MULTI-REVIEW!!!

I've let this place go to the dogs after being threatened by lawyers reprisenting big business. But that doesn't mean I have stopped watching movies. Although 2010 has been pretty bad apart from one or two absolute gems scattered throughout. Anyway, this is what I've seen recently-

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010) David Yates - I haven't been a big fan of the last few Harry Potter films. In fact, I haven't really thought they were great since The Prisoner Of Azkeban. However, this film bucked that trend. There are some really quirky choices in direction which let the film down a bit. And even after seven films, Daniel Radcliffe still really sucks at acting. But Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are excellent, the film feels tonally like Fellowship Of The Ring. And it sets up really nicely for Part 2. Good job everyone!

9/10






The Social Network (2010) David Fincher - David Fincher is one of the few really really special directors working today. His films are worth looking out for as soon as they're announced. So it comes as no surprise that he could make a film about computer coding so damn exciting. Charting the early meteorical rise of Facebook, focusing on the relationships between Mark Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin and Sean Parker, The Social Network is like All The President's Men for the 21st Century. Superbly written by The West Wing scribe Aaron Sorkin, and featuring excellent performances from all, but primarily Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, The Social Network is one of the best films of 2010.

9/10





R.E.D. (2010)
Robert Schwentke - Based on Warren Ellis' comic book of the same name, RED is about retired assassins who are being targeted by an unknown source, possibly connected to the CIA. Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Helen Mirren and the rest of the cast are clearly in it for the fun, and that's what the film is. It's not outstanding by any measure, but it is entertaining and easy to watch.

7/10






Centurion (2010) Neil Marshall - I'll admit, I really just watched this out of morbid curiosity. Neil Marshall's films can go either way. And going in with zero expectations probably saved the film for me. It's absolute schlock. And Marshall loves his gore. It's rubbish, but again, there are worse ways to spend 97 minutes. Worth it for Michael Fassbender actually doing a decent job with a terrible script, Dominic West chewing up the scenery, Olga Kurylenko being terrifyingly hot and seeing a head being chopped in half the same way about 3 times.

5/10





I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) Glenn Ficarra and John Requa - This was surprisingly decent. It's the true story of a conman who basically took the piss out of George W. Bush's Texas penal system continuously for years. All in the name of love of another man. Surprisingly funny and with two really great performances from Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor, it's a very over-looked film. Really entertaining.

7/10






Jackass 3D (2010) Jeff Tremaine - Awesome. There's not much to say really, you know what to expect. Except in 3D. Nearly puked. Laughed my ass off. No apologies!

8/10














Four Lions (2010) Chris Morris - I'm a big fan of Chris Morris. So when I heard he was doing a comedy about four suicide bombers, I chuckled away to myself. The film is pretty shocking in parts, but then having seen Morris' other work, that comes as no surprise. Very well performed low-budget comedy about a subject most people wont touch, Four Lions is exactly the right type of satire in this current climate. Really excellent.

9/10






[REC] 2 (2010) Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza - I thought this would suck. It takes place roughly five minutes after the first REC finished, and picks up exactly where that film left off. It's incredibly creepy, gory, and features quite a few jumps. A horror sequel that expands on the original in a very inventive way. And while some complain that it takes a bit of the mysetery out of the first film, which admittedly, it does, it doesn't rest on it's laurels and instead expands on the story. Proper horror done really well.

8/10



So there you go. Some more films I've watched recently. The end of the year review will be coming soon, which should cover a few more of the films I've seen. Some good, some rotten. Hopefully I'll get a full top and bottom 10. But I wouldn't count on it! The cinema is costing more and putting out crap, so it really puts me off going. However, we shall see.

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

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

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



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

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



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

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


8/10

ZODIAC (2007) - David Fincher

In 1995, David Fincher made a huge impact with a film that dealt with a particularly nasty serial killer in Se7en. In Zodiac, Fincher returns to this subject matter albeit using the real life case of Zodiac killer and the policemen and reporters who struggled to find the faceless killer. Based on the Robert Graysmith book of the same title, Zodiac recounts the events that gripped the people of San Fransisco in the 1970's, as an unknown serial killer took lives at random and taunted the police by sending letters and cyphers to be published in a few newspapers. At the San Fransisco Chronicle, a reporter named Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jnr.) and Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), then a cartoonist for the newspaper, take on the case and soon become obsessed with finding out who Zodiac is. Meanwhile, Inspectors David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) are assigned to the case and set about trying to piece together the few clues left behind at the crime scenes as to who the mystery killer is. However, evidence doesn't add up, and both teams find that discovering the identity of the Zodiac killer is quickly becoming an obsession.



If you're going to the cinema expecting a film similar to Se7en, you'll be disappointed. But that is the only disappointment you'll suffer in this film. While the serial killer element is similar between each film, where as Se7en was a straight up thriller, Zodiac is a character study of how an obsession can affect your personal life. The three central characters of Avery, Graysmith and Toschi each find themselves consumed with finding and stopping this killer. But each of them deal with the obsession in different ways. Graysmith, the young, squeaky-clean boy scout states puzzles as a past-time, and this is the ultimate puzzle. Avery, a cocky, self-important opportunist, strives to solve the case ahead of the police, and thus push his profile. And Toschi, the original inspiration for Dirty Harry, is a cop looking to solve a case he cant let go.



Fincher's attention to detail is absolutely fantastic, creating the atmosphere of the late 60's- early 70's in a manner that recalls another great newspaper film- All The President's Men. While this isn't the same film as Se7en, Fincher still manages to throw in some white-knuckle moments, something he has quite a talent for. Where as some of Fincher's work had really showcased his flare for style, Zodiac shows just how good of a story teller he is.
Mark Ruffalo is the best of a great cast. He presents us with a Toschi who's determination to solve the case is apparent, but never borders on irrational obsession. His career takes a bit of a beating because of the case, which also wears down his partner, but Toschi, ever the cop, never gives up. Robert Downey Jnr. is again on form as the arrogant Avery, who's obsession leads to a breakdown in his personal life, something I'm sure the actor can relate to. And Gyllenhaal brings a youthful innocence to the character of Graysmith, graduly building on the obsession until it nearly costs him everything. Brian Cox, Elias Koteas, Donal Logue and Philip Baker Hall also turn up in small roles, and are all on top form. Only Chloe Sevigny seems to be relegated to the fretful wife role as she watches her husband, Graysmith's obsession overtake him.
At an arse-numbingly long 2 hour 38 minute running time, Zodiac might leave some viewers shifting in their seats. But for those looking for an excellently written character study and thriller, Zodiac will reward them. After a 5 year hiatus, David Fincher is back. And we're all the better for it.

9/10