. So, the film eventually gained a full, international release, its popularity spread through social networks, and the rest is history. I can't deny that it's frightening. In many ways, the mundanity of its opening makes what happens later more scary. Tension is built successfully, with little or nothing ever given away. This is how horror films should be made. The acting is amateurish, and the camera-work becomes irritating after a while. The plot is contrived at times (to get them to stay in the house, and to get him to continue filming when any normal person wouldn't), but you are carried along by fear and anticipation. It may not be worth seeing a second time, and clearly they had problems with the ending which, for me, still doesn't work, but it achieves what it sets out to achieve, and you have to applaud them for that.

Stardust

From the moment I first heard of and then saw trailers for this film I felt there was something wrong. Having now seen it, I can confirm these fears. What I'm talking about you might say is only one part of the experience, but for me it was crucial. When dealing with the fantasy genre, you have to create a new universe with new rules. It has to be compelling, original, and believable. For me, Stardust doesn't achieve this. The world created here (either by Gaiman or the film writers) feels like a confused mixture of elements borrowed from other stories. It attempts to reassure us with well-worn clichés of witches, princes and so on, but then confuses us with the way in which they are all put together. In the film at least, it doesn't make sense. The universe is a random series of events and characters with no cohesion. It feels like a flawed attempt to copy other better, or more completely conceived, fantasy worlds. The movie is also hindered, rather than helped, by the big name cast putting in only average performances, and I think the over-hyping and advertising of the film made expectations too high as well. The lead actor is uninteresting, and his relationship with Claire Danes too saccharine for me. It is a strangely flawed film, and perhaps the good parts hint at what the book might be, but as it stands the movie fails to create a creditable universe and thus, I would argue, fails overall.

Rendition

This film bases itself on a real story, or rather a real situation, but most of what happens is fictional. Whilst perhaps unfair to the real persons involved, I think it's a good approach that could've been adopted with some other films. It allows the writer to stay true to the essential dilemma, but be able to create the drama around it to fit the pace of the movie, rather than real life. Jake Gyllenhaal works for the CIA in North Africa, where a suicide bomber has recently attacked. A man is arrested on a flight to America for the bombing, flown back to North Africa, imprisoned and tortured there, without trial. Reese Witherspoon plays the man's wife, and Meryl Streep a senior figure in the CIA. It's Jake Gyllenhaal, though, that steals the film here, and the whole plot could've easily centred on him alone. As it is, we are given two or three sub-plots, one of which at least must be unnecessary. The most interesting aspect of this film, though, which will ruin it for those of you who haven't seen it, is the time-shift that occurs towards the end. It's a very neat device which ties everything together, but looking back on it once the credits started rolling, I began to worry. What does it add except suspense? Did it mean something to the story (like the device in Memento did)? Do we even need that story line at all? The film does its job well, is harrowing and dramatic, but could easily be seen to be quite perfunctory, leaving several threads hanging at the end.