The Dreamers

Unfortunately, Uni business has halted my continuing film amnesty of late. Allow me to rectify this with a look at The Dreamers- a film so French, I felt it hated me as soon as I put it in the DVD player.

The Dreamers (2003)

I, like most other red-blooded males (and some females) only really knew The Dreamers as the film where Eva Green gets her Vespers out. However, surely there's got to be more to it than that? Well, yeah- there is.

"I don't believe in God, but if I did, he would be a black, left-handed guitarist"

The plot follows American student Matthew (Michael Pitt) and his adventures in France. Through his love of cinema he meets brother and sister combo Theo (Louis Garrel) and Isabelle (Eva Green). He is eventually drawn further and further in to their bizarre relationship when he moves in with them over the summer. The story itself is pretty good, with enough attention paid to each of the three main characters to keep them fresh and interesting. I thought all the actors put in great performances and played off each other well.

Right, apart from Eva Green getting her Algerian Love Knots out (I'm determined to make one of these work as a joke) the other big thing this film is known for is the incest angle. It's not as black and white as all that. I liked the way that the film presented Theo and Isabelle as co-dependent, having an almost symbiotic relationship. It's not trying to be controversial for controversy's sake, it's purposefully taking a rare path (I'm pretty sure there's innuendo here, so shut it) to further explore these characters. I warmed to the film almost immediately as after the flashy titles, there is a love of cinema presented from the off. Much like the characters in the film, I am usually saying lines from movies and expecting my long-suffering friends to answer what film that specific line is from with the same eager enthusiasm that I delivered it in. However, I normally get a gruff "bugger off". I really liked the use of clips from films like the 1939 film Scarface and Tarantino favourite Bande á part.

However, could we please, please, please stop having films set in the 1960's that are packed with all the clichés that people think of when they think of that decade? As soon as the date appeared on the screen, we cut to a protest, eliciting an "Ah, fuck..." from me. Yes, this is historically accurate, but I'm just sick of seeing the '60s portrayed in such a glossed-over way. I wasn't around for the '60s but logic tells me that during this decade of great change there wasn't a protest on every street, there were people who didn't like Jimi Hendrix's music and there were people who thought that the "free love" atmosphere was just an excuse for dirty hippies to get their leg over. This isn't exclusive to The Dreamers and in fact, it stays away from most of the over romanticised pitfalls but not far away enough for my liking.

I thought the ending was a bit of a cop-out too. (Invisotexted) Having Isabelle gas them made sense- not only was she carrying out what she said she'd do if they were discovered, but the three of them would be united in death, a romantic fantasy mainstay. I was all ready to applaud the film for this bold ending when the film seemingly loses its bottle and goes for a much more ambiguous ending which didn't do anything for me.

"In this big, epic movie - everyone is an extra."

So, that was The Dreamers. It's a well-directed, well-written piece that could have been really good if it stuck to its guns and been a bit more daring.

Ong-Bak

It's official- I'm not perfect, or at least this blog is not perfect. If one takes a glance down the ever-growing list of films I've reviewed, it is possible to note a few recurring trends. For starters, nearly all of them have massive explosions in and secondly, nearly all of them cost as much as a handjob from the Queen. Some people (and you know who you are) have pointed this out and have suggested that I review some more diverse films. Normally I would tell them where to stick it, but I'd like to think I'm a better reviewer than that. So, let it never be said that I never answer my critics. Here are my thoughts on Ong-Bak aka "Holy shit! Did he do that for real?!"

Ong-Bak (2003)

It's all The Matrix's fault. Whilst I am aware wire-fu had been around long before Keanu Reeves uttered the immortal line "Whoah..." The Matrix brought wire-fu to the forefront of Western cinema and within a couple of years, everyone was flipping about the screen gracefully, sticking their middle fingers up at gravity. Trouble is, wire-fu by its very nature has no real physicality to it. With that in mind, consider Ong-Bak- a film which its tagline proudly proclaims has "No computer graphics. No stunt doubles. No wires."

"Come on! Fuck Muay Thai! "

Everything is hunky-dory and Disney-esque in the Thai village Ban Nong Pradu until weasel faced bad guy Don (Wannakit Sirioput) steals the head of Ong-Bak- the village's sacred Buddha statue to try and sell it on for profit. It's up to country boy Ting (Tony Jaa) to get the Ong-Bak er...back. The plot reminded me a lot of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom as that film too concerns a sacred artifact being stolen from some remote village. However, the films' similarities end there as, whilst the second weakest entry in the Indy franchise, Temple of Doom used the plot for more than an excuse for being manly men to beat the crap out of each other. Well, a little more anyway. It's not so much a film as a big showcase for Muay Thai aka Thai Boxing.

It's possible to see the above statement as a bad thing, but it isn't neccessarily. I mean the acting is pretty rubbish and the plot is hackneyed but the fighting and stunts were so good, I didn't really care about all that. It's so kinetic and inventive it hushed my nagging little reviewer voice in my head and instead drew out "oohs" and "ahhs" like I was watching a particularly violent and bloodthirsty fireworks display. I mean, just watch this video in its entirety and tell me you're not impressed. The stunts are just mind-blowing.

The one thing that kept bugging me about Ong-Bak was its constant peddling of religion. The MacGuffin is a Buddha head, Ting has faith and therefore will triumph in the end and blah blah blah. It's no secret that I don't buy in to the whole religion thing. It's an ancient form of control which has been kept alive through the ages because it makes a select few people obscene amounts of cash. What really annoys me is when a film uses religion as the hero's power, making out that all you need to do is picture your selected diety and you become Ultimate Badass of the Universe and get a free yacht. As corny as it is, I prefer the crappy "believe in yourself" message a lot of films trot out these days. Yes, Thailand is a religious country and I suppose any film made there will reflect that, but the whole thing smacked of religious propaganda which is one of the things that is guaranteed to rile me up.

"At least let me help you start your motorcycle"

Ong-Bak is a perfectly fine film if you regard it as a collection of incredible fights and stunts rather than an actual film. See it before Tony Jaa goes Stateside and stars in a remake of Rush Hour.

So that's Ong-Bak, the first film of my friends' so called "film amnesty" in which they give me films without booms and bangs and expect me to enjoy them. I'll let you know if I survive...

Defiance

After sampling the fantastical future in Star Trek, I felt it was time to delve into the gritty, real past with Defiance- a film about James Bond, Sabretooth and Billy Elliot fighting Nazis. How could one film posess so much awesome? I had to find out...

Defiance (2009)

Let's face it, war is rarely done well in films these days. For every Schindler's List, there are 5 Pearl Harbors. Even the good films always have problems, however. I mean, where were the British soldiers in Saving Private Ryan? I know for a fact that America didn't single-handedly storm Omaha Beach, so why no Brits? Anyway, Defiance aims to cut the glossy shit and inaccuracies and tell an amazing story, which it does to admirable effect.

"We have no more prayers, no more tears; we have run out of blood. Choose another people."

Defiance tells the true story of the Bielski brothers Tuvia (Daniel Craig), Zus (Liev Schreiber), Asael (Jamie Bell) and Aron (George MacKay) who fled to the Belarussian forest in 1941 after being persecuted by the Nazis. They start to fight back and soon more Jews start joining them and carving out a community in the woods. The story itself is inspirational. When we are told about Hitler and the Nazis, we are taught in plain and simple terms. Nazis = baddies, Jews = victims and naturally, Britain and America = blindingly awesome heroes who rocked out electric guitar solos whilst kicking Hitler in his stupid moustache. Whilst it isn't too hard to realise that this viewpoint is full of more shit than a Glastonbury Portaloo, you won't believe how many people adhere to this basic template while waxing lyrical about the glories of war and the like. Hopefully, these insufferable people will see Defiance and realise that yes, maybe the Jews didn't immediately grab a yellow Star of David to affix to their coats and adopt a downtrodden look as soon as the Nazi party rose to power.

In terms of actors, Daniel Craig was just Daniel Craig with a slightly dodgy accent. The guy's a good actor, but he never seems to get inside the head of the person he's playing. He's good, don't get me wrong, it's just that I thought Tuvia Bielski would have little or nothing in common with James Bond. Much more impressive is Liev Schreiber who steals the film as Zus, delivering a memorable performance. Whilst his portrayal did have a lot in common with his Sabretooth character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (he is the more violence-loving of the two brothers, has funny facial hair) I can forgive him because this film was made first. Jamie Bell pulled off the accent well and continues to impress me by turning in one solid performance after another.

The film is directed by Edward Zwick, who directed Blood Diamond and the oft-overlooked The Last Samurai. My one problem with Zwick films is that they are always Uber Fucking Serious (note the capitals) and often have a very prominent message barely underlying proceedings. His films are always beautifully shot and normally feature some top-notch acting. However, despite all its scenes exploring the human condition, Defiance struck me as a bit...shallow. There is a message here about freedom and humanity but there is rarely any gravitas to it all. There were too many rousing speeches for my liking, considering this is meant to be a genuine account of what went on. The film isn't all talky-talky Jew-y Jew-y, as there is a lot of action too. The action is done well, with spoonfuls of grit added here and there to make it seem more realistic. Most of this stuff has been seen before though, with one scene in particular being almost a direct rip from the television series Band of Brothers.

"Nothing is impossible, what we all have done is impossible!"

Defiance is a very well made, well acted and enjoyable film. It can be funny, touching and harrowing in places too. I just wish Zwick could have set aside his clear love for issues and let the audience take away their own messages from it. When one manipulates real life to tell a story, you end up with a fractured, distorted version of the truth or at very least dirge like Big Brother- something that definitely should be avoided *shudder*.

Star Trek

Oh yes, time to take off my X-Men reviewing hat and put on my Star Trek one. Word of warning, I'll try and avoid spoilers where I can, but sometimes it can be difficult. So, if a moment gets spoiled, please- no more flaming bricks through my window. I cannae take it any more... (I apologise profusely for that lame jokette)

Star Trek (2009)

Before we start, I'm not a Trekker by any stretch of the imagination. I've briefly flirted with Star Trek in all its incarnations throughout my years, but never actually become a fan of it. I am however, an all-purpose nerd so I actually know my Klingon from my Kobyashi Maru.

"Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence."

A young James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) runs wild after his father heroically dies on the Starship Kelvin. Vulcan Spock (Zachary Quinto) is an outsider because of his human mother. Both end up at Starfleet Academy and blah de blah de blah. Truth is, I don't want to spoil it for you. The plot is fantastic for one reason. We are made aware that what we are seeing is not part of the regular Star Trek canon. We are seeing something different. The Kirk we're seeing may or may not grow up to be The Shat's Kirk in the same way that Spock probably won't end up being Nimoy's pointy-eared logic spewer. Is this making any sense? No? Well, see the film and it will. I just wish Mr. Lucas had thought about doing the Star Wars prequels this way, the franchise killing, white bearded fuck.

Put simply-this is how you do a reboot. You keep all the established stuff established and you take the characters in new directions. I thought Chris Pine was great as Kirk, adding just enough swagger and arrogance to the character to not upset even the most hardcore of Trekkies. The stand-out for me was Quinto's Spock, who is pitch-perfect. I thought the two had good chemistry between them which bodes well for future films (which there will be considering Star Trek has made enough money to buy the country of Japan.) Eric Bana was also brilliant as Romulan baddie Nero, who isn't just a bastard for the hell of it, he's a bastard for a reason. The one thing I loved about all the actors is that they played these well known and well-loved characters with the right degree of impersonation. For example, no-one can deny that when Pine's Kirk sits down in the captain's chair that he is influenced by Shatner's cocky take on Kirk.

Back to the Kobyashi Maru. Many ordinary people will know that Kirk was the only person in the history of Starfleet to pass the devious and supposedly impossible test. In this film we see how he does it- he reboots it and basically cheats. This seems like a deliberate reflection of what director J.J. Abrams feels like he's doing, but it works in the same way the film does.

When most people say "family friendly" I think of stupid, bright cartoon characters singing about how it's okay to be you and how everyone is special in their own way. However, Star Trek is none of that and is still suitable for a family trip to the ol' picture house (and I do recommend you see it in the cinema). It's accessible and fun, which is infinitely more than can be said for the more recent cinematic Trek outings. I can guarantee that you will grin wider and wider as each famous character turns up (especially Simon Pegg's Scotty), it's like a school reunion you actually want to go to.

My main problem with Star Trek would probably be some peoples' idea of a strength. It seemed like every single Star Trek cliché was put into this film. We have everything from Scotty whinging about the engines to Bones' oft quoted line "I'm a doctor, not a...". Whilst I understand why they're in the film (great liberties are taken with characters and indeed, planets) I don't think they needed so many. They kept taking me out of the film, although I don't think the twatracket behind me who laughed at every single little reference helped. I liked the subtle nods though including the blink-and-you'll-miss-it appearance of a Tribble and of course, a Red Shirt death. Oh, and the (Invisotexted) romance between Uhura and Spock comes out of nowhere. It just seemed a bit tacked-on to me.

"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"

Star Trek is a lot of fun. I enjoyed it immensely and I'm tempted to call it my film of the year, even though we're less than halfway through 2009- it's that good. Just go and see it, sit down in those comfy cinema seats and set your faces for stunned. (I'm so, so sorry)

(P.S. Shout-out to Lily, the future Mrs.Chekov)

X-Men: The Last Stand

So, it's time to finish off the X-Men series with X-Men: The Last Stand- a film which does nothing to shake off the superhero threequel curse.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

X-Men: The Last Stand held the record up until recently of the only X-Men related film I'd seen in the cinemas. I remember walking out of there with not so much of a grin on my face, but more disappointment and a hint of depression. I had the feeling that the franchise was dead and not only that but it had gone out with a rather meek "phut" rather than a triumphant bang.

"Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, bitch!"

The film centres around U.S. business Worthington Industries when it discovers a cure for mutation. This scientific breakthrough complicates and intensifies the battle — both physical and ideological — between Professor X’s (Patrick Stewart) integration-friendly X-Men and the human-hating mutants led by Magneto (Ian McKellen). I have no problem with the actual plot. After the slow-burning first film and the considerably more epic second one, this seemed to be where they were headed- a face-off between Magneto's Brotherhood and the X-Men. However, the proverbial tits went up when Singer left to direct Superman Returns and they hired Brett Ratner, who is a direct-by-numbers kinda guy who lacks the character driven focus that Singer brought to the series. This is a huge misstep as The Last Stand features more mutants than ever and it needed someone like Singer to keep everything in check. As it stands, there is no real development for the main group. Wolverine is downgraded to a gruff punchline and Cyclops barely features at all.

Believe it or not, the Storm issue (see my X2 review) gets worse. Now it's suddenly been decided that Storm is the emotional heart of the film, with ample oppurtunity for Berry to show off those Oscar-winning mournful looks and silent tears. Pretty rich for a character who has been to Pauline Fowler's local hairdresser. Ororo Munroe related gripes aside, there is one other character that irritated me throughout. I'll give you a couple of clues- he's blue, he's furry and his name rhymes with "Yeast". Yup, seems like someone thought it was a good idea to dip Frasier Crane in a bucket of blue paint, coat him in dog hair and kick him out onto the set, telling him not to embarrass himself. Don't get me wrong, I think the casting of Grammer was spot-on, but why oh why did they not make the character CGI and keep Grammer's dulcet tones? Every time Beast is on screen, he looks awkward, probably due to the immense padding and silly make up. I don't often call for a computer-generated character to replace a physical one, but by Christ does it need to happen here. It's a shame, as Grammer's performance is great, it's just hard to ignore all the blue make-up and padding issues.

The one thing that I really liked was a small moment after (Invisotexted to avoid spoilers) Mystique gets injected with the cure. I love the way Magneto looks down on her with contempt and coldly declares she's not "one of them any more". It's a brief glimpse of actual characterisation and I was left wanting more. I felt the Rogue sub (sob?) story about her choice between her powers and her boyfriend was poorly handled too. I wanted to feel sorry for her, but I couldn't. I just didn't care, which shouldn't be the case in an X-Men film.

"They wish to cure us. But I say to you, we are the cure!"

When it comes down to it, X-Men: The Last Stand just doesn't have the heart and intelligence that the first two did. It's very impressive in terms of special effects (the Golden Gate Bridge sequence is admittedly very cool), but in the end ultimately soulless. There's a few bits to like, but not nearly enough.

X2

Sorry about the delay in my reviews of late- goddamn University work had to be done at some point. Oh - due to some e-mails, I'm dropping my overuse of quotation marks from film names and using the classier italics. To those who e-mailed, thanks and I'm "sorry". Anyway- sequel time.

X2 (2003)

Before you start, yes that is the title. It's not "X-Men 2" or anything, it's X2. As baffling as the decision was to call the second outing for the X-Men the minimalist X2 at least we in the British Isles didn't get the lame sounding US title of X2: X-Men United. It's not only as corny as hell, but it seems like "X-Men United" could quite happily co-exist with "Spider-Man Rovers" and "Daredevil Hotspur" in some kind of Marvel football league- oh, and whilst we're at it, that's the proper football where you use your feet, instead of that jumped up, padded, sissy version of rugby where you primarily use your fucking hands. Enough with the international game bashing though, let's actually look at the film now, shall we?

"Have you ever tried... not being a mutant?"

Following a mutant assassination attempt on the President, Colonel William Stryker (Brian Cox) initiates a war on mutants, specificially the superhero group, the X-Men. Now, they must join with their sworn enemy, Magneto (Ian McKellen), to survive; while Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) discovers that Stryker holds the key to his murky past. The plot's great, taking now familiar characters into unfamiliar territory and advancing their stories, whilst at the same time introducng new characters to proceedings. Hats off to Bryan Singer, who seems more confident in his blockbuster director's chair in this one and keeps everything running smoothly. The cast are great, with the exception of Halle Berry as Storm. Due to the fact that she had gone from merely Halle Berry in X-Men to "Oscar winning actress Halle Berry" in this one, her role as Storm is considerably beefed up, which is a shame because the cinematic Storm is actually quite a boring character. So we have a case of big actress, small role which didn't sit well with me. The new additions are really good, with the jerk Pyro (Aaron Stanford), teleporting blue guy Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming), female Wolverine (Wolverina?) Lady Deathstrike (Kelly Hu) and William Stryker, a man so evil we actually feel sorry for Magneto in one surprisingly brutal scene.

You know what? X2 just works. The film starts strong and maintains that pace and quality. A highlight for me was the fantastically realised prison escape sequence. The tension (which will be lessened somewhat if you're reading this and haven't seen the film. Sorry about that.) beforehand starting when Magneto states that there's something "different" about Mr. Laurio is pitch-perfect. Mad propz to McKellen too. I also loved the idea of Bobby 'coming out' to his parents about his mutation. The action quota is significantly bumped up for this installment and every sequence is exciting and awesome in equal measures. The X-Mansion raid is incredibly well done and (thanks to Wolverine's claws) pretty damn vicious. The general tone has also been lightened, which is a welcome change as the first one is a bit of a downer.

I only really have one gripe with X2. The character of Cyclops, the supposed leader of the X-Men is pretty much ignored. I suppose this was inevitable due to the massive influx of new characters as well as the advancement of the old ones, but it strikes me as a shame as I rated James Marsden's approach to the character. I'd have much preferred Storm to be sidelined rather that Cyclops, but nevermind. I suppose one could argue that he's more of an altruistic, goody-two-shoes action figure than a decent character, but dammit- I liked him.

"You know all those dangerous mutants you hear about in the news? I'm the worst one."

 X2 builds on the solid foundations of the first and has fittingly evolved into a very slick superhero film. The films manages to introduce new mutants and characters, expand on most of the core group from the original whilst keeping them true to their roots, up the action significantly, keep a strong narrative focus AND remain damn entertaining throughout.It really is one of the best superhero films out there.

X-Men

Inspired by Mr. James Howlett's solo effort, I've gone back to the original "X-Men" film and see if it is still mut-astic 9 years later.

X-Men (2000)

I nearly watched "X-Men" twice in the early 2000s. Whilst this may seem like the beginning to the worst anecdote ever, it leads on to a valid point, so cram it. Around the age of 13/14, it's safe to say I was an idiot, mainly because back then I could take or leave film as a medium. I remember watching the opening scene on good ol' VHS and then distinctly remember stopping it because I got bored. My point is I don't think I was mature enough for "X-Men". Thanks to the ravages of time, I grew up, watched it and guess what? I loved it.

"Magneto's right: there is a war coming. Are you sure you're on the right side?"

In a near future world, mutants with special powers exist alongside humans. The mutants must choose to side either with Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) who want them to use their powers to help the world or with Magneto (Ian McKellen) who wants the mutants to take it over. Along the way we are introduced to the emotional heart of the film, Rogue (Anna Paquin) and the gruff, ridiculously haired Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). In terms of acting, this has got to be one of the best, most varied ensemble cast for a long time. We have experienced, respected thesps like Stewart and McKellen mixing with younger actors like Paquin. I liked everyone really, apart from Tyler Mane's Sabretooth who doesn't do much apart from growl, roar and occasionally utter a line containing the word "scream". I thought Ray Park's Toad was brilliant though, but the dude's Darth Maul so I can't really be impartial. For a film with so many plotlines, it fares well- which can mostly be attributed to Bryan Singer who handles all the characters with equal care. He gives as much screentime to fan-favourite, but ultimately boring character Wolverine as he does to Xavier and Magneto's subtly played friendship/rivalry. I get the feeling that if the recent "...Wolverine" film was in Singer's hands he wouldn't have ignored Deadpool (Sigh)

In fact, if you ignore the typically fanboyish Deadpool comment, you have a neat link to one of the most interesting things about this film- the Xavier/Magneto relationship. Comic books have the ill-deserved reputation of being very black and white when it comes to heroes and villains. Heroes are spandex-clad, muscled and always on the side of justice, whilst villains are scarred, unbelievably evil bastards who have so many issues they could fund their therapist's trip to Mars and back on a spaceship made of diamonds and Sony products. The relationship between McKellen and Stewart's characters is best likened to the Martin Luther King/ Malcolm X differing approaches in the Civil Rights movement. Xavier, the MLK of the two, believes that the public are just ignorant in their fear and hatred of mutants, whilst Magneto is on the side of action and violence if necessary. Magneto wants what Xavier wants but he's seen the ugly side of humanity and so therefore believes the human race is beyond saving.

This may all sound like it's too deep for a comic book adaptation, but "X-Men" puts us in that frame of mind right from the off with a powerful opening scene where a young Magneto is forced to watch his parents be carted off to a concentration camp. If I may borrow Pokémon terminology, it's super-effective at drawing you in. I loved the introductions to all the mutants and finding out what their powers are. Special mention to Rebecca Romijn for making the blue-skinned, scaly, yellow-eyed Mystique both an interesting and oddly sexy character. The fight scenes are great too- the stand-out being the Wolverine vs Mystique sequence which is fantastically done.

Casual references to the Holocaust and Civil Rights aside, "X-Men" isn't a perfect film. The one thing that really gets to me is an awful (and apparently Joss Whedon-written) line spoken by Storm (Halle Berry) to Toad, before she hits him with a lightning bolt- "You know what happens to a toad when it is struck by lightning? (Pause) The same thing as everything else." In your head this line may not sound that bad, but it's the delivery that gets me. You can tell it's meant to be a bad-ass, kiss-off line but it just doesn't work. I am well aware this is nit-pickery to the nth degree, but it genuinely takes me out of the film, which in my terms is inexcusable.

"You homo sapiens and your guns..."

So that's "X-Men". A great, enjoyable flick with some actual brains and heart behind all those stunts and special effects.