EDEN LAKE (2008) - James Watkins

Occasionally, two of my friends and I seek out the darkest, most disturbing films we can find and spend a night putting ourselves through these finds. Grim Night, we call it. Two nights ago, I had a Grim Night on my own. I got hold of James Watkins’ Eden Lake and sat down to watch it on Valentine’s night. Christ. It was dark. The British horror film manages to take common fears and magnify them with horrific results.

Jenny and Steve are a young couple, looking for a quiet weekend away at a picturesque flooded quarry which will be soon turned into a holiday resort. They pack up their four by four, bring a tent and head off. Unfortunately, the quiet seclusion is disturbed by a group of young teenagers, bent on mayhem. At first, the teens are a nuisance. But Steve’s pride leads him to confront the teenagers. This serves no purpose but to enrage the teens, who embark on a vicious vendetta on the couple.



The major success of Eden Lake is that director James Watkins creates an air of tension that is palpably uncomfortable. From the moment the first teenagers appear, you instantly feel uncomfortable, aware that these teens can turn nasty very quickly. They’re fiercely territorial, and Steve and Jenny’s intrusion on their turf will only lead to confrontation. Watkins never lets the tension drop, indeed it escalates steadily throughout the film.

The violence in the film is sporadic, but incredibly disturbing. We’re not talking ridiculous Saw-levels of blood spilling, but violence which, taken in context is quite realistic. Michael Fassbender’s performance as Steve just adds to the nastiness of the events as he (once again) delivers a brilliant piece of acting. Kelly Reilly also does very well, however, her character reacts to situations that at times feel rather contrived. But Jack O’Connell’s performance as the lead teen in the gang is by far the shining light of the film. Brett is a vicious, angry, nasty piece of work. However, there are reasons behind who he is. And O’Connell manages to convey these reasons without ever being obvious. It’s his performance with Watkins’ writing that is the success of the role.



Eden Lake is one of those nasty little films that you hear little about, but leaves quite the impression on you. It’s relentlessly grim, and the tension builds to an incredibly nasty climax. It does play on the fears of Daily Mail ASBO hysteria, but that’s necessary for the purpose of the film. It’s a great little British horror film, and shows the big-budget American films how it’s done properly. Great performances and incredibly nasty. Just the type of film to be watched on Valentine’s Day!


8/10

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE (2009) - Spike Jonze

Max is a lonely young boy. He lives with his mother and sister, but plays alone. He has no friends and lives and plays in his imagination. He’s also angry and disruptive. After he is sent to his room without dinner, Max runs away from home, finds a boat on a pond and sails to the world where live the Wild Things, giant beasts whom Max befriends. But Max’s nature creates tension within the group, and their relationship gradually breaks down. Especially the relationship between Max, and the group’s ‘leader,’ Carol.

Where The Wild Things Are had a troubled production. Some even questioned whether or not the film would see a release. But it was released and it’s a fascinating film. It’s brilliantly made. No other director than Spike Jonze could have created such a real world without resorting to solely computer generated imagery. The production is of the highest quality and Jonze has created yet another absolutely unique film.



However, make no mistake, this film doesn’t feel like it’s aimed at children. I’d go so far as to say it’s not in any way a kids’ movie. It deals with quite adult themes and is quite a dark film. It’s also quite sad and won’t have you skipping out of the cinema. But then not all films are happiness and joy. Sometimes you need something dark to even things out. Having said that, Where The Wild Things Are is a brilliant piece of work.


8/10

BRUNO (2009) - Larry Charles

Sacha Baron Cohen has reached the zenith of his satirical interview technique. There’s nowhere else to go. When he first appeared on British television in his Ali G guise, the possibilities were endless. Nobody knew who he was, and people gave themselves over fully to his ridiculous interviews. But Ali G grew tired quickly, so to keep things fresh, Cohen created Borat, the Kazakh television interviewer and Bruno, the gay Austrian fashion icon. With Larry Charles, Cohen took Borat to the big screen in 2006, and in 2009, it’s Bruno’s turn. Borat was a huge success, but can lightning strike twice?

Bruno fronts the show Funkyzeith Mit Bruno, a fashion show where the titular character interviews the movers and shakers in the fashion world. But after a disastrous incident involving a Velcro suit at the Milan Fashion Week, Bruno is fired from his show, and loses his Philipino midget boyfriend. So, in an attempt to get back to the top, Bruno and his assistant, Lutz, hit the United States in order to propel Bruno back to the top of the celebrity ladder.



Plot details are really play second fiddle to the real draw from these films. And that’s the awkward situations Cohen sets up to play with his targets. And after seeing Bruno, it’s really amazing how far some people will go before they snap and can’t continue with the interviews. Borat set up some pretty outrageous situations. And got some pretty decent laughs out of them. But Bruno takes things to a whole other level. There are things in the film that leave you agape with shock that Cohen had the balls (no pun intended) to pull them off. There’s no question that he is pretty committed to his art and will gladly sacrifice his own safety in order to carry out an idea.

But is the film funny? When the film attempts to drive plot forward, no. Obviously, there has to be a plot, no matter how thin, to keep the film from just being a series of increasingly awkward interviews and situations. These moments can feel a little contrived when put next to the real-world situations. But when those situations arise, the film hits it’s stride. And when at these moments, it’s outrageous, shocking, and hilarious. There is one moment in the film that was so funny, I can’t remember a time when I laughed harder in the cinema. I won’t give anything away, but I had tears of laughter running down my face at the sheer craziness of the situation, and the thoughts that must have been running through the people who were the targets of the prank.



There’s not much that can be said about the film without giving too much away. It’s funnier than Borat, and at times, funnier than most written comedies. But reality is always funnier or more shocking than fiction. When the film deals with fiction, it’ll make you chuckle at best. But when it comes to the ‘reality,’ Bruno will have you cringing in horror and guffawing with laughter.


8/10

THE HANGOVER (2009) - Todd Phillips

You’ll have to excuse the briefness of this review as I’m writing it, and my thoughts on Transformers both in one sitting, and I’m just dying to get onto Transformers. The Hangover is a comedy from Todd Phillips, the writer-director of Old School and Road Trip. In a way, The Hangover is like a melding of those two films. It’s part road movie, part grown up guys having a good time with consequences film, although in this film, we only see their partying.

Doug is due to get married. Two days before his wedding, his best friends, Phil and Stu, and Doug’s soon-to-be brother in law, Alan take him on his bachelor weekend in Las Vegas. Phil is a married teacher and wants to party hard before he has to settle for good. Stu is a man on the verge of proposing to his girlfriend, a thundering bitch who keeps tabs on him twenty four seven. And Alan is a bit of an idiot, but well-meaning at the heart of it. Things go awry when Phil, Stu and Alan wake up after the party with no memory of what had happened and no sign of Doug’s whereabouts. So they must begin an odyssey to find their friend before the wedding.



There’s not much that can really be said about The Hangover. It’s a really entertaining, genuinely funny buddy comedy that relies less on gross-out humour and more on situational comedy. It’s too easy to just gross the audience into laughter in comedies these days. But rather than rely on that, Phillips lets his characters and the messes they get themselves into create the laughs. Ed Helms, who is a central character on The Office seems most at home when it comes to comedy. He’s a very funny performer, and while Stu, his character in the Hangover isn’t as ludicrous as The Office’s Andy Bernard, he still handles the situations very well.

Zach Galifianakis plays the idiot of the piece, which, along with Bradley Cooper’s pretty asshole character, is a staple of these types of comedies. It’d be too easy to mess this character up, but Galifianakis gets some pretty big laughs throughout the film. He spends most of the film with a blank expression on his face, but the is part of his schtick, and carries the character.



The most uncomfortable part of the film is a cameo by Mike Tyson. It’s impossible to separate Tyson from the controversies that have dogged him throughout his career. And when he does turn up, you can’t help but feel he’s going to lose it, step out of the screen and punch you right in the face. However, seeing Tyson singing and air-drumming along Phil Collins’ ‘In The Air Tonight’ is worth the price of admission alone, and much more entertaining than a drumming ape in a chocolate advertisement.

A very solid and entertaining comedy, The Hangover shows that resorting to lowest common denominator laughs isn’t the only way to garner a chuckle from the audience. Far better than Phillips’ other two hits, The Hangover is a quality film amidst a swathe of really terrible summer blockbusters.


8/10

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (2008) - David Fincher

There are certain films that you know are made for awards ceremonies. Sometimes intentional, sometimes unintentional. The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button certainly comes across as one of those types of films. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But watching them, you know exactly the type of audience the film is made for. David Fincher takes a different direction than the dark thrillers he’s known for by directing Benjamin Button. But will the unknown territory work against Fincher’s style.

Benjamin Button is a baby born on the night World War I ends. His mother dies in birth and his father, a rich factory owner is horrified when he sets eyes on his baby son. Benjamin is born with a condition that causes him to age backwards. He is born an old man and gets younger as he gets older. Benjamin ends up living in an old folk’s home, where he simply appears to be one of the people staying there. But as he gets older, and his faculties return, Benjamin wants to get out and see the world. Despite his love for a young girl, the granddaughter of one of the old folks, Benjamin must see the world. And so he sets off, unsure where his travels will take him.



A lot has been made of The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button being very similar to Forrest Gump. And in ways, they are quite similar. They both feature protagonists who are unique in the world. They both long to go out and see different things. They are both in love with an unattainable girl. So, yeah, I’ll admit it could be argued that they’re practically the same movie. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to Benjamin Button. Despite all the similarities, Benjamin Button’s still a very entertaining film to watch.

Firstly, it looks amazing. Fincher’s one of the great directors working today. Working with cinematographer, Claudio Miranda, Fincher creates a film steeped in detail and gorgeous colours. Aside from the special effects, which I’ll get to in a moment, the quality of the production is second to none. 1920s New Orleans looks amazing. Russia feels cold and sharp. And the golden era of 1950s America is suitably golden. And the special effects themselves are fantastic. The old (or is it young) Benjamin Button really looks as if they somehow aged and shrunk Brad Pitt. The only thing that still remains elusive when it comes to creating CGI people is they eyes. No matter how expensive and professional the CGI, they still can’t get human eyes right. There’s just something empty about them. I guess the eyes really are the windows to the soul!



Pitt’s performance is good enough for the role. The thing about Button is, he seems to be an observer in his own world, rather than somebody who drives events. When it came to Forrest Gump, while Gump was observing the things he witnessed, he did have a significant role to play in the events. Button seems to be drifting from event to event and allowing things to happen to him. And this reflects in Pitt’s performance. He just seems to be observing and isn’t required to do very much. Cate Blanchett plays Daisy, the object of Button’s affections. While the character does come off as a bit of a bitch, Blanchett plays her very well. The rest of the characters are played by some very good character actors, including Elias Koteas, Jared Harris and Jason Flemyng and are all very good in their roles.

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button’s not as memorable as Forrest Gump. Nor is it really deserving of the 13 Oscar nominations it’s received. I’m sure it’ll win a good few, but it’s in no way the film of 2008. It’s entertaining, and inoffensive, but it’s not going to set the world on fire. Fincher’s direction is rock solid. It looks amazing, and the performances are good, if not the best we’ve seen the actors deliver. And it should be seen on the big screen. But as I said at the start, some films are made to get awards. This is one of them.


8/10

GHOST TOWN (2008) - David Koepp

Ricky Gervais has forged one hell of a successful career on television. The Office, the show he created with Stephen Merchant has become one of the most successful television programmes of all time, and has made Gervais a household name. Over the last few years, Gervais has taken on a few film roles, always in support roles. Ghost Town marks his first role as a leading man. The transition from television to film has been an easy change for some actors. But for Gervais, it’s somewhat of a gamble, since he is working off somebody else’s script. Is it a successful transition?

Bertram Pincus is a dentist with a big problem. He hates people. He likes his job because it means that he doesn’t have to talk to anyone. His patients’ mouths are packed with cotton wool, making it impossible for them to talk to him. After a colonoscopy that left Pincus dead for seven minutes, the dentist finds himself with an unusual ability. He can see and communicate with dead people. It’s something that irritates Pincus incredibly. The dead need favours and only Pincus can help. One dead guy, Frank Herlihy has a proposal for Pincus. Stop his widow, Gwen form marrying her new fiancé and the dead will leave him be. But as Pincus strives to break Gwen’s relationship up, he finds a new set of problems. The biggest problem being his growing love for Gwen.



Ghost Town is written and directed by David Koepp, a writer who has written successful films such as Jurassic Park, Spider-Man and... um... Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Despite the last film in the list, Koepp has a pretty solid track record. So it’s easy to see why Gervais took the role of Pincus as his first leading role. However, you do feel throughout the film that Gervais had a great deal of input in the Pincus role. He is very comfortable in the role, and having played some very unsavoury characters in the past, he plays Pincus convincingly.

The film isn’t exactly laugh-out-loud. For the first fifteen or twenty minutes, I found myself wondering if Ghost Town was going to be a complete flop. However, once the story takes off, the film finds it’s feet. And thankfully, despite not being one of the best comedies I’ve ever seen, it is a very entertaining film. Playing opposite Gervais are Tia Leoni and Greg Kinnear. While they’re there to support Gervais, they do bring credibility to the film. Gervais didn’t necessarily need actors used to film to support him, but they never overshadow him in the comedy stakes and help ground the film.



Gervais makes for an odd leading man. He’s the first to admit he doesn’t have movie-idol looks. In fact, some of the comedy comes from Gervais’ short, pudgy frame. But the film doesn’t resort to easy physical comedy and instead relies on more subtle jokes. And it’s here that I think Gervais’ input was substantial. It’s a very entertaining film, and provides a good start to Gervais’ career as a film actor, in lead roles. Hopefully Gervais moves into writing as well as staring in films, and then the real test will begin.


8/10

NOT QUTE HOLLYWOOD: THE WILD, UNTOLD STORY OF OZPLOITATION! (2008) - Mark Hartley

I love a good documentary. And I love documentaries about filmmaking or the film business in general. SO when I got tickets to Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story Of Ozploitation!, I didn’t know what I was in for, but I was sure it’d be pretty entertaining.

Not Quite Hollywood kicks off at a time when the Australian film industry was on par with that of Iceland and Venezuala. In other words, there were few films that ever came out of the country. Sure, some productions shot there. But they were films that used the Australian landscape as a backdrop. They weren’t Australian made films. And then, taking a leaf from Russ Meyers and bawdy English films of the sixties, Australians started doing it for themselves. Comedies gave way to horror and the Australian film industry was born. It went through it’s ups and downs, but never gave in and did it all with a sense of humour that only the Aussies have.

The documentary itself is highly entertaining. Essentially, the film is a bunch of talking heads interspersed with clips from the films the filmmakers are talking about. But it never once becomes a dull, boring affair. The people involved in the making of these films are in themselves entertaining characters. And while a few names will be unfamiliar, their stories are no-less hilarious. Some of the films that crop up are recognisable, notably, Razorback and Mad Max. But a great many of the films are obscure films few of us will have seen. Having said that, there were a few curiosities mentioned that I wouldn’t mind checking out!

Of course, there are a few familiar faces. Quentin Tarantino pops up with his encyclopedic knowlege of exploitation flicks and offers a few insights. Jamie Lee Curtis, the star of the Aussie horror, Roadgames has some things to say. And crazy old Dennis Hopper provides a lot of laughs as his antics on and off the set of Mad Dog Morgan are recounted with a wry grin. But it's the many unfamiliar faces of the Australian exploitation scene that provide most of the entertainment.

It’s not a documentary that will set the world on fire. Nor will it be mentioned at the Oscars. But Not Quite Hollwood is the perfect balance of information and entertainment. It never takes itself too seriously and provides us with a view into a part of the film industry we’d probably never see. A great documentary that’s well worth checking out.


8/10

TROPIC THUNDER (2008) - Ben Stiller

These days, it seems like there are two types of comedy film. Films produced or directed by Judd Apatow, and films staring Will Ferrel. So it’s nice to see that Ben Stiller’s new film, the comedy Tropic Thunder has little to no link to either of these guys. Things are getting a little bit repetitive, so comedy needs something else. Parody is a staple of comedy. And war films are ripe for parody. Yet few films tackle this. Stiller does, and manages to create something genuinely funny.

Tugg Speedman is a Hollywood superstar. However, his career is on a bit of a decline, especially after the spectacular failure of his attempt at serious acting, the film Simple Jack. Attempting to reignite his career, Speedman takes the lead in ‘the most expensive war movie ever made,’ Tropic Thunder. He is joined by obnoxious fart comedian, Jeff Portnoy and five time Oscar winner, Kirk Lazarus. However, once filming begins, it immediately spirals out of control as the actors’ egos clash and director, Damien Cockburn loses control of the production. In a final attempt to get the best out of his actors, Cockburn drops his cast into the middle of the jungle. However, things get worse when it becomes clear that the cast are unknowingly in the proximity of a heavily armed drugs gang.



In Tropic Thunder, co-writer and director Stiller has created quite an attack on the film industry. Actors, agents, directors, everyone comes under fire. He launched a similar attack on the model industry in 2001 with Zoolander. But the film isn’t cynical or cutting. Instead, it’s more like a cartoon version of the industry, albeit with gore and gratuitous bad language. The film received a bit of flack over the Kirk Lazarus character who has skin pigment alteration in order to play the platoon sergeant, Lincoln Osiris. But it’s a parody. It’s not serious. It pokes fun at itself and the type of actor who immerses him or herself a little too much into their role. So these complaints are ridiculous. And besides, it’s a comedy. And a damn funny one at that.

Stiller, who co-wrote the film with Justin Theroux and Etan Cohen creates one of the most memorable comedy characters in Kirk Lazarus. Robert Downey Jnr.’s performance is spot on. His character is so lost in the role that he cant snap out of it when it’s clear things have gone absolutely pear shaped. It’s Downey Jnr., and a stunningly hilarious cameo by Tom Cruise of all people that are the outstanding things about Tropic Thunder. The dialogue is hilarious, and the parodies are subtle but handled brilliantly. Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, Apocalypse Now, and a great many other films are lampooned but in a way that makes sense in the context of the film. It’s not like everything stops to go ‘hey, look! We’re poking fun at... (insert pop-culture reference here)’ It’s something that talentless hacks like Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg have no idea how to do.



The performances from everyone are very good. Steve Coogan is his usual brilliant self, but his role is unfortunately quite small. Playing the man who wrote the book the film Tropic Thunder (the film in the film) is based on is crazy Nick Nolte. Nolte is madness personified, and adds a great edge to proceedings. The trio of movie stars are also great parodies in themselves. Stiller doesn’t lose any points in playing Tugg Speedman. He’s not preoccupied with directing and is very funny in the role. And Jack Black had the drug-addled Jeff Portnoy nailed. But like I’ve said before, it’s Robert Downey Jnr. and Tom Cruise who steal the show. It’s just a shame we don’t get to see more comedy from Tom Cruise. His reputation as someone a little bit eccentric just adds to the role. Hell, the film even makes Matthew McConaughey look like a great actor.

Tropic Thunder does lose a little steam in the middle of the film. But the opening is relentlessly funny and the laugh count does drop, but things are still very amusing. Sure, Tropic Thunder won’t win awards. But it’s a brilliant parody and a very funny comedy. And it almost makes me forgive Stiller for the dreadful Night At The Museum.


8/10

HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY (2008) - Guillermo Del Toro

Guillermo Del Toro is an interesting case in the annals of Hollywood. He’s an arty, independent director who works in his native Spanish language. But on the other hand, he makes big-budget Hollywood spectaculars. And yet both aspects to his career make plenty of money and garner critical acclaim. It’s a good thing then, that Del Toro sticks to his artistic principles and never seems to compromise just to get the films he’s making done. Take Hellboy, for example. Nobody would have thought that casting Ron Perlman as the central character would work. But Del Toro, and Hellboy creator, Mike Mignola did. And they were right. Hellboy didn’t set the box-office alight, but it was a modest hit. And did well enough to warrant a sequel, Hellboy II: The Golden Army.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army picks up where the previous film left off. In the opening few minutes we see Hellboy as a kid, watching Howdie Doody before he’s put to bed with a story telling of the creation of the Golden Army, a force created by Elves to destroy human kind. Young Hellboy assures himself it’s just a story. Years later, the prince of the Elves, Prince Nuada returns from exile to wage war on the humans once again. He wants to control the Golden Army, but his father and sister resist him. Far be it for Nuada to let a family squabble get in the way. He kills his father. His sister goes on the run with the last piece of the crown that will allow him control over the Golden Army. Meanwhile, Hellboy is having a rough time while working for The Bureau for Paranormal Research and Development. He’s having a rough time with his girlfriend, Liz Sherman. The Bureau want to tighten control on Hellboy, while he craves attention and fame. And with Prince Nuada making things difficult for everyone, Hellboy’s life is about to get a whole lot more complicated.



Hellboy is one of those franchises that flies under the radar. It’s never going to have the success of Batman or Spiderman films. But at the same time, the quality of the films is as good as the higher profile films. Guillermo Del Toro’s flair for the visual does give the Hellboy films something over it’s rivals. The films are packed with crazy and inventive monsters and creatures. Del Toro’s fascinated by visually stimulating media and draws inspiration from everything from Goya paintings to fairy tales and it’s because of this that his films are so fascinating to watch. Pan’s Labyrinth was one of Del Toro’s most personal films. But at the same time, Hellboy II, despite it being a Hollywood blockbuster, retains a lot of the personality of Pan’s Labyrinth.

While Hellboy II deals with the fantastical, the character of Hellboy also has to deal with personal issues. He’s hungry for fame, but finds himself the subject of ridicule when he gets the fame. He’s in love with Liz Sherman, but he’s also responsible for the breakdown in the relationship. And he’s got a huge problem with his temper. So while on the face of it, Hellboy II is a big spectacle film, it also has a personal side. Having said this, the story is the weakest part of the film. A personal side to these films is what gives them the edge over brainless blockbusters. But the spectacle must be huge. And for some reason, Hellboy II just doesn’t seem big enough. I know this seems like a contradiction, but there was just something lacking in the film that made it feel bigger than the screen.



Ron Perlman seems to have been born to play Hellboy, and here, he’s once again great as the big Red one. He’s certainly tough enough. But he’s also got the comedy edge to Hellboy down, and is always entertaining. Doug Jones plays a number of characters in the film, but mostly Hellboy’s colleague and friend, Abe Sapien. Jones is a Del Toro regular and he’s amazing in the monsters he embodies. His movements are unique to each character, and you really just don’t think it’s a human creating these characters. Jones also gets to use his own voice for Sapien, this time. In Hellboy, Sapien was voiced by David Hyde Pierce. Luke Goss, yes, him from Bros, plays the villain, Prince Nuada. Goss does pretty well in the role, which, for a villain, isn’t entirely unsympathetic. He’s got a beef, but it stems from injustice in the past. Del Toro’s writing makes the character interesting, but Goss manages to pull the role off, despite some dodgy acting in the past. The rest of the cast, Selma Blair, Jeffrey Tambor, fill out the roles you’d come to expect from a film of this kind, but none really stand out. It’s just up to Perlman to do his thing, and he does it well.



While Hellboy II: The Golden Army won’t usurp The Dark Knight as the best comic book movie of the summer, it’s definitely very entertaining. The visual side of the film is fascinating, and the monsters are brilliantly designed. It’s not the greatest story in the world, but it’s funny, exciting and very entertaining. With Del Toro’s visual flair, and Peter Jackson working with him on the script, The Hobbit looks like a pant-wettingly exciting prospect. Hellboy II: The Golden Army is gives us a taste of what will come.


8/10

BATTLE FOR HADITHA (2007) - Nick Broomfield

In complete contrast to the just-reviewed In The Valley Of Elah is Nick Broomfield’s Battle For Haditha, a dramatisation of the massacre of 24 Iraqi people that happened in Iraq in 2005. While the actual event is part of a US Army cover-up, the events in The Battle For Haditha attempt to shed light on the situation. Broomfield, a controversial documentarian didn’t have access to all the facts. So in an attempt to fill in the gaps in information, Broomfield opted to shoot the film as a docudrama instead of the format he has used for such films as Kurt & Courtney and Biggie & Tupac.

Battle For Haditha is shot from a number of different perspectives. The people depicted in each point of view are not what you’d expect. On one hand we have the two men responsible for the IED that kills one marine and injures two others. They don’t realise the effect their actions will have. They’re not monsters, and when the impact of the attack is fully realised they express great remorse. On the other side of the coin, we see the marines responsible for the massacre in Haditha. Again, these men are not empty-headed killing machines. They’re led by Cpl. Ramirez, a young soldier who laments how he’s being treated by the military while at the same time, is enraged by seeing his fellow men killed by IEDs. And the final perspective is from that of the Iraqi citizens. We focus mostly on a young couple, about to bring a child into the world. They love and respect each other equally, different to the male-dominated relationship we’re led to believe is in that society.



The film opens with the marines answering the question that has haunted the conflict since the US re-entered Iraq in 2003- ‘Why are we here?’ While Broomfield doesn’t seek an answer to that question, he does seek a reason behind one of the darkest events of the war. It’d be very easy to paint either side of the situation as mindless, evil or fundamental. But the film never looks for this easy way out. There is no black and white view of the war in this film. There are many shades of gray.

The film is shot digitally, which adds to the documentary feel of the film. But it’s clear that this is a dramatisation. There is a clear structure to it. While Broomfield didn’t use a script, he did have an outline for scenes and let the actors improvise the dialogue. Because some of the actors are ex-marines, they do add to the authenticity of the events depicted on screen, even if at times, the dialogue is a little hampered by the inexperience of the actors. Having said that, the acting is pretty good all round. When things go bad, you feel them go bad. There is a real sense of tension that hangs over the film. In ways, it’s similar to Paul Greengrass’ United 93. The editing of the film is excellent, and you feel that all parties are on a collision course that is going to end in tragedy.



Battle For Haditha isn’t a film that will be widely seen. It’s a dark film. Not really a recruitment film for the US Army. But it does it’s best to fill in the pieces and depict an event that should not have happened. It tries to give the event a sense of history. And for that reason it must be admired.


8/10

MAN ON WIRE (2008) - James Marsh

While it was still standing, I had the opportunity and good fortune to stand on top of the World Trade Centre. It’s not exactly the most exhilarating thing for someone who has an intense fear of heights to do. It was terrifying. So frightened was I, that my legs stopped working properly and I had to be helped around the observation deck by my parents. So I know how high the World Trade Centre was. So you’d imagine seeing a film about a crazy Frenchman who had the insane ambition to tight-rope walk between the towers wouldn’t be something I’d jump at. However, James Marsh’s documentary, Man On Wire was released last week, so I checked it out.

In 1974, Frenchman Phillipe Petit and a few accomplices managed to find a way to sneak themselves and a load of equipment to the top of the almost complete World Trade Centre. Petit had the crazy ambition of setting up a wire between the towers and walking from one tower to the other. Having tight-rope walked between the towers of Notre Dame Cathedral, and two of the towers on the Sydney Harbour Bridge, The World Trade Centre tight-rope walk was to be Petit’s most ambitious and dangerous stunt.

James Marsh’s documentary really is an inspirational piece of work. Through interviews with Petit and his friends and accomplices, we are given a picture of how crazy this stunt really was. It was a different time in the world. Something as dangerous and illegal as breaking into the towers and setting up a stunt over night could never be achieved with today’s strict security measures. This was a once in a lifetime attempt. If anything went wrong, if there was any mishap, the best the men could hope for was to be arrested. But even despite this, Petit’s friends had their doubts about the stunt. They feared for their friend’s life, and some abandoned the challenge, wanting no part in what could be his death.



Marsh recreates the events of the day in question very well. The fact that we know Petit survives in no way takes away from the suspense of the film. Petit’s quite an eccentric character and is extremely energetic in the way he recounts his adventure. And in this, you can’t quite help but like the guy. His accomplices, some French, some American, one Australian are a little more subdued in the way they tell their story, yet this just adds more to Petit’s character. Even in his sixties, Petit retains the energy of his thirties, gesticulating wildly, and leaping back onto the high wire.

While there is no actual footage of the high wire walk, there are plenty of photographs. And they are no less terrifying than footage. Suffering from an intense fear of heights, with every shot of the ground from the top of the tower, I felt a little wave of nausea. Every shot of Petit on the wire made me cringe. Marsh’s direction is absolutely successful in this respect. There’s no moment where the film becomes dull. Petit’s passion for not only his wire-walking but for life in general keeps the film fresh throughout the running time. And at ninety minutes, it’s brief, but rightfully so. We don’t feel bogged down in exposition or post-walk fame, despite both these aspects being covered.



While Man On Wire seems to be overlooked in terms of documentary this year, it’s a very interesting, compelling and inspirational film. And even though I had fears going in, it was great to see such a terrifying and daring stunt covered so extensively.


8/10

[REC] (2007) - Juame Balaguero & Paco Plaza

Spanish horror seems to be the new Asian horror. Over the last few years, films like The Others, Pan’s Labyrinth and The Orphanage have shocked and terrified audiences. And each of these films has brought something new to the table. Released last year, [REC] is one of the latest Spanish horror film to arrive at our doors. While parts of the film have been done before, [REC] also manages to hold it’s own when put up against other similar films.

[REC] is a mockumentary in the same style as The Blair Witch project. We observe proceedings through the lens of a video camera, as a documentary crew follows a team of fire fighters over the space of a night. The crew consists of a cameraman we never see and sexy presenter Angela. They hop on board the fire engine after an emergency call is placed. The crew arrive at a tenement building where screams are heard from one of the apartments. When the police and fire crew enter the apartment, they are viciously attacked by a bloody and screaming old woman. Things go from bad to worse when the government arrive at the tenement, seal everyone in and tell them nobody can leave. And the danger from within grows ever more deadly.



What works so well with [REC] is that it’s a total slow-burner. The film begins in a light hearted manner. Angela, the sassy reporter is after action and goes through the motions of interviewing various fire fighters while taking the piss at times. As we arrive at the tenement, you feel like you’re watching rough footage of a pre-watershed fly on the wall documentary. We’re introduced to the characters in the film and there are a few funny moments. But as things turn dark, the audience, like the characters in the film become more isolated and confused. There are numerous questions, but no answers. It’s a tried and tested formula, and filmmakers Juame Balaguero and Paco Plaza do an excellent job of building the tension.

The film feels very similar to 28 Days Later. In fact, it’s not hard to imagine that [REC] takes place in the same universe as 28 Days Later, just in a different part of the world. The infection that the people are suffering from shares the same symptoms as the rage virus in 28 Days, and 28 Weeks Later. It's not identical, it just looks the same. So from that respect, you may not be too frightened by the film. But events are kept moving swiftly, and during the tension moments, you are left biting your nails.



However, the real terrifying moment comes towards the end of the film. Like most great horror films, [REC] builds it’s tension to a crescendo and then unleashes the goods on the audience. And I must admit, when events did climax, I was pretty terrified. Again, the moment in the film felt like something I have seen before. If you’ve ever seen the Chris Cunningham short, Rubber Johnny, you’ll have some idea of what to expect. However, despite having seen similar before, the execution of the film pushes these minor complaints out of the picture. The film is better than the sum of it’s parts. The acting, for the most part is pretty good. Angela, played by Manuela Velasco is the character we’re given most access too. She’s the host of the show, and therefore is the actor with most screen time. She’s cocky at the start and terrified by the end, so she puts in a good performance. Everyone else gets little more than passing shots and a quick interview. But when they have to freak out, they freak out well!

As I’ve said, [REC] isn’t the most original film in the world. It lifts elements from other films, however it rearranges them well and builds tension very well. The ending is genuinely terrifying. [REC] would make a good third part of a 28 Days/Weeks marathon night. It shares a similar approach to these films and wouldn’t seem out of place among them. Unfortunately, a US remake is on it's way. Totally unnecessary. One note... there’s a lot of screaming in the film. If you’ve sleeping housemates, keep the volume down!


8/10

KUNG FU PANDA (2008) - Mark Osborne & John Stevenson

After the appalling Shrek The Third was released last year, it seemed that Dreamworks Animation were just gunning for cash, and not particularly interested in releasing animated films with any substance at all. CGI animation is no longer the jaw-dropping visual goldmine it once was, as audiences have become accustomed to high-quality 3D animation. So visuals alone no longer cut it. In order to get the audiences in the seats, the writers of these films strive to write more layered stories, with jokes not just for kids, but for adults too. To this end, sometimes plot can suffer in order to squeeze in one more joke. So it’s refreshing to see a film like Kung Fu Panda. It doesn’t take itself too seriously and still manages to be very entertaining.

Po is the laziest and clumsiest animal in the Valley of Peace. He works in his father’s noodle shop. But his real dream is to be a mighty Kung Fu warrior. When it is announced that Oogway, the master of the Kung Fu temple is to choose the Dragon Warrior, the prophesised warrior destined to bring peace to the valley, Po makes his way to the temple for the festivities. Much to everyone’s surprise (and none to that of the audience), Po is chosen. He gets to train under Master Shifu, alongside his heroes, the Furious Five- Monkey, Tigress, Mantis, Viper and Crane, all of whom resent this blow-in. And in a prison far away from the valley, shamed warrior Tai Lung escapes from his captors and makes his way back to the Valley of Peace to claim the title of Dragon Warrior for himself.



Okay, so Kung Fu Panda’s plot isn’t exactly Citizen Kane. It’s the typical story of a no-hoper who turns his luck around and becomes something nobody ever thought he could be. He faces challenges he shouldn’t overcome, but he finds a way. He rises to the challenge. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. But in the hands of directors, Mark Osborne and John Stevenson, Kung Fu Panda proves to be a damn entertaining watch. The success of the film rests largely on the shoulders of Jack Black, who voices Po. He’s an actor who’s familiar to both older and younger audiences, and his vocal talents seem to embody Po perfectly. He’s the character who gets all the laughs, which mostly come from Po falling over in various different ways.

That’s not to say that Kung Fu Panda is a film that relies on one element. When the action scenes kick in, they’re very entertaining. And at 92 minutes, the film moves at a very fast pace. At times, character development suffers. And it seems that some of the voice talents are a bit wasted. The Furious Five, voiced by Angelina Jolie, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu, David Cross and Jackie Chan, yes, Jackie Chan, are given little to do in the film. Their resentment towards Po isn’t really explored. This element is sacrificed in order to keep things moving along. But then, this is a kids’ film, and it makes no attempt to be anything else. And it’s because of that, and despite the minor flaws that the film works very well.



The animation, as expected, is gorgeous. Po’s design works very well for the physical comedy in the film. At times, there are slow motion close-ups of Po’s gurning face, and these moments are pretty funny in themselves. The animation team seem to be having a lot of fun acting with this character. The production design in particular is gorgeous. The film has a visual style of it’s own, blending natural elements such as falling cherry blossoms, with cold, almost industrial style of Tai Lung’s prison. The production team are on top form and have created in Kung Fu Panda the most visually impressive of all the Dreamworks productions to date.

Kung Fu Panda is a kids’ film. It doesn’t layer in adult jokes that other animated films are so fond of doing these days. It’s unashamedly for the kids and if you can accept the prat-falls and juvenile nature of the comedy, then it’s a very entertaining film. Making up a helluva lot for last year’s terrible Shrek debacle, Kung Fu Panda is a film the Dreamworks guys can be proud of. Whether or not it’ll be able to trump Pixar’s Wall-E is questionable at this stage. But it remains a very entertaining film none the less.


8/10