Of Gods and Men

Dir: Xavier Beauvois

2010

****

Xavier Beauvois’ 2010 drama Of Gods and Men tells the tragic true story of The Monks of Tibhirine. In 1996, seven French Trappist monks from the monastery of Tibhirine, Algeria, were kidnapped and found beheaded. The Armed Islamic Group of Algeria claimed full responsibility for the incident. However, according to documents from French secret services, it is possible that the killings were a mistake carried out by the Algerian army during a rescue attempt. The film is in part an adaptation of John W. Kiser's 2002 book The Monks of Tibhirine: Faith, Love, and Terror in Algeria. The film opens with a quotation from the Book of Psalms, Psalm 82:6–7: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." We then follow the monks' peaceful routine of prayer which is repeated throughout the film. The character development is strong as we follow the monks as they eat and talk together while providing medical assistance to the local community. Their interaction with the community is soon interrupted however by the threat of an Islamic fundamentalist group. When their elected leader, Christian (Lambert Wilson), declines the protection of the corrupt civil authority, the monks divide among themselves on the question of whether to stay or flee Algeria. Before a decision is reached, a group of fundamentalists, led by Ali Fayattia, enters the monks' compound in force on Christmas Eve and demands their doctor and his medical supplies. Christian refuses their requests and cites the Quran as proof of the monks' goodwill. With a mixture of surprise and respect, Fayattia leaves the compound and grants it his protection until his capture, torture and death at the hands of government forces. Despite the growing danger, the monks come to consensus on the moral importance of maintaining their committed lives with, and ministry to, the local population, even when faced with violence and death. Ultimately, the terrorists seize most of the monks during a nighttime raid and hold them hostage. As the captive monks trudge a snowy path towards a grim fate, the film concludes with the spiritual testament of Prior Christian de Chergé, bravely written in the face of death. The surviving two monks of Tibhirine left Algeria and traveled to a Trappist monastery near Midelt in Morocco. The murdered monks were Dom Christian de Chergé, Brother Luc (born Paul Dochier), Father Christophe (Lebreton), Brother Michel (Fleury), Father Bruno (born Christian Lemarchand), Father Célestin (Ringeard), and Brother Paul (Favre-Miville). The film project was initiated by Etienne Comar in 2006, when the tenth anniversary of the incident made it a topic again in French media. Comar, a film producer by profession and a Catholic, had been fascinated by the monks since the earliest news of the abduction, but felt that their death had overshadowed what he thought was really interesting - why they had decided to stay in Algeria despite the ongoing Algerian Civil War. Comar contacted Xavier Beauvois in 2008 after having written a draft, and together they continued to work on the screenplay. The two researched, met with theologians, and during a break Beauvois chose to live for six days at the Tamié Abbey in Savoie – something he later requested the actors who played the monks to do before filming begun. Some inspiration was taken from writings by two of the Tibhirine monks, Christian de Chergé and Christophe Lebreton. Franco-American monastic consultant Henry Quinson was asked to correct and add historical and liturgical content for further authenticity. The script was later sent to relatives of the deceased monks, most of whom reacted positively to the project. The financing coincided with the revelation of the Algerian army's possible involvement in the incident, which once again sparked an interest for the story from media and the public. Xavier Beauvois clearly made every attempt at telling the story with the utmost respect and handled the story with great care. As preparation for their roles, François Polgar, the former assistant director of the choir of the Paris Opera, former director of Le Chœur de Radio France and director of The Paris Boys Choir, trained the actors who were to play monks for a month in the Cistercian and Gregorian chants. The cast is impressive and represents the crème de la crème of French cinema. Each actor spent a week living as a monk at the Tamié Abbey. The actors used different approaches to their individual roles. Lambert Wilson primarily used Christian de Chergé's writings to develop a subjective perception of the monk's personality. Xavier Maly, a non-Catholic, prepared himself by praying every day for a month. Jean-Marie Frin based his interpretation partially on a home video from Paul Favre-Miville's vow. Michael Lonsdale on the other hand preferred to rely on instinct, and did not prepare much at all. Each technique worked and the characters felt real and their conversations and their prayer are totally believable. The attention to detail is astonishing. The main filming location was the Benedictine monastery of Toumliline, which had stood unused and unattended for more than forty years. The film team, under production designer Michel Barthélémy, renovated the monastery so it would resemble the location of the actual events. Quinson who had assisted with the screenplay was also present on the set as an adviser. Attention was paid to extras' clothing and Arabic intonation so that they would look and sound Algerian and not Moroccan. I love that nothing is done for artistic effect and that there is no emotional manipulation. It’s an emotional film for sure but it is handled tactfully and tastefully. It’s still a mystery what actually happened to the Monks but it really isn’t the point of the story, what made them stay is and is what gives us inspiration and food for thought, and Beauvois and his fellow film makers couldn’t have conveyed this any more perfectly than they did.

Love Like Poison

Dir: Katell Quillévéré

2010

**

Taking its title from Serge Gainsbourg’s "Un poison violent, c'est ça l'amour", Love Like Poison is another clumsy ‘coming-of-age’ film that has all the clichés you’d expect from a film of its ilk. Many will no doubt disagree but after many years writing about film I know my claret from my beaujolaise, when I say ilk, I mean your typical French film. I’m not knocking French cinema, far from it, but there are two types of French film; Good French films and French-French films. Released two months after the death of the great Éric Rohmer Katell Quillévéré’s exploration of childhood innocence and the fragility of adulthood is a far cry from the brilliance of the nouvelle vague and just seems like poor imitation. The same can be said about many European films made in the last twenty years but I don’t think anyone is calling these films out for what they are. Love Like Poison is an fine film that explores old-age issues that will always be relevant, I don’t have a problem with it in many respects, but I do have an issue with the formula and the never ending list of cliché. The film follows Anna, a 14-year-old girl spending the summer holidays with her mother in her grandfather's family home in Brittany. She comes home at the end of the school year to discover that her father has left and her mother is considering moving back with her parents on a permanent basis. No one wants to talk about her absent father and Anna, already a silent child, doesn’t ask too many questions. Here, it is assumed that the audience is on board and comfortable to follow the story through Anna’s eyes but personally I could not relate, not because I don’t know what its like to be a 14-year-old girl, but because we are never fully introduced to our protagonist. There isn’t any joy in the mystery either, I’m not at all suggesting that Clara Augarde isn’t a good actor, but here she is given next to nothing to work with. Anna’s grandfather is old and confined to his bedroom where he smokes and listens to old records. Anna’s mother is meanwhile going through a silent crisis, as both of them are religious, it feels as if Anna’s mother is hiding from her daughter, perhaps ashamed of herself and deeply embarrassed. Anna is also silently upset by the separation of her parents and, as if we hadn’t had enough clichés at this point, becomes close with all of the film’s male figures in the absence of a father. A local teenage boy is attracted with her and she reciprocates the attention. Despite her typical adolescence discomfort of her own body, she finds confidence in exploring her sexuality. Meanwhile, her grandfather, feeling he has little time left in this world, suggests that he’d like to see her genitalia before he dies. He doesn’t use the word genitalia, it’s written far more subtly and poetically than that, but he still asks to see his granddaughters bits. This is what I refer to when I say this is a French-French film. It’s one of those clichés that people will try to convince you is a misunderstanding and something people who don’t watch subtitled films say about foreign films but it’s true, French-French films are rife with this sort of thing. French existentialism is still the worst, just like most new British comedy is the worst comedy. Every country has their stereotype but every country has their own genuine cliché. I’m not sure it is a culture thing either, some styles just stick. Anna begins to show fainting spells at gatherings, totally put on of course. She becomes anxious about her impending confirmation and confides it with the priest, who it is discovered is one of her mother’s past lovers. She is torn between the unsympathetic world in front of her and her religious faith, but in the end she finds happiness by embracing her teenage emotions and asks out the local boy who is attracted to her, right after she shows her naughty bits to her grandfather who dies in his sleep that night. I liked the script but very little else, the clichés were just too much for me. The dying dirty old man, the lazy look at religious faith and the half-hearted exploration of adolescence and love just left me feeling tired. I’ve seen this film before, it was great when it first came out in the 60s and I enjoyed watching a re-envisioned version in the 70s and then again in the 80s. There were still elements of credit in the 90s versions but since then this type of film has become stale. While it might seem like an old-age tale, there really isn’t much to relate to and not much to get one’s teeth into either. As a whole the film is adequately directed with the odd flash of visual flare but for the most part it too is uninteresting and underwhelming. Each subject has been explored more creatively in recent years, most with far more tenderness and life. The film tries to make so many points and comparisons but every single one is lost in the biningety of it all. Like the decapitated chicken, it somehow still walks around for what seems like an eternity. I could comment that the film walks on Rohmer’s grave but to be honest that would be giving it too much credit.

Oki's Movie

Dir: Hong Sang-soo

2010

**

I didn’t much care for Éric Rohmer’s films until years after they were released and I wonder whether I will feel the same way about Hong Sang-soo’s films a few years from now. Never say never, but I do doubt it. I do find his films somewhat self-indulgent and I struggle to find anything that holds my interest. I liked his follow up film The Day He Arrives but more for the aesthetics than the story. I find his films quite claustrophobic and Oki’s Movie is rather dull visually. The structure of the film is divided into four clumsy chapters. The film begins with ‘A Day for Incantation’ On his way to a screening of one of his films, struggling short film director Nam Jin-gu (Lee Sun-kyun) is nagged by his wife Jang Su-yang (Seo Yeong-hwa) about his drinking, and he wonders if she is having an affair with a guy called Yeong-su. Nam's onetime professor at film school, Song (Moon Sung-keun), tells him that film-making as an art is now dead. At a dinner with film-school staff, Nam gets drunk and has an argument with Song, about whom he's heard a disquieting rumor. Afterwards, at the Q&A for his film, Nam is asked by a member of the audience (Lee Chae-eun) whether it's true he was dating the actress at the time and is therefore responsible for ruining her life. Nam says he has quit directing. The second chapter, King of Kisses, is set some years earlier but this isn’t initially obvious. Nam sees fellow student Jung Ok-heui (the Oki of the title, played by Jung Yu-mi) at film school and tries to go out with her, claiming he's never dated a woman before. When they smooch in a greenhouse, she says he's a good kisser. She's still getting over a relationship with an older man but finally gives in to Nam's persistence, and they sleep together and begin dating. After the Snowstorm is set following a heavy bout of snow, only Nam and Jung turn up one day for Prof. Song's class, and the three end up talking about relationships. Song at this point has already decided to quit teaching. The final chapter is Oki's Movie, the title of the film. Jung narrates her own short movie based on her relationships with two guys, an "older man" and a "younger man", with whom she separately went walking with one winter on Mt. Acha, south of Seoul. It basically highlights the differences between the older and young man, the overall film suggesting how you get from one to the other. The switching between perspectives and timelines doesn’t work especially well and the acting is either very natural or painfully amateur. Supposedly Hong’s movies are received by Korean audiences with gales of laughter, so I think maybe something is lost in translation. I didn’t misunderstand the story but I do feel that much of the tone and dialogue was probably lost on me. The repeated playing of Land of Hope and Glory was a joke that went on too long and was never that funny in the first place. I don’t think the characters came across in the way they were supposed to, or rather, they didn’t have the effect I think they should have. I understand Hong’s films are subtle in places, but I think many of the lines and performances were subtle to the point of dull. I think Oki was probably the more interesting character, Hong clearly thinks so too, but Jung Yu-mi was given very little to work with. Oki admits in the film that she isn’t a god person, which is ignored. She also bursts out with "What can you do for me?" during a meal with Jingu, and then covers up when she realises she has said it aloud. Subtle, but too subtle, as she just can’t compete with Professor Song and Jingu, who are both alter-egos of Hong. I can’t fault a director for putting themselves in their own films but I think Hong crosses the mark to the point that the only people who are ever going to be interested are mega-fans and family members and the likelihood of me becoming either is pretty unlikely. It isn’t a bad film at all, I just found nothing in it for me. It also features the worst drunken performance I've ever seen. Surely if you can't act drunk, get drunk? It is what they did in all the films that Hong is clearly a fan of.

Black Swan

Dir: Darren Aronofsky

2010

*****

Darren Aronofsky’s 2010 psychological horror Black Swan is astonishing. It had been a while since a film had taken my breath away quite like it did, although I don't know why I was surprised, I've been a huge fan of Darren Aronofsky since Pi, the man is a genius. His depiction of the world of Ballet is spot on. I've actually lived with a couple of Ballerinas and their discipline, focus and obsession was quite frightening at times, indeed one of them utterly ruined herself in the process. I haven't liked Natalie Portman as much since I first saw Leon and Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey and Winona Ryder are all perfect in their supporting performances. Black Swan is a metaphor for achieving artistic perfection, with all the psychological and physical challenges one might encounter, incorporating one of the greatest ballets of all time. Aronofsky conceived the premise by connecting his viewings of a production of Swan Lake with an unrealized screenplay about understudies and the notion of being haunted by a double, Fyodor Dostoyevsky's The Double being a key inspiration. Natalie Portman plays Nina Sayers, a 28-year-old dancer in a ballet company in New York, which is preparing to open its new season with Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake. With prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder) being forced into retirement, artistic director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) announces he is looking for a new dancer to portray the dual role of the innocent White Swan and the sensual Black Swan. Nina auditions for the role and gives a flawless performance as the White Swan, but fails to embody the Black Swan. The following day, Nina asks Thomas to reconsider choosing her to play the role. When he forcibly kisses her, she bites him before running out of his office. Later that day, Nina sees the cast list and discovers, much to her surprise and that of her overprotective mother Erica (Barbara Hershey), she will be portraying the lead. At a gala celebrating the new season, an intoxicated Beth confronts Nina, accusing her of sleeping with Thomas to get the role. The following day, Nina discovers that Beth was hit by a car while walking in the street and Thomas believes she did it on purpose. During rehearsals, Thomas tells Nina to observe new dancer Lily (Mila Kunis), whom he describes as possessing an uninhibited quality that Nina lacks. Nina also falls victim to several hallucinations of a doppelgänger following her wherever she goes and finds unexplained scratch marks on her back. This is where the obsession and the horror element of the film begins. One night, Nina accepts Lily's invitation to dinner despite Erica's objections. Over dinner, Lily offers Nina an ecstasy capsule to help her relax. Nina turns it down, but later accepts a drink laced with ecstasy powder. The two dance at a nightclub and return to Nina's apartment late. After fighting with her mother, Nina barricades herself in her room and has sex with Lily. The following morning, Nina wakes up alone and realizes she is late for the dress rehearsal. Upon arriving at Lincoln Center, she finds Lily dancing as the Black Swan and confronts her about their night together. When Lily doesn’t recall, Nina realizes that their encounter never took place. After learning that Thomas has made Lily her alternate, Nina's hallucinations grow increasingly stronger to the point where Erica tries to prevent her from performing on opening night. Nina forces her way out of the apartment and arrives at Lincoln Center only to discover that Lily is set to take over. She confronts Thomas, who becomes so impressed by her confidence that he allows her to perform. During the end of the play’s second act, Nina becomes distracted by a hallucination, causing her partner to drop her. She returns to her dressing room and finds Lily preparing to play the Black Swan. When Lily transforms into Nina's doppelgänger, the two engage in a fight that ends with Nina stabbing the doppelgänger with a shard of glass. She hides the corpse and returns to the stage, where she loses herself and gives a flawless performance as the Black Swan. Nina receives a standing ovation from the audience and, after surprising Thomas with a passionate kiss, returns to her dressing room. While changing, Nina hears a knock at the door and opens it to find Lily alive and congratulating her. Realizing the fight never occurred, and yet the mirror is still broken, and that she stabbed herself, Nina quietly continues changing. After dancing the final act, in which the White Swan commits suicide by throwing herself off a cliff, Nina falls onto a hidden mattress. As the theater erupts in thunderous applause, Thomas, Lily and the cast gather to congratulate Nina, only to discover that she is bleeding profusely. Nina loses consciousness, but not before telling Thomas that her performance was perfect. Aronofsky considered Black Swan a companion piece to his 2008 film The Wrestler, as both films involve demanding performances for different kinds of art with alter-egos of sorts. I agree, I found both films brilliant, Black Swan the visually stunning horror/thriller and The Wrestler the heartfelt drama. He knew he would make a film about both a wrestler and a ballerina at some point and in the beginning one of his early projects was about a love affair between a wrestler and a ballerina. He eventually separated the wrestling and the ballet worlds as he felt it would be "too much for one movie". He compared the two films: "Wrestling some consider the lowest art - if they would even call it art - and ballet some people consider the highest art. But what was amazing to me was how similar the performers in both of these worlds are. They both make incredible use of their bodies to express themselves.” The screenplay The Understudy was written by Andres Heinz; Aronofsky first heard about it while editing his second film Requiem for a Dream and described it as "All About Eve with a double, set in the off-Broadway world." After making The Fountain in 2006, Aronofsky and producer Mike Medavoy had screenwriter John McLaughlin rewrite The Understudy; Aronofsky said McLaughlin "took my idea of Swan Lake and the ballet and put the story into the ballet world and changed the title to Black Swan." When Aronofsky proposed a detailed outline of Black Swan to Universal Pictures, the studio decided to fast-track development of the project in January 2007. The project "sort of died, again" according to Aronofsky, until after the making of The Wrestler in 2008, when he had Mark Heyman, director of development of Aronofsky's production company Protozoa Pictures, write for Black Swan " and made it something that was workable." With Heyman’s ideas and Aronofsky's vision, Black Swan wasn’t just workable, it proved itself a masterpiece and the first great film of a decade.

Hot Tub Time Machine

Dir: Steve Pink

2010

***

Hot Tub Time Machine was the last United Artists' film to be distributed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, not quite the swan-song they would have hoped for but then no studio ends on a high note. That said, Hot Tub Time Machine isn’t all that bad. I have to confess, it was the title and John Cusack that got me interested, which was interesting when I read that John Cusack stated in an interview  that he made his decision to join the cast almost entirely based off of the title. The story is about three estranged, and somewhat depressed friends. Adam Yates (John Cusack) is dumped by his girlfriend, Nick Webber-Agnew (Craig Robinson) is a henpecked husband with a dead-end job and Lou Dorchen (Rob Corddry) is an embarrassment as a party animal in his 40s. They reconnect when Lou is hospitalized for carbon monoxide poisoning. To cheer him up, Adam and Nick arrange for Lou to join them at Kodiak Valley Ski Resort, where the three enjoyed fun times in their youth; Adam's reclusive nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) tags along, presumably because Duke is quite funny, as his character makes little sense in the scheme of story. During a night of heavy drinking in their hotel room's hot tub, the four douse the console with an illegal Russian energy drink called "Chernobly". The next day, the friends go skiing and, after many strange occurrences (1980s fashion, music videos on MTV and Michael Jackson still being black), they realize they have traveled back to 1986. Adam, Lou and Nick have also assumed their younger bodies: they appear normal to each other, but to others (and in their reflections) they look like their younger selves. Jacob's appearance has not changed, though he occasionally flickers. A cryptic hot tub repairman (played by Chevy Chase) appears and warns them not to change anything, as it might affect history. To minimize the butterfly effect, the guys plan to re-enact their experiences. Adam has to break up with his girlfriend Jenny and get stabbed in the eye with a fork; Lou must pick a fight with and get beaten up by Blaine, a ski patrol bully; Nick must have sex with a groupie and give a poor performance with his band at an open mic event. They discover Jacob's alcoholic mother Kelly, Adam's sister, is also at the resort. The guys find their tasks difficult; Lou gets punched to the floor by Blaine and loses his backpack, but realizes he must face him again later at night, so he reluctantly challenges Blaine again. Adam finds his attraction to Jenny reignited, but is distracted when he meets laid-back music journalist April during the resort's Poison concert. Nick worries about cheating on his wife, even though the events occur before he even meets her. Later on, Lou tries to capitalize on his knowledge of football game outcomes; it works until he risks everything on a game-winning touchdown, only to have a squirrel from the resort (which he vomited on earlier) crash the field and ruin the play. Jenny turns the tables on Adam when she initiates their breakup, but Adam soon re-encounters April; they break into a nearby home and become intimate. Nick changes his destiny by covering the more upbeat "Jessie's Girl", followed by a "preview version" of "Let's Get It Started". When the repairman informs Jacob that a chemical was the key to their time travel, Jacob realizes it was the Chernobly. The guys prevent Lou, once again beaten up without his friends, from falling off the rooftop. They go to Blaine's cabin to search for the drink, during which Lou finds and seduces Kelly. When Jacob suddenly vanishes, the guys realize that Lou is Jacob's father; after Lou and Kelly make love, Jacob reappears. Leaving Kelly, Lou finally assaults Blaine; the four friends retrieve the Chernobly and return to the hot tub where they create a vortex. Jacob and Nick enter the tub, but Lou decides to stay in 1986, admitting to Adam that his carbon monoxide poisoning was attempted suicide; knowing the future, he wants to make investments and be a good father to Jacob. Adam insists upon staying too, but Lou pushes him into the vortex at the last moment. Back at the present, Adam, Nick, and Jacob discover that Lou has changed history by founding the immensely successful Lougle (rather than google), which affords him a luxurious lifestyle with Kelly. Adam discovers that he is happily married to April, while Nick is a successful music producer married to a happy and caring wife. The guys reunite at Lou's mansion with their families, satisfied with their new lives. It is a very 2010 look at 1986 and has somehow become more dated than the 24 year old era that it spoofs. The story is fun but flawed but then the film is about the characters and their actions and general nostalgia rather than science or science fiction. There are huge nods to 80s movies, particularly Back to the Future, that are fun initially but get tired fairly quickly. So much of the film’s problems are made up for the fact that the cast are clearly having a great time. It is ever so slightly more screwball than it is gross-out, which is it’s main saving grace.

Planet Hulk

Dir: Sam Liu

2010

***

World War Hulk and Planet Hulk are two of my favourite comics of all time. I’ll be honest, I have always been more of a DC fan when it comes to graphic novels and comics, their Elseworld series and subsidiary labels have produced some of the finest stories ever written within the medium. Marvel have upped their game accordingly over the years and are certainly better when it comes to their live-action feature films. I’m not sure the same can be said for their animated films though. Planet Hulk is enjoyable enough but it is a far cry from the excellent graphic novel it is adapted from. However, Planet Hulk is so good because it is followed up by World War Hulk, a story that sees the Hulk battle his old friends out of revenge. In Planet Hulk, the Avengers and members of the Illuminati (Tony Stark, Mr. Fantastic, Sub-Mariner, Black Bolt, Doctor Strange and Professor Xavier) decide that the Hulk is too unstable, too unpredictable and too dangerous to remain on Earth, so place him on a shuttle without his knowing and send him to an uninhabited world where it is hoped he can find peace. In the original Hulk lands on the wrong planet due to his shuttle going through a wormhole but the animated adaption sees Hulk having a tantrum on the ship, inadvertently changing its course. He lands on the planet Sakaar and is taken into slavery by The Red King through an obedience disk attached to his chest when the crash rendered him unconscious. The story then follows a Gladiator-style plot with Hulk forming allegiances with fellow slaves, escaping captivity, freeing villages of tyranny and eventually taking on Red King. Throughout the story Hulk is pursued by Red King’s lieutenant who is soon won over by Hulk’s cause. In the comic Hulk has to battle The Silver Surfer in one of Marvel’s greatest twists but due to licensing complications they weren’t able to use him in the 2010 animation, so they used Beta Ray Bill instead. Now while Beta Ray Bill isn’t exactly on the same level as Silver Surfer, he does have the right history within the comics for his character to work within the story, it just isn’t going to excite anyone other than the hard-core fans, but then they will still be disappointed at the absence of Silver Surfer. Personally I think Silver Surfer is overrated, although Planet Hulk is where I’ve liked him the most, but Beta Ray Bill is an intelligent replacement all the same. The idea of Hulk’s banishment is a great idea and a compelling first scene, I liked the Gladiator parts but for me, the best thing about the original comic is the ending. After Hulk turns down the opportunity to return to Earth, he stays on the planet and rules as the foretold saviour ‘Sakaarson’ and marries Caiera who soon becomes pregnant with his child. Things look good for the giant green one until the space shuttle he arrived on, which is being turned into a monument, detonates in a grandiose self-destruct style, destroying the entire city. Everyone, including Caiera and her unborn child, dies. Hulk, who is already pretty angry, get really angry and heads to earth with his surviving army seeking revenge on the Avengers and Illuminati. It’s a glorious ‘what if?’ scenario. The 2010 animation has none of that and a World War Hulk sequel isn’t planned. So overall, I was fairly disappointed. It’s totally watchable, enjoyable even, it’s just that I wanted a true adaptation of the original. Neither DC not Marvel quite get their animated adaptations quite right but I’m a sucker for them, Planet Hulk is one of the better ones for sure.

Demonic Toys 2

Dir: William Butler

2010

**

Demonic Toys 2 (aka Demonic Toys 2: Personal Demons) is the direct sequel to 1992’s Demonic Toys that also features Dr. Lorca, last seen in fellow Full Moon Productions film, Hideous! (1997) – although it certainly shouldn’t be treated as a joint sequel. The classic 1993, triple film sequel/mash-up (featuring characters from Demonic Toys, Dollman and Bad Channels) should also be disregarded as there is no connection, or so we are told, more's the pity. Dr. Lorca’s appearance does make sense as far as the story goes (although I’m pretty sure he got killed in Hideous!) but personally I would have rather of seen his assistant Sheila return, if I had had the choice, and I doubt I’m not the only one. Supposedly taking place very soon after the events of the original Demonic Toys (which actually happened eighteen years previous) and Hideous! (which happened three years previous), a mysterious stranger appears to fix the Demonic Toys after they were shot to pieces in a warehouse by a grieving police officer. Unfortunately for Demonic Toy fans (who knows how many people that is?) it is only Baby Oopsie daisy and Jack Attack who appear, being the more horrific looking and less toy-like of the group, who fit in with this altogether darker version of film. The toys are handed over for a suitcase of cash by a mysterious stranger and the film begins. Dr. Lorca, who is revealed as being the mysterious stranger within just a few minutes, arrives at a Castle somewhere in Italy, with his young lover, her stepson, their driver and a very small psychic woman. Historians Caitlin and Mr. Butterfield are waiting for Lorca as representatives of the castle’s current owner who are set to give the castle away to the Italian government to open to the public, selling what contents they can. Caitlin found a devil-like ancient toy buried in the dungeons of the castle and knew of Lorca’s love of the macabre, so she invited him to have a look, hoping for a quick sale. Dr. Lorca, and Lillith, the small psychic woman, suspect that it is more than just a toy and thankfully for bad horror film fans, they are correct. This new (very very old) toy on the block, called Divoletto, looks pretty menacing but much like in all the other Demonic Toys films, bad puppetry lets it down badly. Seriously, I know these films are essentially comedies, but I’m fairly confident that the odd scare here of there would be appreciated by all. Look at Army of darkness, genuinely scary in places and raucously funny. The puppetry doesn’t have to be of Jim Henson standards either. Look at Jigsaw from the Saw franchise, is movements are very simple and all the more scary for it. I just think by 2010 – and considering they got it right with the Puppetmanster films, that Full Moon Pictures and everyone else involved would have got the Toys themselves right. The Trolls from Trolls 2 were scarier, and they were badly made puppets nailed to planks of wood. The characters were fairly poor too. Mr. Butterfield fits into an uncomfortably camp stereotype and Dr. Lorca’s lover Lauraline is tiresomely over the top and her constantly referring to him as ‘Daddy’ started to grate ever so slightly. Everyone else was a cardboard cut-out and Dr. Lorca doesn’t come across as even half as intelligent as he did in Hideous!. There is a bit of possession here, a murder there and when the group are forced to stay the night in the castle (even though it’s in a city, where there are plenty of hotels) chaos reigns. It is about as predictable as it gets and unfortunately you won’t care either way as there is absolutely nothing interesting about the characters, whether good or evil. The deaths aren’t particularly inventive either, the film is clearly hoping to cash in on the name, like the original was ever that popular in the first place. This one is for completionists and those who like their bad horror movies cooked rare. It really is just a Hideous version of Demonic Toys.

The Yellow Sea

Dir: Na Hong-jin

2010

****

Wow. Na Hong-jin's relentless crime thriller is one of the best in the genre, I'm just not sure why it is still so relatively unknown. It tells the story of Gu-nam, a Joseonjok (ethnic Korean immigrant living in China) down on his luck working as a taxi driver. When not working, he is often found at gambling halls, finding himself further and further in serious debt. His wife left to work in South Korea and promised to send money back but he has yet to hear from her and is tormented by nightmares of her having an extra-marital affair. To make matters worse, Gu-nam is fired from his job and debt collectors take most of his severance pay. After witnessing a drunken display at a gambling hall, local gangster, Myun Jung-hak, offers him a deal. If Gu-nam goes to South Korea to kill a businessman, he will get CN¥57,000 (US$10,000). Gu-nam accepts and leaves for South Korea by train and a rickety fishing boat, with some money for expenses. When Gu-nam arrives in South Korea, he carefully scopes out his target for days, while also searching for his wife on the side. When the time arrives for Gu-nam to take out his target, a string of unexpected events occurs, leaving him desperately looking for a way out. Meanwhile, the police, the South Korean mob, as well as the ethnic Korean Chinese mafia, all frantically search for him. The speed of the film is overwhelming. We watch our anti-hero go from one impossible situation to another with hardly any let up in the plot. However, it is never too much for the senses, it's easy to follow and thrillingly entertaining. The stunts are amazing but never stupid, the action is high end but never ridiculous, indeed, this is an action/thriller that Hollywood would do well to learn from. It's hard to believe, even after watching, that The Yellow Sea is a whopping 140 minutes long. Unthinkable for an action film, or at least until now. To continue to build a film up to a climactic finish over that amount of time is unheard of, but somehow Na Hong-jin pulls it off, quite effortlessly too. It is ultra-realistic but has plenty of cinematic magic. It's pretty violent, brutal even but I have to say it was nice to see an absence of guns in such a film. The insight into Korean culture was also pretty interesting, the disdain for Joseonjoks in South Korea being an interesting plot device. The direction is superb, utterly stunning, hand-held for a lot of the time but still epic in the way it is shot. The performances are also brilliant, Ha Jung-woo is amazing as Gu-nam and Kim Yoon-seok is iconic in his role as the seemingly untouchable mob boss. The film was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival and was easily one of the best films featured. It's awesome, a film that deserves far more credit and the first epic thriller of the decade and definitely one of the best.

Middle Men

Dir: George Gallo

2010

***

George Gallo has written some great films, but he's also directed some pretty duff ones. I lost count of the amount of times I saw cameramen and crew in the reflection of the actor's sunglasses throughout Middle Men, it probably matches the number of crime-comedy clichés the film has. The story is based on the experiences of Christopher Mallick who was previously associated with the internet billing companies Paycom and ePassporte. Christopher Mallick has been accused of stealing millions of dollars from his customers at ePassporte to fund the creation of the, of which he produced. It paints a rather pretty picture of the rather despicable man, a desperate attempt to ask for forgiveness without taking any responsibility for his actions. I would have enjoyed the film a lot more had it been entirely fictional. However, I was entertained throughout. The narration is unashamedly Goodfellas but it works. Luke Wilson is great as the 'fixer' and Giovanni Ribisi and Gabriel Macht play the two bumbling drug-fuelled friends who inadvertently created the online porn industry rather well. James Caan is great as a greedy lawyer/middleman and there are great cameos from Kelsey Grammer as District Attorney Frank Griffin, Kevin Pollak as FBI Agent Curt Allmans and Robert Forster as Louie LA LA, a loan shark heavy who would rather break a man’s legs than actually collect money owed. It is a run-of-the-mill crime/gangster comedy but there is a certain charm about it that reels you in. I think it is down to Wilson, Ribisis and Macht to be honest, the script isn't great, the structure is actually pretty poor and the much needed suspense just isn't there but the three seasoned character actors bring the story alive and perform above the imperfections of the film. I'm quite glad they avoided showing too much porn too, not because I don't like seeing naked women (I do very much) but because it would have distracted from the story and cheapen it unnecessarily. There is a bit of nudity though, so perverts rest easy. Although the clever aspect of the story is the invention of internet billing, it is fascinating, and rather sad, that it is porn and people's need for a quick sexual release that started the whole trillion dollar process. It's frightening to think what the porn industry has done, from effecting industry, economy and government, and as the film suggests, it even played its part in the war on terrorism. I have no time for Christopher Mallick and his kind but theirs is one of the biggest stories of resent years, they have changed the world for ever, not for the good, but it is what it is and there is a valuable lesson and an entertaining romp to be had through this film. 

The Last Airbender

Dir: M. Night Shyamalan

2010

**

Apart from Dev Patel's performance and the visual effects, M. Night Shyamalan's adaptation of The Last Airbender is nothing special. Was it as bad as everyone said though? The easy answer is nearly, but not quite. As well as Dev Patel, Shaun Toub and Cliff Curtis give strong performances, the set pieces are impressive, the CGI monsters and general special effects are impressive and I thought the martial arts was good. I didn't hate the story either, although I have no idea how close to the original source material it is. M. Night Shyamalan, whose career was on a sharp decline in quality, decided to make the film after watching the original cartoon with his daughter at home. He removed a lot of the cartoon's humour, made it more serious and wanted it to have a higher rating but the studio refused. The biggest complaint upon its release was the use of Caucasian actors rather than Asian ones. It is a bit of a white wash to be fair, there is no reason for it and it upset the fans. The story is okay but all through the script it is clear that they are building foundations for more sequels, sequels that would never happen. A good film should always look forward but first and foremost, deal with the 90 minutes at hand. The script is one of the worst ever written. Dev Patel for instance really got into the part. He researched, learned the character and went through several gruelling months of martial arts training, only to be met with awful dialogue, such as the now infamous line "I always knew you were a bender". Like I said, I'm unfamiliar with the source material but the story felt very familiar, the 'chosen one' story, with secret powers, clans and foreign lands, it's a bit Narnia, a bit Lord of the Rings, old school anime and very much Hollywood trying to do anime and getting it very wrong. I think M. Night Shyamalan concentrated more on what The Last Airbender meant to him, rather than what it meant to the fans, the first mistake of many. The child actors were good but they couldn't carry the film. Destined to be forgotten, but if it is remembered, chances are it will be for all the wrong reasons.

Yogi Bear

Dir: Eric Brevig

2010

**

The biggest problem I had with 2010's live action Yogi Bear, and let me say early on in my review that there really isn't anything much I liked about it, was that real people and characters that never once appeared in the original cartoons took centre stage. I had to wonder whether anyone involved in the production of Yogi Bear had even watched the original series. Tom Cavanagh plays Ranger Smith, not as he was in the original series but as a slightly awkward and charismatic cardboard cut-out. Anna Faris plays a documentary film maker (and love interest to Ranger Smith) who wants to make a film about Yogi, much to Smith's disapproval. T.J. Miller plays a dumb but enthusiastic ranger in training and Andrew Daily plays a greedy Major who wants to turn Jellystone Park into a logging site. Yogi and Boo-boo pretty much take a backseat in the proceedings, which is a shame as their animation and voices weren't all that bad. Dan Aykroyd declared his love for Yogi Bear long before he agreed to voice him but I think the casting of Justin Timberlake as Boo-boo that took most people by surprise. Even more of a shock was that he was actually quite good at impersonating the little bear. Students of Daws Butler, the voice legend, were quick to offer help and advice to Aykroyd when he was announced as Yogi's voice but he declined all communication, stating that he wanted to do it his way. I find that a little obtuse but he does a fairly good job of it. Personally I would have been happy watching Yogi and Boo-Boo make various inventive initiatives in stealing picnic baskets for the whole film, plot or story be damned but director Eric Brevig said that he wanted to make a film that he didn't want parents who remembered watching the original cartoon to feel marginalized by or displaced by the contemporary rendition. I believe he could have tried a bit harder in making that happen. I also believe he was knowingly talking out of his back-side. This is another in a long line of Hanna-Barbera cartoons to be butchered by CGI and greedy producers. Sure, Hanna-Barbera got all their characters from sitcom characters of the 50s and 60s (Sargent Bilko, The Honeymooners) but their own creations were also something special and are sacred to millions of us around the world. Don't mess with this sort of thing, no one (and I mean no one) likes it!

Saint (Sint)

Dir: Dick Maas

2010

****

Good Christmas horrors are few and far between but the better ones in recent years have their origins in folk-law and historical events. The comically named Dick Mass (writer and director of the cult classic Amsterdamned) has produced one of the best horror films since the 80s that is both ridiculous and clever at the same time, as well as being a lot of fun of course. It's a bit ridiculous that Saint (Sint) didn't make it across of the globe to be honest, probably due to Dutch festive traditions being slightly different to other countries, but it's especially stupid as it's far better than any American Christmas horror made in the last couple of decades. The main villain isn't Krampus or even a Santa gone bad, it is Niklass (Sinterklaas, Santa Claus, Saint Nicholas) but a version we've not seen before. This Sinterklaas is the ghost of the original Bishop Niklass who later became a Saint. This story would have us believe that the legend has been retold and twisted over time (which is half true) and that jolly St Nick was actually a tax collector and looted and pillaged rather than gave. When the people of Holland had finally had enough and had nothing more to give (the 5th December 1492 to be precise), they burned Bishop Niklass and his brutal gang to death under a full moon. So now, every time there is a full moon on the 5th December, the ghost of Bishop Niklass and his band of murderous men, return for a good old fashioned killing spree. The film begins with old St Nick visiting a small town in December 1968 and bludgeoning a small family to death apart from a little boy who manages to get away. It's a hell of an introductory scene which gives just a small sample of what to expect for the next 90 odd minutes. Fast forward to 2010 and that little boy is now a grown police officer who has spent the last 42 years preparing for another night of mayhem.  It's very much a horror but it does have a comical edge about it. I wouldn't say it was a horror comedy in the classical sense but there is something wonderfully dark but witty about it. I think that, apart from the excellent gore and unexpected action sequences, it is the story and characters that really shine through. The idea that the government, Catholic Church and local authorities know all about Bishop Niklass' and his murderous visits and have kept it a closely guarded cover-up gives it a beautifully twisted edge. It's exciting, darkly amusing and culturally informative. What else could you ask for from a Christmas horror film?

Morning Glory

Dir: Roger Michell

2010

**

While I didn't expect Morning Glory to be the next Network, I had hoped that it would at least try to live up to its claim to have been a satire. Clearly Bad Robot studios do not possess a dictionary, as there really isn't anything satirical about it, instead, Morning Glory is an overdone exercise in stereotype that found nothing but contempt from this viewer. Okay, so it's not all bad. As much as I hated Rachel McAdams acting style and horrible attempts at being funny, I still quite like her. The script is beyond awful and listening to every interaction she had with the other characters was like having my teeth pulled out without anaesthetic. Patrick Wilson is equally awful but without the likability of McAdams. I actually really like him and think he's quite a brilliant actor, he just isn't brilliant here, but then his character is so woefully underdeveloped that they could have used a cardboard cut-out instead and had the same results. I've never been a huge fan of Roger Michell films but this is certainly one of his poorer efforts. I would suggest that this film is for the easily pleased, without wanting to insult anyone. Diane Keaton is good though in a role she works effortlessly. Harrison Ford is a bit of a let-down though if I'm being honest. It's a role he couldn't definitely suit, it's just that his grumpy character (which seems to be the real thing rather than an act) is getting a little tiresome. His big scene in the movie is him making a frittata live on air, it wasn't bad except he didn't actually make it properly, which angered me somewhat being a frittata purist but I would argue attention to detail is always important. I wonder if producer J.J. Abrams wanted him to simply get to know him, with the intentions of casting him in the future for a certain space-opera. Like I said, this isn't a clear satire making an intelligent comment on the entertainment-heavy lack of real journalism in TV news, it's really just a girl-done-good in the big city romantic comedy. Nothing wrong with that, it is just that we've seen it all before and done much better (but also worse to be fair). Its origins are based on the Broadway hit The Sunshine Boys apparently but I can't see it myself.

Romantics Anonymous (Les Émotifs anonymes)

Dir: Jean-Pierre Améris

2010

****

The synopsis of Jean-Pierre Améris' romantic comedy Romantics Anonymous reads like a cross between Lasse Hallstrom's 2000 adaptation of Joanne Harris' Chocolat and Jean-Pierre Jeunet's whimsical romance Amelie. There are a few similarities; it is set in France, it features chocolate as a main theme and the leading character shares a similar quirk to that of Amelie. The similarities pretty much end there though, and I would say while it isn't quite as enjoyable as Amelie (I love Amelie), it knocks the socks off Chocolat every day of the week. Each week Angelique (played wonderfully by the brilliant Isabelle Carre) attends a Romantics Anonymous support group where people discuss their social anxiety disorders. For years she has kept her chocolate-making talents a secret but when she is forced to look for new employment, she is drawn to a suffering chocolate factory and soon falls for the manager who, as it turns out, has a far worse anxiety issue than she does. It is a beautiful idea that these people are seen as hyper-emotional (or romantic), rather than negatively abnormal, indeed, it is the sensitive characters in the film who end up looking the most normal by the end of the film. Benoit Poelvoorde is brilliant as Jean-Rene Van Den Hugde, the manager and owner of the Chocolate mill. His performance displays some of the best physical comedy I've seen in quite a while and his timing is impeccable. I couldn't quite believe it when I realised this was the same Benoit Poelvoorde who played Ben the serial killer from the cult classic Man Bites Dog. The chemistry between Carre and Poelvoorde is magical, you really do believe in their characters which only enhances the romance of the story. The story is beautifully written, not as predictable as you may expect either and it is shot beautifully with lots of rich colour and charming composition. It's something of a hidden gem, one that is well worth seeking out. It'll make you want to fall in love (all over again if applicable) and eat lots of chocolate, full of passion and charm, it is an absolute delight of a film.