TOY STORY 3 (2010) - Lee Unkrich

It’s been a while. To be honest, the cinema has been vomiting up some pretty poor fare over the last few months. But over the last week, I saw what will probably be numbers one and two on the top 10 list of 2010, so I figured I should say something about them. The first film on the list is the latest from the greatest studio now in production. Toy Story 3.

It’s been fifteen years since Woody and Buzz first hit the big screen, kick-starting the Pixar revolution into gear. Since that time, Pixar have gone from strength to strength. And in one way, Toy Story 3 is a fitting bench-mark to see just how far the studio has come. Both in technical ability, and in terms of story-telling.



Andy, the human key to the Toy Story world has grown up. He’s finished school, and is about to leave home for college. And by doing this, he must leave his childhood toys behind. But what is to come of Woody, Buzz, Jessie, and all the rest of the toys? Woody, Andy’s most cherished toy, will accompany him to college. But the rest of the toys will go to the attic, a sort of rest-home for toys until they are rediscovered by Andy and given to his own children. But a mix-up in packaging results in the toys being sent to day-care, a seemingly heaven for toys. But all is not what it seems in day-care. And the toys must escape, while Woody struggles to reach his friends and help them escape.

Being the final part in the Toy Story trilogy, Toy Story 3 packs quite the emotional punch. Like Andy, we’re leaving the characters behind. They’ve given us some cherished memories, but like all good things, they must be fondly remembered, and passed on to the next generation. Toy Story 3, really does make you laugh, but it’s laughter tinged with sadness. As with all Pixar movies, the film’s strength lies in it’s story. There are many studios that produce technically brilliant animated films, but few reach the heights of Pixar’s films. It’s Pixar’s ability to pack an emotional punch that has made films such as Toy Story, Wall-E and Up such incredible films.



And yet, I find myself going against the general consensus. I don’t think it’s the best of the trilogy. Don’t get me wrong. Toy Story 3 is both technically astonishing and brilliantly written. But there were parts of the film when I though I’d seen it before. There are some recycled story elements. Sometimes these work as winks and nods to what came before. But it is nit-picking. Toy Story 3 is (Buzz) Light-years ahead of it’s competition. In fact, it’s light-years ahead of most films. The voice-work is as usual, brilliant. In particular, the addition of the Ken doll, voiced by Michael Keaton is hilarious in both vocal performance and animation.

Toy Story 3 is probably the best closing chapter of any trilogy. And the Toy Story trilogy itself is near-perfect. The Pixar team are just awe-inspiring in their ability to craft stories that assault your emotions as well as your eye-balls. And with Toy Story 3, they really have knocked it out of the park. Again.


9/10

UP IN THE AIR (2009) - Jason Reitman

We live in times which are rich for satire. It’s easy to poke fun at the state of the world, but sometimes satire can wander into the territory of cliché. Yet Jason Reitman’s latest film, Up In The Air manages to be satirical without ever being patronising. It’s a film that is perfectly timed for the world today. A world of unemployment, foreclosures and a society struggling for identity and direction.

Ryan Bingham has possibly the worst job in the world. He is the person companies hire in order to fire their employees. All he sees every day is people on the verge of nervous and emotional breakdown. And yet, he loves his life. He is constantly moving, working out of a suitcase. He travels the US, lives in hotels and counts air miles as achievements. And yet, he is alone. He barely talks to his two sisters, and has few friends. But his life is on course for a change. His company are introducing video conferencing, which would allow it’s employees to fire people from one central location. This threatens Bingham’s lifestyle. So he takes his company’s wunderkind, the developer of the video program, Natalie Keener, on the road to see what exactly it’s like to fire a person.



As I’ve mentioned, Up In The Air is the perfect film for these times. It deals with themes that many people can relate to right now. Unemployment is rife, companies are closing, and people just feel a sense of constant loss. It’s to Reitman’s credit that he uses real people to depict the people being laid-off by Bingham. Apart from a few actors who depict more plot-central characters, everybody Bingham fires are people who recently lost their jobs. Reitman instructed these people to tell the camera what they would have liked to have told their former employers, and the emotion really carries over. It adds gravitas to the film and makes the emotional impact more palpable.

George Clooney has found the role he was born to play. Ryan Bingham is suave and charming. Yet he seems detached from proceedings. It’s isolation he’s chosen, and perhaps, being a movie star and not interacting with ‘normal’ people like the rest of us, Clooney brings some of himself to the role. It’s a great performance from him, and indeed, the rest of the cast. Newcomer, Anna Kendrick plays Bingham’s charge, Natalie Keener. Keener is straight out of college and has something to prove, and yet is incredibly vulnerable when it comes to personal issues. She breaks Bingham’s isolationism down as he shows her that people aren’t just statistics. They’re perfectly cast against each other and lend real credibility to the film.



Jason Reitman’s career has taken off very well. His first three features, Thank You For Smoking, Juno, and Up In The Air are commercial and critical successes that deal with issues people can relate to. Up In The Air is probably the best film he’s made so far. It manages to capture the mood of the average person, while managing to tell a well-rounded personal story. It’s a very very good film, and worthy of the nominations it has received.


9/10

THE ROAD (2009) - John Hillcoat

Cormac McCarthy is currently viewed as America’s greatest living author. His books are bestsellers and No Country For Old Men, released as a film in 2007, was a multi-Oscar winning film. His Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Road, a post-apocalyptic road story has now been turned into a film by The Proposition director, John Hillcoat. The book was outstanding, but can the adaptation live up to what is viewed as a modern classic?

The world is dying. After some unnamed apocalyptic event, society has crumbled, millions are dead, and those who survive face a hopeless, grey, dark future. A man and his son travel alone along a road, heading for the coast. They don’t know what they will find there. But they will do all they can to survive the journey. Along the way, the encounter gangs of violent killers, people forced into cannibalism, and lone survivors, trying to find a life but without much hope.



Sounds like a pretty upbeat and joyful film, eh?! It is a grim and relentlessly downbeat film, however there is plenty of beauty to be found within. Central to this are the performances. The cast is populated by very few characters. Other than the man and the boy, most other humans they encounter last barely a few scenes before they are dispatched, or go on their own way. And yet there is not one performance that is in any way weak. The whole film hinges on the relationship between the father and his son. It is through their eyes that we see this dying world. The father is a pragmatist, and will kill to protect his son, the light of his world, and one of the few pure things left in their world. Yet despite his pragmatism, his humanity is been sapped by the fear, paranoia and hopelessness of their situation, and it is up to his son to keep him from losing his humanity completely.

This was the overriding theme of the book, and Hillcoat has successfully managed to retain this vital element in the film. Central to his success is his superb casting of Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee as the father and son respectively. Mortensen conveys his desperation to instil good values in his son while fighting a situation that brings out the worst in humanity superbly. He successfully manages to be the average man stuck in extraordinarily grim circumstances. Newcomer Kodi Smit-McPhee mixes the wide-eyed innocence of a boy who is aware that the world is a dangerous place, but still has the innocence that comes with wanting to be the good guys. And he manages to balance these two elements perfectly. These are two remarkably subtle performances and embody the characters of the book superbly. Also making appearances are Michael K. Williams and Robert Duvall. Both are brilliant in two tiny, yet pivotal roles, and in particular, Robert Duvall does outstanding work with so little to go by.



The Road could very easily have been a disaster of a film. Yet Hillcoat’s brilliant direction finds beauty in what should be a hopeless and somber film. There are few special effects. And yet the world looks like a post-apocalyptic landscape. It’s a film of remarkable subtleties and at times gut-wrenching harshness. And it’s this balance that is what makes The Road such a success. Brilliant performances, a sparse and yet poignant script and outstanding direction make The Road an outstanding start to 2010. We can only hope it’s the beginning of a trend.


9/10

AVATAR (2009) - James Cameron

Twelve years ago, James Cameron released what was to become the biggest grossing film of all time, Titanic. Unfortunately, box office receipts and 11 Oscars don’t necessarily add up to a decent film. Titanic was shite. For the next few years, it seemed Cameron was obsessed with the sunken ship, and filmmaking became a side-line to his obsession. Rumours persisted that Cameron was working on a film that would change the face of cinema. It’s been well over a decade, but that film has finally arrived. Avatar.

It’s 2154. Humans have spread out into the galaxy. The RDA Corporation have set up shop on Pandora, a moon of the planet Polyphemus. RDA are after a mineral that exists on Pandora named Unobtanium. However, the indigenous species of Pandora, the Na’vi come between RDA and their mineral. In order to understand and come to some sort of agreement with the Na’vi, RDA has setup the Avatar Program. Jake Sully is the brother of one of the scientists in the Avatar Program. When his brother is killed, Sully is offered the opportunity to take his brother’s place. He steps up to the challenge and is approached by the mercenaries hired to protect RDA to infiltrate and influence the Na’vi. But Sully meets Neytiri, a princess of the Na’vi. She is charged with teaching Sully the ways of the Na’vi, and Sully soon finds himself torn between his job and the natives of Pandora.



It’s almost impossible to know where to start with Avatar. It’s not easy to just call it a film. It’s a whole lot more than that. These days, it’s almost unheard of to have a movie experience in the cinema. Everything is made to make money. We occasionally get a film that has love, care, blood and sweat pumped into it, and those films always stand out. But Avatar seems to transcend even that. It’s a film that not only tells a story, but literally creates a world, it’s inhabitants, flora, fauna and mythology. Cameron is known for his attention to detail, technical ability and immersive worlds. But here, he’s outdone even himself.

The story is pretty much what you’ve heard of by now. It’s Dances With Wolves in space. It’s not that original, you know from the first half hour where things are going, and you’re not surprised when they get there. And usually, this would piss me off to no end. But Avatar is so much more than that, that all story faults can be forgiven. At the heart of it, Avatar is an invader goes native story. The characters conform to archetypes and there’s a clear line between good and evil. There’s a lot sitting on Sam Worthington’s shoulders. For a man who a year ago was relatively unknown, it’s a pretty hefty cross to bear. And while not reaching Daniel Day Lewis heights of acting prowess, Worthington does a pretty good job of being the man with the moral dilemma.



Zoe Saldana is quickly becoming the thinking-person’s sci-fi girl, and she does a great job as Neytiri. Despite that she’s about 12 foot tall, blue and looks like a cat, the combination of Cameron’s technology and Saldana’s performance creates a fully rounded and believable alien character. Cinema depends on connecting with a character. In Wall-E, the audience connected with a pile of circuits and wires. Here, it’s hard not to connect with this alien. Sigourney Weaver is the veteran in the young main cast. Having worked with Cameron before, Weaver clearly knows what the director wants and delivers a very solid performance. But for me, the stand-out performance was Stephen Lang’s Colonel Miles Quartich. Quartich is a man of ambition and singular vision. He’s remorseless, violent, seething with menace and an absolute joy to watch. He’s the perfect foil for the Na’vi.

But the real star of the film are the visuals. Avatar is unlike anything you’ll have seen before. Everything in the film seems to have been meticulously thought-out and created with the highest possible attention to detail. Pandora is incredibly stunning. It’s absolutely believable and somewhere you will completely forget is created by technology. The ideas that go into creating the world are incredible, yet logical if you go so far as to thing of the physics and evolution that might be involved in such a place. I’ve seen the film twice now. The first time I watched it, I was so immersed in the visuals that I felt like I had been in the cinema for a week. Which is not a bad thing. Like Weaver’s character, I wanted to take samples, observe the wildlife and learn more about Pandora. The second time I saw the film, the entire thing flew by. It’s a very well paced piece of science fiction.



3D is quickly becoming a staple of cinema. For better or worse, it doesn’t look like the format is going anywhere any time soon. I was previously unconvinced, enjoying the few films that were presented in 3D, but ultimately dismissing it as a fad. Having seen Avatar, I can safely say 3D definitely has a place in the film industry. The 3D in Avatar is simply mind-blowing. Despite one or two moment, it’s not about stuff pointing out of the screen. Avatar shows the 3D can give depth to the screen. At the beginning of the film, there are a few 3D moments thrown in there to make you aware of the 3D. But soon, it becomes just part of the film. It’s been said before, and I scoffed. But it’s true. Avatar is the next great step in film.

Every time James Cameron takes a step forward in technology, the industry sits up, listens, and then follows suit. Avatar isn’t a step forward. It’s a massive leap forward. The twelve years Cameron took to make the film was worth every day. And I can finally forgive him for Titanic. Cameron’s back doing what he does best. Science fiction. In a resume that already includes The Abyss, Aliens and Terminator 2, Avatar takes it’s place among Cameron’s finest films. It’s not just a film. It’s an experience.


9/10*


*I really wanted to give this a 10. But the story is a little weak. Otherwise, it's the finest example of what a combination of film and technology can achieve.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (2007) - Oren Peli

Paranormal Activity was made two years ago, but is only now seeing a release. Very little is known about it, but through word of mouth, it is already the most profitable movie of all time. Is they hype justified? I had heard about it before I headed to the States. And I was sceptical when going to see it.

Katie and Micah are a young, attractive couple with a bit of a problem. Katie’s house (which Micah recently moved into) is plagued by strange occurrences. After purchasing a video camera, the couple begin to chronicle the activity in the house. But as the nights progress, the activity escalates. Katie is convinced it’s an evil force. Micah refuses to buy into anything Katie says. What is going on in the house?

As I’ve said many times in this blog, I love horror films. I’ve seen all manner of horror, from the so-bad-it’s hilarious tripe of Zombi Holocaust to modern greats like Let The Right One In and The Mist. If it’s horror, I’ll watch it. Few films actually scare me. The first time I saw Hideo Nakata’s Ringu way back in 1999 was the last time I was generally frightened by a movie. And then along came Paranormal Activity. I’m not going to say much, but where the film excels is what it doesn’t show you. It’s all about atmosphere and sound. And for that reason, it is a tremendous success and one of the best horror films I’ve seen in years. Genuinely frightening.

9/10

IN THE LOOP (2009) - Armando Ianucci

British comedies tend to be one of two things. Parochial fare that even I have trouble getting, despite living in the country next-door to Britain. Or else rom-coms that even the most effeminate male will have trouble mustering a chortle to. But occasionally, they get things right. And when they do, the results are often fantastic. Enter Armando Ianucci, one of the co-writers on Alan Partridge (which, if you haven’t seen or even heard of, close this page down immediately and seek it out). His 2005 sit-com, The Thick Of It was critically acclaimed but seen by few, and I must admit I’m one of those that missed it. God bless downloading. In The Loop is a companion piece to the series and it was released earlier this year.

British Minister for International Development, Simon Foster makes a gaffe while on national radio. He says that a war, which the British PM and US President are currently secretly pushing, is ‘unforseeable.’ While this may seem trite, it doesn’t tow the party line, and the Director for Communications, Malcolm Tucker marches in to sort the mess out. Little known to either men, US Assistant Secretary of State, Karen Clarke plans to use Foster as a meat-puppet to stop the march to war. And so begins the satire of Anglo-American politics in this modern day.



What is most apparent from the start of In The Loop is the frankly shocking amount of profanities. While this may offend some, the profanities are so vicious, cutting and inventive, that they end up leaving you laughing your arse off. In The Loop is one of the finest comedies I’ve seen in quite a while. But it’s not just down to profanities. That’d be a stupid reason to like a film. But not an unforgivable reason!

The performances in the film are all fantastic. The stand-out performance is from Peter Capaldi. He plays Malcolm Tucker, one of only two characters who makes the transition from The Thick Of It (although a great many of the actors in the film were also in the series as different characters). Tucker is one of the nastiest, most cruel characters you’ll ever see on screen. And his abrasiveness makes him highly watchable. Tom Hollander plays the hapless and Simon Foster, literally a puppet to all those around him. He’s pathetic and useless and Hollander carries this very strongly. His scenes with Capaldi are a vicious version of Laurel and Hardy. James Gandolfini is on the American side, as Lt. General George Miller, a man who has seen war and wants to do everything in his power to prevent further war unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately he has only one scene with Capaldi, but it’s memorable.



It’d take forever to give everyone kudos for their performances, as they’re all equally brilliant. But a cameo by Steve Coogan in particular is a lesson in comedy performance. It’s a highlight. Ianucci’s script is the star of the film, and it’s to his credit that he gets such brilliant performances out of the actors delivering his lines. In The Loop is one of the best comedies of the last few years and well worth seeking out. With the new hope politics in the US, it may seem that the film arrived a little late, due to it’s savage cynicism. But in spite of this, the film is still outstanding. At this moment in time, it’s by a long shot, the comedy of 2009.


9/10

MOON (2009) - Duncan Jones

It’s amazing that films like Transformers 2 and Terminator Salvation make truck loads of cash. They’re empty-headed, dull, idiotic movies yet they have mass idiot-appeal and therefore bring the feckless masses into the cinemas to gawp at the screen and marvel at the shiny things and ‘splosions. And then you have a film like Duncan Jones’ Moon. A film that is playing in three cinemas in this country, yet is probably one of the best films you’ll see this year. Have the general public heard of it? Unlikely. It’s a sad indictment of the cinema industry.

Moon takes place, surprisingly, on the Moon. Sam Bell is the sole operator of a mining operation on the dark side of the moon. His three-year stint in charge of the operation is coming to an end, and he is looking forward to returning to his wife and daughter on Earth. However, after an accident involving one of the mining machines, Sam wakes up to find he isn’t alone in the station. The other person in the station is himself.



You don’t need hundreds of millions of dollars in order to distract attention from a badly-written story and hold the audience’s attention. Start of with a well-written screenplay and the audience will forgive all the little mistakes or limitations your budget will have when it comes to special effects. Moon has a brilliantly-written script, effects that involve miniatures instead of computers and a superb dual-performance from Sam Rockwell and it’s a genuinely brilliant film. Along with Sunshine and Children of Men, Moon is the best Sci-Fi film of the last ten years. It’s a film about isolation and identity and yet still manages to have a solid story that keeps you guessing.



Sam Rockwell’s performances as two versions of the same character are integral to what works about this film. I can’t say too much without giving story elements away, but his performances are essentially the same person with major changes, which affect the characters differently. It’s his ability to differentiate between the two characters that really grounds the film. Duncan Jones really captures the mood and feeling of the paranoid sci-fi films of the 1970’s, yet the film doesn’t at all feel dated in any way. Jones writing and directing certainly make him a name to watch in the future.

There’s not much else that can be said about Moon without giving away story elements, so I’ll keep it brief. It’s brilliant. Finally, a film that breaks the monotonous parade of shite that has been this summer’s films. Sci-fi at it’s very best, Moon will be in the top 10 of 2009. It’s a really, really great film.


9/10

GRAN TORINO (2008) - Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood is the epitome of Hollywood legend. As an actor, Eastwood, in his fifty four years of working in the industry has become synonymous with the tough guy demeanor. As a director, Eastwood’s unfussy approach to direction has made him a director who knows how to get the best out of his actors. In Gran Torino, Eastwood takes on the dual role of actor and director, something he has done in films such as Heartbreak Ridge and Unforgiven.

Walt Kowalski is a retired Ford motor company employee and veteran of the Korean war. He has spent the majority of his life living in the same house in the suburbs of Michigan. Over the years he has seen the neighbourhood change with the arrival of more and more Hmong people. This is something that causes Kowalski irritation, as he is somewhat of a racist. When Walt steps in on a violent situation and saves his teenage Hmong neighbour (in actuality, Walt steps in just to save his lawn), he finds himself exalted as a hero in the Hmong community. Walt is then forced to deal with the unwanted attention his new celebrity brings him.



There’s two types of people in the world. Those who love Clint. And those who don’t. For those who do, this film is like a glorious epilogue for Eastwood’s career. For those who aren’t Clint fans, this film should turn them. Eastwood’s performance is just fantastic. He a grumpy, seething malcontent. And while that doesn’t sound like something to be entertained by, Eastwood is just so good in the role that it’s impossible not to enjoy the film. Racism aside, it’s easy to imagine Walt Kowalski as a retired Harry Callaghan. Eastwood has stated that Gran Torino will be his last film as an actor. While this is a sad thing to hear, it’s great that Eastwood went out with such a bang. Walt Kowalski is a no-nonsense, shit-kicking badass. And enormously entertaining to watch.



Where the film does fall slightly, it is with the support cast. To be fair, the Hmong actors are all first-timers, hand picked from the community for the roles. While their inexperience certainly shows next to Clint, they do a good enough job not to distract from the film. It’s a minor complaint. But Eastwood’s performance more than makes up for it. The script isn’t flawless. Some of the character arcs are a little questionable. Kowalski’s transition from racist to non-racist happens rather quickly. But aside from that, there’s not much to complain about. Eastwood manages to inject quite a bit of humour into the role that could otherwise be quite unlikable. With his trousers hitched up over his belly and a permanent scowl on his face, Kowalski manages to have elements of many of Clint’s iconic roles, while still being independent of these.

For the film that marks the end of Clint Eastwood’s acting career, Gran Torino is a great swansong. As a film by itself, it’s very entertaining, and questionably overlooked in favour of the more dour and serious Changeling. But it’s a film that surprises you in how entertaining it is. And at 78, Clint’s still got it and looks as badass as ever.


9/10

THE WRESTLER (2008) - Darren Aronofsky

Hollywood is full of comebacks. The rags to riches, to rags and back to riches story is not something consigned to fiction. And with the release of Darren Aronofsky’s latest film, The Wrestler, we may be witnessing a comeback that would be somewhat unbelievable if it were projected on screen. Mickey Rourke’s resurrection is bolstered by his performance as one-time wrestling superstar, Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson. The accolades have come thick and fast. But is the praise lavished upon the film justified?

Randy Robinson was once a professional wrestling superstar. He was the world champion, the people’s champion and a symbol for the United States of America. But he is well past his prime. His past glories have faded into almost obscurity and the only glimpse he has of his former glory is the occasional fan who looks for his autograph. The only action he sees is in the small, poorly-paid amateur circuit. For the most part, he is alone. The only companionship he has is in the form of a stripper called Cassidy. And that companionship is consigned to the club. And he has to pay for it. But an opportunity arises for Randy to regain some of his former glory. But his failing health stands in his way. He’s alone; his estranged daughter won’t talk to him. But he is just looking for somewhere to belong.



There is no doubt, the film rests on Mickey Rourke’s massive shoulders. He is in almost every frame of the film, and his performance needed to be close-on perfect. And, thankfully, it is. Rourke’s career became a train-wreck in the early nineties. Bored with acting, Rourke returned to his pre-acting passion, boxing. And it took it’s toll on Rourke. Both physically and when it came to his career. He turned down roles, and became almost unemployable. In the last few years, Steve Buscemi, Sean Penn and Robert Rodriguez have given Rourke choice roles in order to bring the actor out of the cold. But it is Aronofsky’s film that is the make or break for Rourke.

Thankfully for Rourke, his performance as Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson is fantastic. To use a cliché, it’s pretty much the role Rourke was born to play. Or at least, the role he has prepared for for the last fifteen years. Robinson is a broken down man. He is battle-scarred, run down and pretty much down on his luck. But he’s not a bad guy. For the most part, he’s a genuinely nice guy. It’d be too easy to make the character an unlikable kinda guy. But Rourke takes the blows, both physically and mentally with a wounded pride and this is what makes Robinson a compelling character.



Marisa Tomei plays Cassidy, the object of Robinson’s affections. Sure, she’s a stripper, but she’s far from the ‘hooker with a heart of gold’ type character you’d expect from the film. She is a mirror of The Ram. They both take off their clothes and are scruitinized for what they can do with their bodies. But the difference between them is, The Ram wants to return to his former glory. Cassidy wants out of the stripping business. She provides some comfort to Robinson. But she holds back. She can’t get too close to a customer. And Tomei balances these two sides very well.

Darren Aronofsky previously made four excellent films. With each film, the scope of the story increased. He came in for some criticism for the woefully-received The Fountain. But it was a film that some people just didn’t get. Here, he returns to a smaller, more personal story. And it’s just as good as anything he’s done before. Aronofsky was met with some scepticism when he said he wanted Rourke for the title role. But thanks to his tenacity, we as the audience benefit. The film is excellent. The script is very strong, the direction is spot-on. Aronofsky really capture the sub-culture of amateur wrestling. As a companion piece, the fantastic documentary Beyond The Mat should be seen. When viewed along-side The Wrestler, you appreciate on a whole new level, just how well Aronofsky captured the scene.

With Golden Globes won, and rumours of Oscar glory, The Wrestler is a triumph for all involved. Rourke has come in from the cold, and if he continues with performances as good as this, he’ll be here to stay. The second film of 2009 is another fantastic piece of work. Long may this trend continue.


9/10

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE (2008) - Danny Boyle

A lot of superlatives have been bandied about when it comes to Danny Boyle’s latest film, Slumdog Millionaire. People are going about declaring it ‘the feel-good film of the decade,’ and other such clichéd statements. All this does is highlight how little these people know about film. Certainly, Slumdog Millionaire has it’s moments that are uplifting. But it also has some pretty grim and depressing moments. After all, it is a film whose central characters grow up in abject poverty.

Jamal and Salik are two brothers who live in the slums of Mumbai. They spend their days living amongst the poverty of their city. They don’t go to school, but pass the time getting into adventures amongst the rubbish tips of the city, being chased by police for playing cricket on an airfield and generally getting into as much mischief as two young boys can. After their mother is killed in a riot, the boys are left alone. They meet Latika, a young girl who is also alone. We see Jamal as an older boy. He is a contestant on the Hindi version of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Jamal has made it all the way to the final question, relying on knowledge he has acquired during his life on the streets. But as the final question awaits Jamal’s answer, questions as to whether he has cheated are raised. Jamal has one goal. To find Latika who he has lost contact with due to unfortunate circumstances.



Slumdog Millionaire has garnered praise from nearly all corners of the globe. And rightfully so. It’s a brilliant film. Director Danny Boyle is one of those rare directors who can handle both big budget movies, such as Sunshine, and smaller-budget character driven stories. The screenplay is written by Simon Beaufoy, who was nominated for an Oscar for his screenplay, The Full Monty. As with The Full Monty, Beaufoy is able to craft a screenplay that mixes darker elements with uplifting themes. He once again successfully merges these elements in Slumdog Millionaire.

One of the best elements of the film is the performances Danny Boyle has gotten from his cast. Many of the young actors are first-timers, but you wouldn’t guess that from the brilliant performances from the children. They have grown up in Mumbai, and that has just benefited their acting. Because of the troubles Boyle experienced using a British crew when shooting The Beach in Thailand, the director chose to use local talent to shoot the film. The crew were used to working on Bollywood films, and this experience shows throughout the film. Boyle chose to shoot the slum scenes in the slums of Mumbai rather than on constructed sets, as suggested by the crew. And it’s this attention to detail that adds to the realism of a film that is otherwise fantastical and a little melodramatic.



As mentioned, the film has been bandied about as the feel-good film of the decade. This is a rather incorrect statement. There are some very dark moments in the film. Moments that may make some viewers uncomfortable. It’s not that these moments are unrealistic. But they reflect a side of the slums that (as far as my limited knowledge tells me) is an unfortunate side of poverty. That’s not to say you’ll walk away from the film depressed. If it fails to put a wide grin on your face, there’s something wrong with you. It’s a highly entertaining yarn with great performances held together by lead Dev Patel. And for the first film of 2009 that I’ve seen, it bodes well for what’s ahead.


9/10

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

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

WALL-E (2008) - Andrew Stanton

Only two weeks ago, I saw Dreamworks’ big animated release for this year, Kung Fu Panda. And it was a damn entertaining watch. Funny, exciting, with gorgeous character designs, I thought it would be the best of the CGI films of this year. That was, until I witnessed the pure joy that is Pixar’s WALL-E.

Set in the distant future, Earth has been abandoned due to the planet becoming overrun with garbage produced by the corporation, Buy N Large. Every human has abandoned the planet to live on large interstellar luxury liners. Left on earth are robots, Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class or WALL-E. The last of these robots is our titular hero. He spends his days compacting rubbish. However, whenever he finds a trinket he is fascinated by, he keeps it. Years of isolation have led to this one robot to develop a personality. He loves musicals, is mesmerised by the simplest of trinkets and has a cockroach friend. One day, a ship lands on Earth and drops of EVE, a feminine robot tasked with doing reconnaissance on Earth. WALL-E is immediately infatuated with her and after a few aborted introductions, they become close. But EVE’s mission is a success and she is recovered by her mother ship. And WALL-E does everything he can to rescue his love.



There’s so much right with WALL-E, it’s hard to know where to start. Firstly, the film looks gorgeous. From the character designs to the production designs and cinematography, there’s not one frame of WALL-E that isn’t worthy of a poster by itself. WALL-E’s design is pretty basic, he’s a box with a head, arms and treads. But in the hands of the Pixar animators, he bursts with personality. The first thirty minutes of the film are dialogue free. This time is mainly spent with WALL-E exploring and discovering. And had the film continued this way, I’d have been perfectly happy! But then, this is a narrative film, so story had to take precedence. It’s a testament to the quality of animation that this simple act of exploration is so compelling. But maybe that’s just the animator in me wanting to see more!

It would have been very interesting if the team behind WALL-E had let the entire film go without a single human character or line of dialogue. Sure, WALL-E has little words to say now and again, but for the most part, everything is conveyed in gesture. And every emotion and thought is perfectly clear. When the humans do appear, the film takes a knock. While it’s an obvious route to have to go down, it’s just a shame that it needed to be done. I cant see any reason why anyone wouldn’t engage with the personality of WALL-E and his love story with EVE. We didn’t need the human characters in the film.



While it’s all well and good to gush endlessly about how impressive the technical aspects of the film are, it wouldn’t be a film without a story. After all, WALL-E is essentially a love story, and makes no apology for it. It’s a pretty heart-warming love story too. WALL-E is such a compassionate and dedicated character that it’s difficult not to be turned into a blubbering mess when watching him. In fact, it’s easy to say that if you aren’t won over by the character, it’s proof you were born without a soul.

There’s no real point in going on with this review. WALL-E’s a brilliant film, and while it doesn’t have the laugh ratio of Kung Fu Panda, it’s just a better movie. It’s one of Pixar’s best, and something all involved with should be very very proud of. As an animator, it’s a stunning piece of work and proves that you can put personality to anything, no matter how organic or inorganic it is. As a film fan, it’s a touching, warm, gorgeous film.


9/10