THE KING OF KONG (2007) - Seth Gordon

Documentaries can tend to be dour affairs, dealing with issues that provoke, shock and even enrage. Even Michael Moore’s documentaries, which go for laughs more than facts are about issues that show the worst in humanity. But occasionally you get something that is completely different in tone. Something that deals with something more light hearted than the war in Iraq or the state of the US health service. The King Of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, released last year is a documentary that deals with a gravely important issue: Who is the greatest person ever to play Donkey Kong?

On one hand, you would think that a documentary about two ‘athletes’ competing for a video game record wouldn’t exactly make for compelling watching. But, you’d be wrong. The King Of Kong isn’t simply about gaming. It’s about rivalry, jealousy, paranoia and the will to succeed. On one hand we have Billy Mitchell. He’s the number one Donkey Kong player of all time. He holds other records, but this one is the daddy of them all. He owns his own hot sauce company, wears a US flag tie and pulls his pants up towards his nipples. He is a legend in his field, has a cadre of lesser gamers who bow to his every whim. As the film starts, he is the king of Kong. And then we have the underdog. Steve Wiebe. Failed athlete, high-school teacher, with a loving family and a passion to succeed in Donkey Kong. And when these two go head to head, the drama comes thick and fast.



While it deals with a subculture, the drama caused by the rivalry is utterly compelling. The characters, who are real people are totally unique and how these people interact with each other makes for bizarre and amazing viewing. If the film were fiction, it’d be a fun, quirky comedy. The kind of film that would be similar to Napoleon Dynamite. The fact that the film is real is both amazing and baffling. From the get-go you’re drawn in by who these people are and why they’re so unique. You have the heroes and the villains. The winners and losers. And with that comes the drama. And comedy.

The film balances sentimentality in a way that gives you a real emotional investment in what happens. It’s easy to dismiss the whole idea of the Donkey Kong record as pointless. In the bigger scheme of things, it really means nothing to anyone but those with an interest. But that shouldn’t stop anyone from watching the film. While having an interest in games provides with a little more interest, there’s plenty for those who have no interest at all in Donkey Kong. After all, this is a film about human interaction.



The King Of Kong wont change the world. Nor does it ever seek to do that. It just presents a unique situation and the crazy characters who are involved with the situation. It’s a film that deals with universal themes within a small sub-culture. But it’s incredibly compelling and never for a second gets tedious or dull. One of the better documentaries I’ve seen, The King Of Kong will have you gripped from the moment it opens. It’s bizarre, hilarious and incredibly entertaining.


9/10

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

IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH (2007) - Paul Haggis

The Iraq war continues to provide filmmakers with difficult subject matter. Sure, there are many excellent documentaries that provide insight into the conflict which is perpetually in the news. But when it comes to drama, the conflict is rarely tackled head on. We’ve seen films that deal with the war on terror, films that deal with how the Coalition handles suspects in this war. And in In The Valley Of Elah, we have a film that deals, somewhat, with soldiers returning from the war.

Tommy Lee Jones plays Hank Deerfield, a retired military investigator who’s son returns from Iraq, only to go AWOL days later. Deerfield takes it upon himself to investigate his son’s disappearance. It is very unlike his son Mike to take off without letting his parents know where he is. Hank tries to enlist the help of the police only to be told it is a military matter and he should seek help from military police. But eager to keep his son out of trouble, Hank looks for help from Detective Emily Sanders, a single mom fighting for recognition in a job dominated by men. When a body turns up that is revealed to be Mike, Hank and Emily begin the search for Mike’s murderers.



I’ve never been a huge fan of Paul Haggis’ work. While Crash was an interesting if unremarkable drama, I’ve found when Haggis gets behind the camera, the films he produce are a little dull. Haggis is a better writer on other peoples’ films than he is a director, and this is evident in In The Valley Of Elah. At face value, In The Valley Of Elah is a crime drama. A crime has been committed, and Tommy Lee Jones is determined to get to the bottom of it. Underpinning this drama are a bunch of morality statements about what happens to the soldiers sent to fight in Iraq. These two elements provide two different problems with the film. The first, the drama isn’t particularly engaging or compelling. You know the mystery will be solved, but it’s a bit of a long haul getting to the reveal. The second problem lies with Haggis’ determination to drive a point home.

Haggis’ screenplays are packed with morality and life lessons. The problem is though, he’s as subtle as a rusty chainsaw in how he delivers his little lessons. When he works with other directors, the morality is reeled in a little. But when Haggis goes it alone, his morality is incredibly ham-fisted. The closing moments of In The Valley Of Elah are so blunt in their delivery of morality that I found myself actually angered at the approach Haggis took. I felt like screaming ‘OKAY PAUL, I GET IT ALREADY!’ It’s one thing to teach a lesson in a film. It’s another thing
entirely to ram the point down someone’s throat.



The performances are very good in the film. Tommy Lee Jones is on top form as Hank Deerfield, a life-long military man who finds himself questioning something he’s stood for his entire life. Jones is at his best at the moment, and while his character’s development during the film could feel like too much too soon, Jones handles it well enough that it doesn’t seem that way. Charlize Theron is in Oscar mode as Detective Emily Sanders. She’s dressed down and glum looking. But it’s a shame her character is such a cliché to prevent her from really shining. The single mom fighting prejudice in the workplace? It was entirely unnecessary to write the character in such a way, and seems ridiculous in the context of the film. Susan Sarandon has what amounts to little more than a cameo as Hank’s wife.

The problems with In The Valley Of Elah prevent from becoming a great film. The dullness of the mystery added to the ham-fisted approach to lessons prevent it from becoming the film Haggis desperately wants it to be. The film is beautifully shot by Coens-regular, Roger Deakins, but it takes more that beautifully shot film to make a film interesting. Perhaps in the hands of another, more talented director and without the clichéd aspects to Detective Emily Sanders’ character, it would have been a better film. But as it is, it’s only just mediocre.


6/10

IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON (2007) - David Sington

In April 1961, Yuri Gagarin became the first human being in space. It was a monumental achievement. The Americans needed to one-up their Russian counterparts. To this end, in 1961, President Kennedy announced the Apollo program with the goal of putting the first man on the moon. Unfortunately, it was something the president would never live to see. But on July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong became the first man on the moon. David Sington’s documentary, In The Shadow Of The Moon charts the progress of the Apollo program, through a series of interviews with the men involved, spliced with footage of the program itself.

After I finished watching In The Shadow Of The Moon, I found myself realising how much we take this achievement for granted these days. In this age, the technological achievements are so many and happen so quickly, it’s easy to forget how little technology they had merely forty years ago. Yet they managed to fly three men over 380,000 miles and land them on that little glowing ball that sits in the night sky. As you watch the footage on the screen, and listen to the astronauts recount their tales, you really begin to appreciate what a monumental achievement it was.



The astronauts involved, Buzz Aldrin, Mike Collins, Alan Bean, Jim Lovell, John Young, Harrison Schmitt, and most of the other astronauts involved in the Apollo program appear, telling of their experiences in the Apollo program, in space, and (for those who managed to get there) walking on the moon. They speak of the experience in awe, and you cant help but get sucked in. While, in terms of space, the moon is merely a small footstep away from us, in terms of human achievement, it’s a massive achievement, and none of these men take it for granted. There is a humorous section during the credits for the film where the astronauts present their rebuttal to the claims that the moon landing was faked. And watching the documentary just proves how ridiculous a claim this is.

Sadly missing from the documentary is the first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong. The reclusive astronaut refuses to promote his historic achievement and thus is missing from everything but archival footage. Yet the other astronauts tell his story through their own experiences. And thus, Armstrong seems even more of a legend. He seems to have some mythical status among these other legendary figures.



The footage from the period is astonishing. Despite the technological limitations, the footage is of extremely high quality, due to the measures take to preserve the film. And it’s a comforting thing to know that the footage will live on. The shots of Earth from the moon, and seeing how small it really is is a humbling thing. While on the moon, the white surface contrasting to the pitch black sky is gorgeous to observe. While it’s finished it’s run in the cinema, see this film on as large a screen as you can. The footage of the space flight is stunning and deserves a large canvas.

The documentary is a fascinating watch. In terms of human achievement, landing on the moon is really one of the greatest things we have done as humans. And despite it happening nearly forty years ago, it really is a monumental moment in human history. In The Shadow Of The Moon pretty much gives you a comprehensive look at the moon landing. It is humorous, tense, and fascinating to watch. A brillian documentary.


9/10

[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

THE MIST (2007) - Frank Darabont

Frank Darabont and Stephen King are a combination that work as well as salt and vinegar. Rum and coke. Lucas and Spielberg... well, maybe not so much the last one. The Shawshank Redemption, Darabont’s break out, and his second King adaptation is widely considered one of the greatest films ever made. After Shawshank came The Green Mile, another success. And now, we have The Mist, an adaptation of a King short horror story. While the film was a modest success in the US, it’s release on this side of the water was delayed until now. Why? It’s a mystery.

The Mist takes place, as with most of King’s stories in the small Maine town of Castle Rock. David Drayton takes his son to the local shops to gather supplies after their house was damaged in a storm. While in the shop, a mist descends on the town, engulfing all the buildings. But this is no ordinary mist. There’s something lurking in the mist that will kill anyone unlucky enough to get caught up in it. But the mist isn’t the only thing that threatens David, his son, and the rest of the townspeople in the shop. The cabin fever setting in in the shop divides the people into factions. One faction staying as rational as possible, the second faction following the preaching of an increasingly fanatical and dangerous bible-bashing Christian fundamentalist.



There are so many films that have been adapted from Stephen King books, that the poor outweighs the good. While films like The Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me are great, there’s also tosh like Needful Things, The Lawnmower Man and Dreamcatcher. So whenever a Stephen King book is adapted, approaching the film should be done with great trepidation. However, not all Stephen King books are adapted by Frank Darabont. And in the hands of this director, you’re in for something special. The Mist is essentially a monster movie. There are creatures in the mist and they’re nasty. Very nasty. But what pushes The Mist ahead of the average monster movie is what goes on inside the shop that everyone is stuck in.

While it’s clear that being in the mist is fatal, the atmosphere in the shop turns increasingly dangerous as fear leads to paranoia and the townspeople start devolving in their ethics. Leading the paranoia is the local crazy religious fundamentalist. She’s convinced she’s a conduit to God and when people start becoming desperate, they turn to her for guidance. But her guidance is incredibly dangerous and turns a bad situation worse. Darabont manages to keep the two sides of the story perfectly balanced. While you’re terrified of what’s outside (and there are a few jump-scares, essential horror movie staples), the tension builds to an almost uncomfortable atmosphere inside. With these two sides of the story, the pacing of the film never lets up, and the running time of two hours twenty minutes never seems long.

Because the film works so well as a character piece as well as a horror movie, the performances need to be spot on. And once again, Darabont succeeds in getting the best from his central cast. Thomas Jane plays David Drayton, the story’s main protagonist. Drayton’s the everyman of the film. All he cares about is protecting his son, but when the chips are down, he’s got the drive to act. Jane’s performance is excellent, with a particularly devastating piece of acting that requires me to go into detail I’m going to skip due to spoilers I want to avoid. The standout performance, however, is from Marcia Gay Harden who plays the Christian fundamentalist, Mrs. Carmody. Mrs. Carmody is the kind of fire-and-brimstone preacher who sees all disasters as the wrath of a vengeful God. While her convictions are solid, and her intentions, while crazy, are good in her eyes, she becomes the villain as she allows her delusions take hold and she begins to gain power. Harden creates in Mrs. Carmody a villain you love to hate. The rest of the cast is made up from Darabont regulars in Laurie Holden, William Sadler, and Jeffrey DeMunn and character actors such as Toby Jones and Andre Braugher. And while each of them is excellent, with characters that deserve as much attention, I’d be going on all day.



It’s a credit to Darabont’s script that the characters are so fully realised. It’s the relationships between the many characters that elevate this film above the average horror movie. In fact, I can say quite confidently that The Mist is one of the finest horror films I have seen in a long, long time. The monster moments are horrific and suitable for the genre and the character moments are good enough for any drama. The origin of the mist itself is kept as ambiguous as possible which keeps the audience uncomfortably mystified, just like the townspeople. And with an ending that is astonishing in it’s willingness not to give the audience any sense of comfort in closure, Darabont’s film is as close to the perfect horror film as I’ve seen any film come. It’s almost impossible to lavish enough praise on The Mist. It’s surprising how good it is. But when Stephen King’s stories are adapted well, they make for excellent viewing. The Mist is up with The Sawshank Redemption and Kubrick’s adaptation of The Shining as the best of King’s stories on screen. The Mist is an astoundingly well made movie. And one for the best of ’08 list.


9/10

GONE BABY GONE (2007) - Ben Affleck

Over the years, Ben Affleck’s career has taken somewhat of a bashing. After the whole ‘Bennifer’ debacle, it became hard to take the guy seriously as an actor. Aside from a worthy turn in Hollywoodland, Affleck has become somewhat of a victim of his own fame. So it’s interesting that his third trip behind the camera (after two films that never even saw a release) has garnered such positive feedback. Gone Baby Gone has been quite a success in the states, and after being delayed due to the Madeline McCann case, finally gets it’s release this side of the water.

Taking place in Boston, Massachusetts, Gone Baby Gone centres on Patrick Kenzie, a private detective who specialises in finding people who ‘fell through the cracks.’ Patrick and his girlfriend/associate, Angie are hired by Bea McCready, the sister in law of drunk and sometimes junkie Helene McCready. Helene’s 4-year old daughter Amanda has been kidnapped. Against almost everyone’s wishes, Patrick takes on the case to find Amanda. But as he investigates the kidnapping, it appears that the case may not be a simple kidnapping.



Gone Baby Gone is written by Dennis Lehane, the author of Mystic River. And as such, Gone Baby Gone feels quite like Mystic River. In both style and mood. Both stories take place in Boston, and both stories deal with quite dark subject matter. And while I found myself somewhat baffled with the love that Mystic River garnered from pretty much everyone, I also find myself a bit mystified by the universal love for Gone Baby Gone.

Gone Baby Gone is quite an impressive film from Ben Affleck. He has directed before, but this is his first big release, and he does quite well in the director’s chair. Where the film falls somewhat flat, however, is in the story department. Half of Gone Baby Gone is quite excellent. But the second half of the film takes a twist that makes the film kinda ridiculous. It’s a thriller so twists can be expected. But the twist, and the many twists after this are just a little too over the top. And the sequence of events that lead to the twist are also rather silly. It’s difficult to say much without giving anything away, but it’s all a little too tenuous and unbelievable.



The performances, on the other hand, are all excellent. Ben’s brother Casey, as Patrick Kenzie, again shows his talent after his breakthrough performance in last year’s The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford. He’s clearly got the chops his brother seems to be without, and he carries the film well. One particular scene, set in a bar room early in the film shows the talent both brothers have and is almost terrifying. Amy Ryan, who garnered an Oscar nomination for her performance as Helene McCready is also brilliant. Her character is pretty loathsome, and Ryan really pulls this off. It’s an excellent performance. Two of my favourite actors, Ed Harris and Morgan Freeman also fill out the cast. And while they’re both on their usual brilliant top form, their characters are involved in the twists and it somewhat detracts from the overall experience.

Don’t get me wrong, Gone Baby Gone isn’t a bad film. The first hour or so of the film really is excellent. It’s like watching The Wire without the wiretaps. It’s just a damn shame the later part of the film lets the first part down so much. Excellent performances and solid direction cant save the film after it takes such a bizarre and ill-judged twist. It’s not the fault of the actors or director, but the fault of the story. Could have been so much better.


5/10

SON OF RAMBOW (2007) - Garth Jennings

There have been a lot of very serious and grim films coming out recently. Most of what I’ve seen so far have been serious, dour dramas with the occasional appalling comedy. When I found out I was going to see Garth Jennings’ Son of Rambow, I must admit I was less than ecstatic about it. The film looked a little twee and something I wouldn’t really be into. Oh, how wrong I was. It’s a brilliantly charming and hilarious movie that really brings a feeling of nostalgia for those days you used to run around the park shooting at imaginary enemies hiding behind trees.

Hobbit-named William Proudfoot is the only son of a mother who belongs to a religious sect named the Plymouth Brethren. Their beliefs prohibit William from watching television, films and listening to music, all of which are a corrupting influence. Because of this, William is somewhat of a pariah in school. On the plus side, William has developed a rich imagination and draws constantly. He becomes the target of Lee Carter who is also a pariah, but because of his rebellious attitude. The two boys develop a strange relationship which turns into a friendship when Lee recruits William for a film he wants to make for a competition. William gets his first taste of pop culture when he accidentally witnesses First Blood, and becomes obsessed with making a movie where he plays the titular Son of Rambow. As word spreads of the boys’ project, other students want to become involved with the film. But as the cast and crew inflates, Lee becomes a little disenchanted and the boys’ friendship is put to the test.



Like Be Kind, Rewind before it, Son of Rambow is a film about how imagination and ingenuity can create films that everyone loves. You don’t need to have a Hollywood budget to make something entertaining. It’s all about the boys’ love for films (or in this case, one film) and the joy creating a film of their own brings to their mundane lives. It’s a difficult concept to pull off, especially considering the central characters are kids, but Jennings does an excellent job of avoiding sentimentality and retaining a very funny sense of humour. You can see the director does have a vivid imagination himself, as some scenes take place inside William’s head, and the film splits into a mix of live-action and animation. It’s a great way of carrying the idea of a child’s imagination running wild, while also ensuring the film doesn’t lose it’s innocence with a load of CGI.

The acting from the two principal actors is excellent. William, played by Bill Milner, is cast brilliantly as a small, extremely fragile-looking kid who comes out of his shell with a vengeance. He’s tossed around quite violently as the boys attempt to create the stunts seen in First Blood, but while these stunts are clearly exaggerated, they’re very funny, and Milner pulls them off very well. The real revelation, however, is Will Poulter who plays Lee Carter. The kid is one hell of an actor, and has real screen presence. It’s very easy to play a bully, as the writing does the acting for the actor. However, Carter may be tough on the outside, but he’s quite fragile on the inside, and Poulter is absolutely convincing at portraying that. In some ways, the two characters are mirror images of each other. And the casting is inspired, as their relationship is completely realistic.



There’s not much else that needs to be said about Son of Rambow. It’s a very, very charming little film, and something that should be seen by everyone. It’d take a cold-hearted cynic not to be moved by the film, which skilfully avoids sentimentality and schmaltz and is genuinely very funny.


9/10

THE ORPHANAGE (2007) - Juan Antonio Bayona

With is flair for horror and fantasy, Guillermo Del Toro has led the charge in recent years for new Spanish horror films. His films Cronos and The Devil’s Backbone, he’s paved the way for other Spanish directors to try their hand at horror movies. In 2001, Alejandro Amenábar directed The Others, a great haunted house horror movie albeit in the English language. And a film similar to The Others, and produced by Del Toro is released this week, Juan Antonio Bayona’s El Orfanato, The Orphanage.

The Orphanage is one of those great spooky haunted house horror movies that hides it’s scares in shadows. Taking place in modern day, it tells the tale of Laura who returns to the orphanage she resided in as a child before she was adopted. Her plan is to restore the house and turn it into a care home for disabled children. She brings with her her husband Carlos and adopted son Simon. Things start off fine, but when her son befriends an imaginary boy named Tomas, things begin to turn a little eerie.



The success of The Orphanage is helped by the setting. The orphanage itself becomes something of a fourth character after Laura, her husband Carlos and Simon. It seems to take on an ominous personality of it’s own. It’s a beautiful house that’s lit beautifully by Oscar Faura, and becomes exactly what you’d expect from a haunted house. Added to this, the sound design is also brilliantly executed, with bumps and bangs at exactly the right moments. The dark history of the orphanage is revealed slowly throughout the film through the use of flashbacks to Laura’s childhood. But it’s not a contrivance, and doesn’t get in the way of the story.

There are elements to the film that have been seen before. Like the film mentioned before, the film is somewhat reminiscent of The Others. The Others was another film that relied on it’s setting as an integral part of the film’s success. The Orphanage also features a séance that harks back to Poltergeist. Except in this case, the séance is a lot more realistic. It’s a wonderfully creepy part of the film, with most of the ‘action’ revealed through monitors hooked up to cameras dotted throughout the house. In fact, it’s at this moment that the film really takes off. It’s somewhat of a slow burner, starting off slowly and building tension instead of going straight for the jugular immediately.



Aside from the wonderful tension created by director Bayona, the other thing that makes The Orphanage such an wonderfully executed horror film is the question you keep asking yourself as to whether the events unfolding are actually supernatural or the psychological breakdown of Laura, the main character. It’s this kind of questioning that grounds the film in reality rather than letting it drift off into the fantastical. The performance by Belén Rueda as Laura ties all the other elements together. It’s vital that she is believable as a frantic mother struggling to protect her child (without giving too much away). And she achieves this very well. Few people, especially her husband believe her when she starts to think more supernaturally than realistically. But she is firm in her beliefs and resolute without ever becoming a frantic screaming damsel in distress.

In an age where horror films are either remakes of foreign language films (and yes, even The Orphanage is ALREADY slated for an American remake) or god-awful gore fests, the occasional psychological horror does manage to restore faith in filmmaking. And while there are elements of The Orphanage that have been seen before, the story, and especially the excellent pay-off in the third act make for a really brilliant film.


8/10

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) - Paul Thomas Anderson

There are good films. There are great films. And then there are films that come along, once in a decade, if we’re lucky, that are so different that they seem to reinvent the medium. These films are received in different ways. Sometimes they’re heralded as the second coming, and sometimes they are even lambasted by critics and it’s years before they’re properly appreciated. What defines these films for me, is their affect on me. How much I’ll be thinking of them after I see them. Rarely has a film perplexed me and astounded me as Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood.

Adapted from the Upton Sinclair novel, Oil!, first published in 1927, There Will Be Blood is a tale of greed versus religion and a clash between two forces who are relentlessly ambitious but have vastly different goals. The novel Oil! was a very political novel with Sinclair even sending it to members of congress. In his adaptation, Anderson changed the protagonist and stripped the novel down to the story of Daniel Plainview. Plainview is a silver prospector who stumbles across oil in his silver mine. He drills for oil and hits paydirt, but in the process, one of his workers is killed, leaving his son an orphan. Plainview takes the baby on as his own. Years pass and Plainview has made a name for himself in the oil business when he is approached by a young man who claims his home town is rich in untapped oil. He sells the location of the town to Plainview, who takes his son H.W. and seeks out the town. When he finds that it is indeed rich with oil, he sets about selling himself to the town to take their oil. But the brother of the young man who approached Plainview, Eli Sunday has his own plans. He’s a shrewd preacher who wants Plainview’s money to build his church. They have vastly different goals which cannot be achieved without great confrontation.



By now, you’ll have read or heard quite a bit about There Will Be Blood. Not only about the incredible performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, but also about the film itself. But to be honest, it’s extremely difficult to do the film justice here. In fact, just one viewing of the film doesn’t do it justice. It’s so packed with detail that the nuances of the actors’ performances, every minute detail of the production design and direction cannot be taken in first time. Central to this wonderful dilemma is Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance as Daniel Plainview. There are very few scenes in the film where Day-Lewis isn’t on screen. And when he is, it is next to impossible to take your eyes off him.

Plainview is an incredibly complex character. At the very heart of him, he is the embodiment of ambition. Ruthless ambition. But aside from that, there are so many levels to his character. He’s charismatic, yet hates people with a passion. He’s gentle in some moments, and explodes with rage in others. He’s greedy, yet generous if it helps him achieve his goals. Yet the depiction of this character isn’t just of an evil man. Throughout the course of the film we see the disintegration of Plainview into a twisted, bitter old man. By the third act, Plainview is consumed by the worse parts of his character, and in some ways becomes a more typical movie villain. But this isn’t a flaw. This is, after all, a character study film, and this part of it is warranted after what has preceded.



Day-Lewis’ performance is as detailed as the character he is playing. Every gesticulation, every twitch in his face is essential to the performance and is fascinating to watch. While I’d heard great things about the performance before heading into the film, I was fascinated at how Day-Lewis just seems bigger than the screen size. He seems to transcend the film, and at points overshadows the plot. In some cases, this might be a problem, but the tension built in the film prevents this from happening. There are moments of such palpable tension that the film becomes almost uncomfortable to watch. This is what filmmaking can do when it’s executed perfectly. Some have criticised Day-Lewis for channelling John Huston in Chinatown, which is where he drew inspiration for his accent in the film. But if doing this was a problem, it would be a problem I would like to see more in films these days. While I’m trying desperately to avoid hyperbole, it’s no exaggeration to say that Day-Lewis’ performance will be remembered as one of the screens’ greatest. It’s up there with DeNiro playing Travis Bickle and Brando playing Terry Malloy.

Playing opposite Day-Lewis is Paul Dano as both Paul and Eli Sunday. It’s an unenviable task. How do you possibly try to make your presence felt in the face of such overpowering acting? Yet Dano does an excellent job as Eli. Eli is similar to Plainview in only one way- ambition. And Dano carries this across quite well. He’s playing a fire and brimstone preacher, and delivers the scripture spouting venom you’d expect from the role. But it’s when he’s playing off Day-Lewis when he’s at his best. It’s a shame Dano wasn’t recognised more at awards time. Despite being overshadowed by Day-Lewis in the entire film, he does hold his own when opposite him.



But the film isn’t only about the actors. It’s a film not only about ambition, but also made with ambition. A hell of a lot of it. The scope of the film is enormous. It attempts to chart the beginnings of the oil industry through one story. And in a way, it does achieve this. We get a sense of how prospectors and oil companies moved into an area, staked their claim and basically took over. Business took precedence over people, and money was the ultimate goal. This is clear. But at the same time, it’s a microcosm of this, told through the eyes of two men. And it’s this that stops the film from being overshadowed by the acting. It’s through Anderson’s superb writing and direction that the film is such a fascinating watch. There are a number of scenes in the film that are just perfect. The cinematography, by Robert Elswit is incredible. The Californian desert blisters the screen. Jets of flaming oil burn beautifully in the dark. The music, by Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood is very different to what you’d expect from a film as epic as There Will Be Blood. It’s stripped down and doesn’t rely on themes. Yet this compliments the film more than a full orchestral score would. In one of the many perfect scenes, an oil well explodes. Plainview similarly explodes into action. The screen erupts with the image of a towering flame, and the score bursts into percussion. All elements fall into place perfectly.

At this stage, I could write another ten pages about There Will Be Blood, and I’d still not do the film the justice it deserves. It’s difficult to refrain from hyperbole when a film just hits you so hard that you feel it days afterward. With this film, Anderson has elevated himself to the level that few directors achieve. If his career continues as it has begun, we may have a new Stanley Kubrick on our hands. Indeed, it seems fitting that for one particular scene, Anderson wanted to invoke A Clockwork Orange. I do believe that this film is the first classic of the twenty first century. A film that will define this era. The forties had Citizen Kane. The seventies had Taxi Driver. The noughties have There Will Be Blood.


10/10

JUNO (2007) - Jason Reitman

Every year at the Oscars, there’s one film that doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of the pack. A kind of film that’s no where as big as the others, dealing with smaller issues and featuring a cast of characters that are never meant to set the world on fire. Last year’s ‘Little Film That Could’ was Little Miss Sunshine. I have to admit, by the time I got around to seeing Little Miss Sunshine (the screenings were CONSTANTLY sold out), I felt that the film was over-hyped and not nearly as good as people made out. The same sort of hype surrounds this year’s LFTC, Juno.

Juno is a smart, witty, outsider of a sixteen year old girl. She doesn’t fit in with the rest of the school crowd, playing guitar in a band and being picked on by the jocks. At the beginning of the film, Juno is guzzling SunnyD in order to work up enough pee for a pregnancy test. After three such tests, the results are undeniable, she’s pregnant. She decides on an abortion, but after visiting the clinic, she decides to keep the baby and give it up for adoption. After scouring the want-ads for couples seeking babies, she meets Mark and Vanessa, a seemingly perfect couple. Vanessa definitely wants a baby, but Mark isn’t so sure.



Juno is the kind of film that’s a hybrid of a coming of age story and teen comedy. It’s feels like the film Wes Anderson would have made if he took a stab at a teen comedy and toned down his signature quirkiness. It’s smart, but it’s not the kind of film that fits in with the Superbad crowd. Unlike the similarly-plotted Knocked Up, it’s not a laugh riot, but rather a charming, character-driven smart comedy. Written by first-timer (and currently 38th smartest person in Hollywood, according to Entertainment Weekly) Diablo Cody, the film is driven by the screenplay. Some have accused Juno of being too smart. That the younger characters in the film, Juno and her friends wouldn’t speak as wittily and smartly in real life. But all that is pretty much irrelevant. The script works very well and is damn entertaining. And that’s one of the most important things for the success of the film.

The other key element to the success of a character-driven film like Juno is the casting of the titular character, Juno. Director Jason Reitman made a wise decision in casting Ellen Page as Juno. Page delivered an outstanding performance in 2005’s brilliant thriller, Hard Candy. Juno is a confident, smart teenager. But she’s not wise. She approaches her pregnancy in the kind of twisted logic that would be expected of a young girl who’s more concerned with music and horror movies than the baby she’s carrying. And it’s to Ellen Page’s credit that she plays Juno so well.



Ellen Page is supported by a cast of actors that play their characters very well. Particular credit must be given to Jennifer Garner who plays Vanessa, one half of the couple who placed the ad Juno responds to. Vanessa longs for a baby. She can’t have one herself, and you can see from Garner’s performance that this hurts her. Despite her best efforts not to, she’s pinning all her hopes on the baby Juno’s carrying, and this longing is subtly carried across by Garner. Hers, and her screen husband Jason Bateman’s performances are far better than the performances they deliver in 2007’s appalling film, The Kingdom. Michael Cera, no stranger to comedies plays Juno’s one-time sexual conquest, Paulie. Cera has the nervous teen thing down to a tee, and while his character is less cartoony than that of Superbad, he provides excellent support for Ellen Page. Juno’s father and stepmother are played by J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney, both excellent character actors.

Juno seems to have split some audiences. Some found the overtly witty dialogue grating and the film itself a little twee. But this isn’t the case at all. It’s a charming film. The script is certainly witty, and while there may be something to be said about how the characters speak, and how overtly smart and witty the dialogue is, it works within the context of the movie, and shouldn’t really be called into question. The actors are all very comfortable with their characters, and the cast is very likable. It’s in no way a perfect film, but Juno is very entertaining. If you failed to even smile at it, I’d call into question whether you do in fact, have a soul!


8/10

BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD (2007) - Sidney Lumet

Sidney Lumet is one of those legendary directors who’s directing credits read like a list of classic movies. Under his belt are such classics as 12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon and Network. Over the last few years, he hasn’t been on as notable form, even hitting the depths by casting Vin Diesel in his last movie, Find Me Guilty. But that slip-up aside, he makes some great casting decisions with his latest film, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead.

Before The Devil Knows Your Dead is a heist movie that relies on character exploration rather than the thrills of the robbery. The film opens with the robbery in question. The robbery is masterminded by Andy, who ropes his brother into the operation. Andy is an accountant for a real estate firm. He’s worked his way up from humble beginnings, and is now on a six figure salary. Along with that success comes the problems that can be associated with it. He has a drug problem that is spiralling out of control and he’s finding it difficult to maintain the high life for his wife. Andy’s brother Hank is the opposite of his brother. He’s constantly referred to as a loser. He’s strapped for cash, missing alimony payments, and struggling to keep his daughter in a rich school. While he’s somewhat morally superior to his brother, he’s weaker in personality, and is easily cajoled into the plan. But the plan goes desperately wrong and each step the brothers take to right the situation leads them down a more dangerous and morally corrupt path.



While this film is a heist film, the heist is not the centre point of the film. It happens at the beginning of the film, and sets events in motion. The rest of the film examines events just before the heist, and how the brothers deal with the consequences of the disastrous plan. It’s an examination of sibling rivalry and moral corruption. The film is structured in a number of flashbacks. While this structure is certainly up to speed with modern filmmaking (think Memento, but not with everything running backwards), it sometimes kills the pace of the film. Just when things heat up, the film flies back to previous events and shows what happened from a different point of view.

But while this slows the film in terms of pacing, it is an interesting way of showing characterisation. And it’s here where the film’s strength lies. Lumet’s worked with some of the best actors in the business, and this time, he’s cast one of the finest actors around. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Andy and once again delivers a fantastic performance. Hoffman completely embodies each of his characters, and while he’s got the creepy factor down (Punch-Drunk Love, Charlie Wilson’s War), he can also play characters not so odd. And while Andy is morally corrupt, he’s not a creep. However, that doesn’t detract from Hoffman’s performance. It’s every bit as good as everything he does.



Playing against Hoffman as Hank is Ethan Hawke. Hawke’s a very reliable actor, and it’s no easy job going up against someone like Hoffman. But Hawke does a fine job here, playing Hank as weak as the written character demands. It’s a great performance that contrasts Hoffman’s, and Hoffman never dominates the film. This is also a credit to Lumet’s direction that he gets such quality performances from his leads. Albert Finney and Marisa Tomei provide excellent support as Andy and Hank’s father and Andy’s wife.

While the film does seem to drag at times, Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead still is a pretty good thriller. This is mostly down to the performances from the leads. The direction is kept as snappy as possible, but the flashbacks kind of bog it down. Worth checking out at least once.

SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET (2007) - Tim Burton

It’s been a while since we’ve seen a Tim Burton film that featured the gloriously dark and twisted style of his earlier films. Some had criticised Burton for being a one-note director, but myself, I liked his style of movies, and I thought this criticism was unfair. To that end, it’s great to see him return to that gothic style with his adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s hit musical, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. This musical sure ain’t family fare, as it’s the story of a serial-killing barber and his quest for revenge against the man who had him deported and stole his family.

Benjamin Barker was the best barber London had to offer. He was a naive man with a beautiful wife and baby daughter. But Judge Turpin, a cruel man, was jealous of Barker’s family, and using his power, had Barker arrested and deported and took Barker’s family for his own. Fifteen years later, Barker returns to London under a new guise, that of Sweeney Todd. Todd has one thing on his mind, and that is revenge. He arrives at Mrs. Lovett’s Pie Shop, home of the worst pies in London. With Mrs. Lovett, Todd concocts an elaborate scheme to get his revenge on Turpin, and turn around the fortunes of Mrs. Lovett’s Pie Shop. But his desire for revenge becomes an obsession, and his plan faces peril as some people see through his guise and recognise the man he used to be.



When you think of musicals, you tend to think of the happy go lucky musicals of the forties and fifties. Images of Gene Kelly dancing through the streets singing about how happy he is. Sweeney Todd is the complete opposite to this. While there is a little dancing in the musical, it is in no way a happy story. There are very few musicals that feature a straight razor wielding serial killer and cannibalism. And such a story needs to be adapted by a director with the sensibilities of Burton. His dark, gothic style, seen in the likes of Sleepy Hollow and Edward Scissorhands fits the story to the ground. Indeed, both these films were collaborations between Burton and six-time leading man, Johnny Depp, and Depp is in the driving seat here again. It’s this collaboration that adds to the quality of Burton’s films, and it certainly helps here.

Johnny Depp once again uses the English accent he has become accustomed to while doing the reprehensible Pirates of the Caribbean films, but that’s about the only thing that Todd and Captain Jack have in common. Depp plays the brooding Todd very well, permanently scowling, and clearly consumed by his obsession. His singing is quite good, seemingly taking on a David Bowie edge to his voice. It’s a good move to have the lead actors sing their parts, as dubbing would have detracted from the performances. Especially considering almost the entire musical is sung.

Supporting Depp as Mrs. Lovett is Burton’s fiancee, Helena Bonham Carter. She made her name with a series of period pieces in her earlier career, but in the last few years, Carter has made a name playing more eccentric roles. She’s perfectly suited to play Mrs. Lovett, and while slightly mad, shows a tender side as she cares for Toby, the abused ward of Todd’s rival barber. The rival, Signor Adolfo Pirelli is a small cameo, but it’s played very well by Sacha Baron Cohen, clearly establishing a name for himself as a character actor. It’s a role that does seem like something Cohen could have come up with himself after Ali G and Borat, but that’s not to take away from the performance. He provides a good bit of comic relief, and can hold his own in the singing stakes.



Alan Rickman seems to have been born to play the villain. While he’s not given very much to do here, the scenes that he is in, he’s as brilliant as ever. His sidekick, Beadle Bamford is played by the brilliant Timothy Spall, who captures the extremely creepy nature of his role very well. Spall also has a great knack for playing villains, and he’s cast very smartly against Rickman. The only reservations I had in the cast were the roles of Johanna, played by Jayne Wisener and Anthony, played by Jamie Campbell Bower. Although I think that was more down to the weak love sub-plot rather than the actors’ performances.
One of the big stars of the film is the production design by Dante Ferretti. Ferretti, who won an Oscar for his work on The Aviator is on top form, creating the dark world that the characters inhabit. It’s a formula that works very well with Burton’s style. In fact, the whole look of the film is a visual treat, with plenty of claret spilled to fill Burton’s dark Victorian London. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that Feretti will get his second Oscar for his work, and it won’t be undeserved.

While Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a very entertaining film, it’s in no way Burton’s best. In some ways, the character of Sweeney Todd could almost be seen as a grown up version of Edward Scissorhands. And so, for that reason, Sweeney Todd is the natural successor to that film. Having said that, it’s no where near as good as Edward Scissorhands. And the Oscar nomination for Depp does seem a little odd. It’s not a bad performance, but I still think it’s not Oscar worthy. Not for the kids, Sweeney Todd is still visually stunning, entertaining musical.


7/10