Film Book #2 and a tiny little bit of Skyfall

Rather than acknowledging that I haven't written anything since that fiery mane of Scottish bliss stole my affection for all things, I think I should just move straight to my fabulous new idea to make me write words (However having just acknowledged that I haven't written anything I feel I have opened some form of paradox and fear for our safety).

Probably about three years ago I started writing down all the films I watched along with the date, the place and the people I watched said film with. Also in contemporary style, a mark out of ten. I had one book with pages and pages of this evidence for the sad state of the teenage condition when sadly after an un-characteristically eventful evening I lost that glorious little black book and to my mind any hope of showing off how awesome and not at all OCD I am. Like a Mother grieving the loss of a child off to University, it took me some  considerable time to accept that it would never come back, if only in my dreams haunting me with taunts of "You lost me Joe,bet that is a wee bit frustrating". However I did move on and like any person suffering loss I tried to replace the hole it had left. Unlike a person replacing a lost child however my little book was an inanimate object (or at least that's what months of therapy has taught me) and so replacing it was as easy as going into Paperchase and buying another. 

Seal..............................

Film Book #2, as it would come to be creatively titled, starts with an 8/10 for Robert Rodriguez's Grindhouse epic, Machete way back on the 3rd of July 2011 and is currently lingering on an 8.5 for that incredible oily mess that is There Will Be Blood. Between them though sits 431 films varying from the utterly sublime (The Straight Story, Days Of Heaven, L' Atlante) to the perplexing terrible (Sex In The City 2......yeah I watched it, it was a slow week, what of it?) Now don't worry, I have no intention of talking about every single one of them (unless you want me to talk about them all in which case start worrying cause the only way I will is if I'm given £2 or bought a Caramac).

No no no no no.....simply I'm gonna flick through it and pick out the best of this lovely little thing that in a way perfectly encapsulates everything I hate about my love of film, namely how horrifically obsessed I can occasionally be about keeping records of fleetingly inconsequential moments in my life. But hey, I kinda love it really otherwise I wouldn't be saying any of this and instead you just be looking at a halfhearted review of Skyfall WHICH, I shall do right now right before your very eyes.....

Skyfall's alright. Sure it can be entertaining while you are sat there and pretty simple silly stuff with enough gravitas to feel occasionally worthwhile but ultimately it's a Bond film with little to chew on once you're at home. I just don't really care about a film that completely leaves my mind once it's over. Nothing to think about other than how awesome it'd be to see a man eaten by a comodo dragon...Saw VIII anyone?

JOyous people only look that way cause you've never spent a day in their head, which is good cause we would all be abit off if we had fully grown humans in our skulls//

Brave

We all love Pixar. If anyone were ever to come to me and say "But Joe, I really don't love Pixar" well I would have a little chortle pat you on the back and say "Golly you are a funny one, come on now and we will watch Finding Nemo". Why is Pixar so wonderful? Cause they're wonderful. End of. Sure Cars is smeh and Cars 2 is triple shmeh but that's it. I'd say two duds out of twelve ain't bad. But wait, Brave is the thirteenth feature film out of Pixar and you know, some people find the number thirteen a bit fishy. So will Brave succumb to the unlucky numbers all consuming power or is it just crazy awesome?

The first thing that every review of this film should say is, that freakin' hair. Jesus, it is beautiful. The most spectacular head of hair seen in any film, ever. If you can think of any hair, real or animated that is better that that most splendid web of red, please share with the group. But really, just look at it. I literally can't stop. I am typing right now on pure faith alone as I stare at that wonderful picture. A film no matter how poor it is deserves at least some commendation for letting me stare at that hair for an hour and a half. But it's not just the hair (seriously, that hair) everything in this film looks spectacularly beautiful. I don't want to say it's the best looking Pixar film ever because I love staring into space more than roaming the glens but it is at the very least (by that logic) a close second. It's not just the scenery that looks quite magical and surprisingly photo realistic at times, and it's not just the luxuriously bountiful hair but also the gosh damn terrifying bears. I suppose if there is a bad guy in this film, it's the epicly imposing black bear Mordu. It's reminiscent of that terrifying scene in Fox & the Hound but ten times worse. In one scene Merida falls into the ruins of a castle and... well I'll just say I really don't scare easily and that bit kinda creeped me out. Also shout out to generic and yet pleasant Scottish music.

So if this film is to me essentially hair-porn then rating it on that front this is a 10/10, but for you normal none creepy people you probably want to know story and entertainment wise if it is equal that hairy lust...

Merida (hair) is a feisty young princess who is being prepared by her overbearing Mother to be married of to one of the eldest sons of one of the three clans that her Father (voiced charmingly by Billy Connolly) governs. Merida being the adventurous lass she is has no ambitions to be tied down to a man she has never met, if a man at all, and would much rather run off on her utterly massive horse and shoot arrows at trees. Of course this boisterous attitude comes at a high price and it's not long before she makes some bad life choices and regrets all of her hot-headedness, swiftly learning some life lessons before the film is over. Somewhat like Up I really had only the smallest idea of what this films story was about until I sat through it however unlike Up this isn't due to charming originality and more advertising that focuses on Scotland looking awesome. Fair enough really. The story is perfectly workable and well put together but you could say it lacks the polish Pixar usually give to it's predictable arcs. Sure the story of rejection in Toy Story is a familiar one but there is a little extra zing to make it special. Here the zing doesn't come from a place of warmth and honesty but a more Shrek-like anachronistic home which may work perfectly for that brand of humor, but it's always been a style I've found lazy, cheap and ultimately tacky as all hell. There are only a few examples but enough to sour what is otherwise a moderately period appropriate film. Usually when Pixar come to make a film on a subject matter they have a little something to add, here it feels more like that special addition was torn out leaving a rather generic family film.

That aside it still doesn't try and pick up the slack in the emotional department Coming out of Brave I realized that (and this is excluding Cars 2 which I didn't go to with a Pixar mind anyhow) it has been a long time since I came out of a Pixar film without a tear in my eye, or more likely, reams of tears streaming down my face. It's a really dull thing to be said but really this film is good but it's not Pixar good. It's simple and quite lovely at times but it feels closer to Tangled than anything else. Not that that is a bad thing by any means, I did enjoy Tangled and actually Disney has been picking up their game as of late but there is no real heart to it. Like the new Disney films it seems to be trying too hard where films like Up and Monsters Inc felt almost effortless. They flowed.

I'm not really sure if I can really put across why this film just isn't quite up to scratch. I think the best way for me to say it is that a week ago when I was stuck in an incredibly hard bed, in an unbearably hot room finding it impossible to find a restful moment, I watched Toy Story 3 on my iPhone twice, consecutively. Then the next day I was looking at what was on TV and the last forty-five minutes of Toy Story 3 was on....so I watched it again. Brave it yet to hit DVD or iPhone or even TV but I can tell you now, I have no desire to sit and watch Brave over and over to ease a horrible night. I won't think of it and stop if only to hold back tears. It hasn't effected a chapter of my life like Monsters Inc or Toy Story and I find my nonchalance about it somewhat more distressing than the pure crap of Cars 2. Still... Brave is good....

   
JO

The Dark Knight Rises

I want to say this now before I start talking about the conclusion to The Dark Knight trilogy, this thing I'm about to write (or as now is the case you are about to read) is completely riddled with spoilers and really is only for the eyes of folk who have a, already seen the film (which at this point is, I assume, everyone) or b, people who never intend to see it and just love to read which lets face it is probably very few (not the love to read part, we all love to read or at least should and if you don't love to read then *spoiler alert* this is a text based blog and I think little of people who hate reading.

What can I say about The Dark Knight that hasn't already been said by at least 333,000,000 people all over the internet (that figure being based on Google entries when I search The Dark Knight). It was one hell of a film. It was everything Batman had been waiting for ever since it went into hiding after Adam West proclaimed that some days you just can't get rid of a bomb. maybe if I watched it now a good 5 years after the fact I would think differently of it but I'll just stick to what I though when I came out of the cinema way back then which was 'F**k'. You may find it odd then that my expectations for The Dark Knight Rises were relativity low. Maybe it's the big gap that lead me down the path of nay saying The Dark Knight, hardly believing it was as good as it was and getting tired of people going on about it or maybe it was the fact that Sam couldn't stop harping on about how awesome it was or maybe it was how little I cared for Inception or how Nolan learned to stop writing stories and love the dumb but I can tell you one thing for sure, I was not all that excited until lets say an hour before entering that IMAX screen. What followed though was, to my mind, an hour of noiry sadness and then two hours of pure film that just never ever ever lets up. If you think about the basic structure of most comic book movies, even when the shit hits the fan you still get mellow moments to relax before getting taken back to the madness but once this film gets going it never stops and the brief moments of quiet are like trying to slow down a bullet by putting a piece of toilet paper in front of it's path. Not to say that's a negative, it's refreshing to watch a film that doesn't let you off the hook until the very last moment. 

So Bruce Wayne has retried as the Batman after taking the blame for all the bad things Harvey Dent did and is pretty much a hermit. His only real human contact is from Alfred. He meets Selina Kyle (Catwoman) and gets involved in Bane's underground evil empire. Before long he has unraveled a plan to essentially blow up Gotham and Gotham is his baby so he ain't having that. The story is deceptively simple and yet endlessly epic ending in a city siege and a policed state with twisted one sided trials ran by the greatest cameo since....well same guy just in The Dark Knight. One negative point that really was in The Dark Knight too but has always bugged me, Gotham is just New York, say what you like about Tim Burton's Batman but that dude made a city and that city looked like Gotham. Really they should be shooting this in Detroit or something along those lines but it really bugs me when they do big sweeping shots and you see the Empire State building and other big landmarks. Sure it plants it in a great reality but it also feels lazy.

The Joker was really what made The Dark Knight what it was but an unfortunate side effect of having such a powerhouse villain was that Batman took a back seat. Bane is a superbly realised character and the way they integrate him into the Dark Knight's past is seamless but he is less of a spectacle giving this film to the Bat which is of course what we all want if this really is his last hurrah before retirement. Speaking of Bane and Batman the two fight scenes between them are ridiculously awesome, in fact if this was a different film the first fight scene would have ended the movie (of course without the broken spine) but that only serves to illustrate how big this movie is, many other films would not attempt to match the scope of this finale and this first fight almost feels like the end of part one before the second film starts. And also Catwoman is pitch perfect and this trio of main characters feels like less of a last ditch attempt to fit them all in before the end (see Spider-Man 3) but rather three characters that fit perfectly into the story.

One issue I have with TDKR though is the rest of the cast and where the story goes. Now they are both very good if a bit simple at times but for the most part it all comes as no surprise. Joseph Gordon Levitt as Robin was a twist that I almost felt we had already been told about and then they do the silly reveal and I realized this was supposed to be a surprise. Continuing down that prior knowledge road, Miranda turning out to be Ra's Al Ghul's daughter is something that requires so little Batman knowledge that I feel it's unlikely a lot of people saw this coming. But then that leads me to a thought I had after the films showing with my girlfriend who knows only about as much as this trilogy has taught her. Does that really matter? These two moment weren't the things that she really cared that much about, rather the whole three hourish journey you go on. I don't think the film relies on these twists to carry the film in any way and even though you may see them coming it doesn't lead to this frustration that can happen in other less talented film adaptations. So thanks Rebecca for removing me from that snobby geek throne and bringing me back down to a more reasonable point of view (I secretly hate you for that). And how can you talk about a Nolan Batman without talking about Gary Oldman (great emotional weight in the later parts) Morgan Freeman (the only character that tries to lighten things up) and Michael Caine (who's only mission in this film is to try and make you cry every time you see him).

You probably want to know if I think this film is better than the film that preceded it, the simple answer is no but the longer answer is that it doesn't really matter either way. If we are to except that this is the end of The Dark Knight then this film really does cap it off perfectly. It's an all out attack that still feels steady, well thought out and considered. It's also a hell of a film much like The Dart Knight. But in a way this film's less of an event, you can't really recapture that magic they made in The Dark Knight. It's a great thing though and you couldn't really have made a better film to end it on. Now can someone please make a Robin film we can be proud of, remake Green Lantern so it's good and tell Zack Snynder not the mess up Man Of Steel and I think I will be happy for at least another year.

JO

The Amazing Spider-Man

When I first saw Sam Rami's Spider-Man I was probably about nine and I would argue, the perfect age for such a film. I loved it in more ways than nine and yes, I'll gladly list them all, you've only to ask. So of course I look at this film in two ways. One, Spider-Man was awesome and I'd love a new one to equally enrapture me. Two, Spider-Man is awesome and I'll gladly re-watch it over a new one any day. Truthfully though, I was nothing but excited. Not only is Emma Stone adorable, Andrew Garfield is equally cute and Marc Webb directed (500) Days Of Summer so right there is a little movie wet dream for my young mind. Shall we take a peek then into how I felt about it all or should we just, as a friend of mine suggested, go home and watch Easy-A?

So Peter Parker is in high school and even though all the skater boys I know are the cool kids, he isn't that popular. He lives with his aunt and uncle and is constantly wondering what happened to his Ma and Pa. As jigsaw pieces fall slowly into place, he heads to Oscorp hoping to find out more about his mysterious Father. Of course his Father was working on cross-species genetics using mainly Spiders for his research (as well as inventing a machine that gases the entire city...but don't worry that won't be very important at the end of the film...). Peter gets bit and then he beats people up on the subway and sticks to coke cans. He also becomes either super smart or just super determined (it's not really clear) and helps Rhys Ifans come up with an equation that solves the problem with his growing extra limbs formula. Of course Oscorp is super evil so they try to rush Ifans and he ends up using it on himself turning into The Lizard. What does that remind you of? 

I really wanted to love this film. When Rami's Spider-Man came out I was all over it. Like I said, it was the perfect age for me to think it was the coolest film in all creation. I was expecting this film to be somewhat similar because it is a Spider-Man film so really, what can they change. The problem is they really don't try to separate themselves. They've taken some elements from the comic series 'Ultimate Spider-Man' like the futuristic technology and web-shooter but none of it is drastic enough to make it look any different. It's the moment when Uncle Ben says something about Responsibility and then Peter runs off in a mood and doesn't stop a bad guy who then goes on to kill his uncle. I know this is all cannon but it was at that point I realized it's just all happening again.

That's not to say they don't do certain things better, Peter's transformation into Spider-Man and drive to make himself a suit has a much more natural progression (in Rami's Parker just wants money to get a car so he can impress MJ) and having the greater background story of the Father makes for slightly more advanced drama in general. But that's all it ever feels like, scenes they do better and scenes they don't do as well. It's not the Funny Games syndrome of pointlessness but at times it may as well as be. The Lizard was pretty cool but he didn't have the same build-up and atmosphere as The Green Goblin, The Lizard felt like a footnote to the story of Spider-Man having a girl-friend and seeking revenge and avoiding the police. In a way it felt like Spider-Man 3, no focus on one or two things but 50 fingers in 70 pies. 

The other major problem is that they have attempted to make Peter Parker a darker and more angst ridden figure but instead of turning Spider-Man into a Dark-Knight-esque drama it makes Parker a lot harder to like. As he seeks revenge for about half of the film beating guys up and threatening folk he just doesn't seem like a nice guy. Spider-Man may have been a goofy colorful comic-book movie but that's what Spider-Man is all about. I get that they wanted to go down a more serious path but it just never works, they never go far enough down the rabbit hole to convince me to follow.

You know, having said all of that though, I did really enjoy this film. It's a lot of fun and where else do you get to see Spiders fighting dinosaurs? Yeah it wasn't great but you could do worse! And isn't that what all blockbusters are about? Also any excuse to watch a film with Emma Stone in is fine by me. Having said that I've seen so many 3 star films lately I'm beginning to consider rating them 2 stars just cause it's getting dull.

JO

Joe Loves... King Kong

This is going to sound like an odd statement but King Kong was the first film I wanted to see. Let me clarify. It wasn't that I didn't really want to see Toy Story 2 or even Johnny English, yes I really wanted to see those films and I loved them when I did but King Kong was the first film that wasn't on in any cinema or advertised on TV or watched annually by my Dad that I really really wanted to see. I'm not sure  but I'm pretty sure it was the first film I bought that hadn't been in cinemas the previous year. It was probably the first black and white film I ever saw and it was definitely the first films I saw about bestiality. 

I know I just said this was the first film I saw that wasn't advertised on TV but in a way King Kong is one of the most heavily advertised films of all time simply thanks to it's iconography. If you see a simian of anything above normal size you think of King Kong. When you think about the monster movie genre the first film that pops in your head is King Kong (and if not, Godzilla, who fought King Kong (and if not Godzilla or King Kong then Cloverfield that wouldn't exist if not for Godzilla and King Kong (and if not any of them then what kind of monster movie hipster are you!?))) Hell King Kong is one of the few films that has permanent advertising space in the shape of the empire state building. That image of a giant ape batting bi-panes away teetering on top of that towering building will never leave your mind once you have seen it. It's full of inspiring and classic moments like that giant wall, the big smiling face and Fay Wray's brutal screaming. It's a classic lesson in style and it's also the main reason films like 2012 and Cloverfield fail to make much of an impact, at this point we as cinema goers have seen it all and it really is first come first served in the world of cinema. 

I can however see the flaws in this film. Like a lot of older films, the acting is incredibly dated. It's not that it's bad more that it is of an era that now feels incredibly hammy and over the top. But I've always thought it helped the film. You have all this big male bravado and casual racist tribal folk and then this big monkey that feels more human because of how false the real humans are. Making King Kong a sympathetic lead is a mean feat that they absolutely nail and we very quickly grow to love the guy rather than fear him. Sure they did a more comprehensive job in the 2005 remake but this was 1933 and all they had were little armatures, stop-motion and back projection and yet they manage to breathe so much life into him. 

But this section is meant to be about me and my love. And I really do love King Kong. I remember one Christmas rather than being specific, simply asking for 'King Kong related stuff'. I don't think I am special being a youngster fascinated by this film. I'm sure thousands of kids are sitting at home right now discovering it the same way I did but that's not the point. At the time it felt like I had literally dug into the depths of cinema and unearthed a film no one had seen for centuries and as I gave it life and a chance to retell it's awesome tale it gave me a little thing to keep with me and be a bit proud of. At a more basic level it was a film that told me old films are cool to. Just cause it's black and white or silent, doesn't mean it's not radical. Maybe if I didn't watch it I wouldn't be the film geek I am now, I doubt it but I am happy to give King Kong the title of film that made Joe love film. So that's why this film is first. It didn't give me any kind of sexual awakening like Sam got from One Million Years B.C. (creep) and it wasn't the first film I saw and adored (Toy Story) But it was probably the film that started it all. And dude, I love it.  

JO

Sam Loves... One Million Years B.C.

Our new feature is all about those things in the wide world of film we just plain love, whether that be a director, a movement, a recurring joke or theme and, of course, a film. There is no pomposity here, this is pure childlike love and in my opinion Sam's first entry perfectly personifies that attitude. 

Chances are you haven’t seen ‘One Million Years B.C.’

That’s not me being a snob and lording over you with a choice “oh so obscure” truth is ‘One Million Years B.C.’ isn’t that good, it’s schlocky, hammy and apart from a few retro dino fights, quite forgettable. It was made by Hammer Film Productions in 1966 and was a remake of 1940 Hollywood film ‘One Million B.C.’ It is set – very loosely – in the time of the cavemen and is ridiculously ahistorical (a word I just discovered on Wikipedia and have instantly grown quite fond of) pitting scantily clad cave dwellers against a whole heap of prehistoric scaly monsters. Despite attempting to trick gullible film-goers into thinking it was an accurate portrayal of cave life, running a tagline of “This is the way it was”, ‘OMYBC’ couldn’t fool snooty college types but as Ray Harryhausen, stop motion animation legend and creator of the wonderful dinosaur moments in the film, said he did not make One Million Years B.C. for "professors" who in his opinion "probably don't go to see these kinds of movies anyway.”

Even though I’ve begun this in a very negative light I have to say I feel naught but love for this film. I adore the shoddy B-Movie nature of it, I love how it makes no historical sense, I dig how the cavemen are so unkempt and shaggy yet the cave ladies are preened and quaffed like true Hollywood starlets, I can’t get enough of those stop motion dino fights, I praise the pompous narration of the film and my word it is so damn cracking that the characters speak in names, grunts and vulgar looks. However, the real reason that I have plumped for this as the first film I love is also the one thing that anyone not fond of hammer B-movies will know this film for: Raquel Welch. Specifically for this image...

Honestly, If you search this film on google all you will get is about 3 pages of variations on this pose.

A picture I have two of on my wall. They are no different, apart from one is in colour and one is in black and white, but I have two for a very significant personal reason. This image was the very first time I knew for absolute certain that I fancied ladies (I will try my best not to sound creepy from here on in). Not to say that before Raquel came along I was yearning over pictures of Sean Connery in swimwear it’s just that by that point I’d not really cobbled together the whole idea of women as anything more than nice smelling friends of my sisters.

I’m not sure quite how much you’d want me to expand on this… it’s not in any way a seedy or frightening thing. I can put my hand on my heart and say that I have never attempted to stalk Raquel Welch, steal something belonging to Raquel Welch, paid over the odds for an object belonging to Raquel Welch or done anything of a questionable nature with, to, around, about or involving Raquel Welch. It’s just that from that moment when I first spied the image of her in that fur bikini, caveman wind blowing through her hair I knew that these things they call women were my kind of bag. It seems quite an odd thing to admit to, and I’d imagine an even stranger thing to read, OMYBC has in no other way influenced my life, some of the other films I will gush about for this section will be one’s that made me somewhat different, changed how I looked at the world, reflected a feeling I couldn't put into words, was the first 18 rated film I saw or made me discover the joys of a type of film-making then unknown to me. Not OMYBC, I may as well just say that it is Raquel Welch I love, and I do. Perhaps Alan Partridge said it best when he called her a “historically inaccurate sexy bikini sex woman.”

In fact, that now seems like a weird way to end this. But hey ho I’ve written it now and am way too tired to press backspace. So there it is, now bate your breath in preparation for Joe’s first films I love feature, where he will no doubt say some very clever things about juxtaposition and how a film has drastically altered his emotional perception of a feeling or time in this world that made him go “J’aime”all the while making me look like a Stella-drinking-Nuts-reader. Sorry I’ve rambled a touch, suffice to say “J’adore Raquel Welch (In One Million Years B.C.”

SO

Review: Moonrise Kingdom

Most of us probably know how we feel about Wes Anderson. I don't really like the Marmite slogan "You either love it or you hate it" mainly because I will eat Marmite every now and then (mostly when I am with Sam) and I'm cool with it but I don't eat it everyday, I wouldn't characterize that as love or hate. The things I love I struggle not to at least think about every single day and the things I hate I look at, turn to the nearest person and express my displeasure that it has today met my line of sight. I also wouldn't call it like because to like something you have to frequent it and my consumption of Marmite is on a purely bi-yearly basis.........what was I saying? Right, Wes Anderson. So I won't say he is a love or hate director but he is definitely a director whose films you will watch and know right away that he is or isn't worth the rest of your time. In my opinion he is worth all the time in the world.

Wes Anderson has, at least for me, a very indescribable quality that makes his films a bit hard to review without this turning into around 700 words of just babbling soppy love. So let this picture be the description of that special spark. 

His films rarely show conventional people or attitudes, I'd say the people are often exaggerations of very vulnerable human emotions. In Moonrise Kingdom we are shown around the New England Island of New Penzance in the 60s (another odd quality of Wes Anderson movies is that they always appear to be taking place in the 60s but, and please correct me if I am wrong, this is the first to actually be set in the 60s). This island, and the land surrounding it, are a hot spot for scouts and at the start of the film a young outcast scout, Sam, has flown the coup to meet the daughter of a pair of lawyers, who live on the island. From there it's a story of young love and escapism. The story is consistently wonderful but is sorely lacking in the strong emotional punch offered by many other Anderson's, this punch of sadness is instead swapped for and nostalgic glow, that offers a little undercurrent of melancholy throughout. I'm not saying it's an unfair trade but it's something I really missed.

When it comes to the characters no one, and I mean absolutely no one, is a dud. They all play an important part and at sometime or another get a hilarious joke or look of some kind. It's also a film that keeps throwing out new characters that add to the comedic glee like Jason Schwartzman as cousin B who is spectacularly hilarious and every moment he and his beautiful moustache graced the screen, I was holding in a giggle. Bob Balaban as the narrator also has this quality and yet manages to relay important bits of plot without making the film seem insincere. Edward Norton has to be the main surprise for me though. Don't get me wrong, the guy is a great actor and films like Fight Club and The Painted Veil wouldn't be the same without him, but I wasn't sure how he would fit into the Wes Anderson way of acting and yet he nailed it in every regard. He really does give off that aura of a volunteer who is far to emotionally attached to their job. Bruce Willis gives the film it's most poignant scene when he cooks Sam dinner and shares his beer telling him quite honestly that Sam is probably smarter than him. Of course you can't really talk about the characters without talking about the two most important ones. Suzy and Sam are sublime and at times they're extraordinary real. The film can also make you feel almost voyeuristic as we watch their first kiss and exchange of  'I love you'. It's that quality though that elevates their relationship beyond young love and into something more honest and heartfelt. Also the rest of the scouts as a unit are pretty brilliant but not as good as they're nicknames and their odd conversations with Sam where the stupid and yet simplistically divine logic of childhood is displayed. Oh and of course Bill Murray, with an axe.

An other equally important chunk of Wes Anderson movies is the clear stylised look. From the great artwork on the front of Suzy's library books (am I the only one that has an almost perverted love of dust jackets.......). The tidal maps to the way to camera is framed and moved through the world and the striking image at the end of the film. This is an incredibly stylish work but one that knows how to focus itself. I always felt like The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou was a drastic case of style over substance, but this film manages to hold onto all the great stylistic quirks of Wes Anderson but it never lets that take away from the people themselves. Then there is the music composed by the now incredibly prolific Alexandre Desplat that keeps the films jaunty and yet honest tone. 

I don't want to sit here and say that this is his best film but in some regards it is. Maybe it's not as moving a story as The Darjeeling Limited and it certainly doesn't have a staged production of Serpico like Rushmore but what it is is a wonderfully charming and insightful film that I loved every second of, and trust me that's not an overstatement, the smile never left my face. Now where's that Marmite, I really fancy some toast. 

JO

Note: Sorry about how hiatus but dude, I'm sure you were fine, I know I was. If you weren't fine or you blame us for the collapse of your daily life please direct all complaints or friendly criticism to thebrotherscinemazov@gmail.com

Sam Says: I work in a cinema, coz i'm hella cool, and as a result saw the trailer for Moonrise Kingdom about 25 times. Normally, even for the most amazing trailer this would be far too many times to still love it. Yet every time i laughed out loud and was swept up in it's gloriously kooky sweetness. (that bit when Sam says "No i said what bird are you?" and points at Suzy once made me laugh so hard I scared an old lady.) Now after a build up of that degree i was understandably apprehensive about how much I'd actually dig it, 23 seconds into this beautifully, hilariously tender and sweet love story i was absolutely hooked. I feel confident in saying it's Anderson's best  work yet. and easily the most beautifully amazingly touching love story I've seen in years. Plus Bruce Willis was in it and Edward Norton's short shorts and an amazing mustachioed scout master cameo. Long live Wes Anderson. 5/5.

How's it?

Well it's been a busy couple of weeks for Cinemazov and we are cool enough to have avoided the sexy gaze of   Jennifer Lawrence or the poor writing of Suzanne Collins (ooh I am a bitch), so don't you fear I'll talk about The Hunger Games in some capacity very soon. Our upcoming (or should I say current) radio silence is due to some pretty awesome things in the pipeline that Sam and I really want to get right. So maybe it will be worth it or maybe we'll just slack off....The latter is far more likely.

This is Joe Oliver signing off, you stay classy internet.

Review: The Pirates! In An Adventure With Scientists

Most people in the wider media friendly universe are well aware of Aardman, Nick Park and Wallace & Gromit. For me it all started with my grandparents VHS copy of A Grand Day Out and from that point on I've always been pretty excited about what comes next in the world of Bristol based claymation. Chicken Run is still my steadfast favourite which means for me it's technically been all down hill since their first feature length jaunt. Will Pirates usurp the crown or am I forever destined to be asking which came first, the success or the fame?

The plot of Pirates is as follows, The Pirate Captain has a loyal crew of lovely misfits who love ham and arguing about the best part of piracy but when it comes to his wider public image, he is a laughing stock to his pirating peers. He needs to prove himself and he decides the best way to do this is to win Pirate of the Year, a competition measured by the amount of booty a pirate has amounted over the year. He sets off to pillage and plunder but, after several unsuccessful attempts, finds himself severely disheartened. It's not until Charles Darwin tells him his plump parrot is actually a Dodo that he hatches a new plan to win scientific discovery of the year which will award him unthinkable riches that he'll then use to win Pirate of the Year. It's a somewhat convoluted story but one that perfectly fits the jumbled and silly tone of the film and a plot that also keeps the film constantly moving and never dull.

Aardman are known for their joke-every-second approach to film making with puns literally lining the very walls and that style still applies with enough of the jokes landing to reach Airplane! levels of constant giggling. Each character is a pitch perfect stereotype to the point that each is called by their traits like my personal favourite "Pirate with Gout". Having said that the film has it's fair share of duds like the monkey and his breaking of the forth wall. Having said that a joke that didn't work for me will probably work for thousands of others, that is the mastery of the joke-every-second approach, you're always keeping someone happy.  It's also a film with endless style. It pulls off that bizarre British world of pirates perfectly and retains that great look that all Aardman films stick to. 

My main issue with this film is that it's in no way surprising and at times feels like Aardman for the sake of being Aardman. Maybe it's just that now we all know their tricks and they're hyper rural England feel has gone too far to the point that at times it feels like they are stereotyping the stereotype of the stereotypical stereotype. It's an easy to watch film that you can't help but enjoy. That being said it is at times so eager to please it feels like it's groveling. I had fun though so who am I to complain?

JO 

Sam Says:
I really thoroughly enjoyed The Pirates! It was a rollicking thrill ride of fun, japes, jokes, heart, piracy, songs and glorious beards. It sails along at a fast pace and provides you with so much to hear, see and do that I wasn't bored for a second. Sure it's not a masterpiece, there are a few bizarre mis-fires, a frankly odd Joseph Merrick cameo and a musical cue that doesn't quite fit right, but those are superfluous niggles for a film that provided me with more genuine fun and entertainment than all of the Pirates of the Caribbean films put together. 4 Stars.

What We Watched 16th - 27th March

You have good weeks and you have bad weeks. Ups and downs, peaks and troughs, Dogs and rats, Peaches and overripe bananas, Walnuts and gross nuts, Chocolate and bovril and you also have terrible films and awesome films. That is that way it has been for numerous years and if humans continue upon their current path, it's unlikely to sway from that anytime soon. What I'm trying to say is that this was a brilliant week and it is clearly reflected in the fact that 18 of the 25 films we watched were actually pretty excellent. Next week I intend to watch nothing but cliched and disgusting Katherine Heigl movies.
This is likely be the last What We Watched, at least the last in it's current format so you better love it as much as I love drunk sailors who carry kittens on their backs.

Sam's Week

They Live (1988)

“I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass, and I’m all out off bubblegum.” That pretty much tells you all you need to know about this awesome B-Movie Ex-Wrestler starring 80’s action classic. When wandering Hobo ‘Rowdy’ Roddy Piper eases up into town he ain’t looking to get into trouble just to make an honest buck, befriend a black guy and occasionally take his top off. BUT THEN he puts on some Hoffman lenses, and with Hoffman lenses he can see the truth and the truth’s ass needs kicking. It’s silly, shocking and sometimes shoddy but that is what makes films of this ilk so damn brilliant.  3.5 Stars.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

Terrence Stamp is inspired. Guy Pearce is ripped. Hugo Weaving has a really scary face. The tale of two Australian drag queens and one transsexual as they road trip across the desert to a cabaret gig in Alice Springs is a unique visual feast. It won the Oscar for its lavish costumes and design and rightly so. It’s a truly unique film but one that occasionally gets a bit too much of a preening mess to handle. That being said though when it hits it hits hard with some astute social commentary and hilarious one liners. 3.5 Stars.

La Grande Illusion (1937)

It’s probably safe to say that La Grande Illusion is the best war film that doesn’t actually contain any war that has ever been made. More a tale of humanity, friendship and pacificism than a WW2 saga it is a truly sterling film definitely one of Renoir’s best. 4 Stars.

Gangs of New York (2002)

It’s understandable that a director with more than 50 credits to his name should occasionally do a few duds, have at least one bad day at the office. Gangs of New York feels like all of Scorsese’s off days rolled into one overly long, convoluted, poorly accented and quite frankly dull 2 and a half hour movie. It’s one of those films that annoys and disappoints me, with a cast the calibre that Scorsese assembles should make for a film on a par with Goodfellas, King of Comedy or Taxi Driver but it doesn’t. It barely gets off the ground. Also two of the only genuine Irish people they have get killed pretty sharpish. Bummer. 2 Stars.

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

An incredible film, absolutely incredible. Based on the actual transcripts of Joan’s trial Dreyer’s film oozes with intense realism, so powerful are the combined parts of this film that it feels at times more like a documentary of the actual trial. Undoubtedly one of the main reasons for it being quite so good is the unbearably amazing central performance. Maria Falconetti’s pained close ups and total immersion in the role make for some incredible viewing. Heartily recommended. 4.5 Stars.

Kes (1969)

Eeee Lad don’t thee knar that eet is reet grim for’t t’al people who mekk thurr home in’t t’grim narth. Eeee It’s reet bad our kid. Unless thee get theesel’ a pet t’hawk, lad. 

Once you get past the o’er the top northern accents Kes is a very good film, a film oozing with social realism and it does pull of the rather impressive feat of making a story about a working class kid who trains a hawk rather exciting and interesting. Eeee lad. 4 Stars.

Went the day well? (1942)

After watching The Titfield Thunderbolt last week I was keen to watch yet another Ealing film that’d definitely be rife with a quaint little British village and some scrapes that they got themselves into. However Went the day well? Is about Nazis and the threat of invasion that stalked the British towards the start of WW2, and it’s pretty hardcore. I don’t want to give anything away but it paints the Nazis as two dimensional, heartless embodiments of the devil himself and the subtitle could’ve been Nazis will kill everyone.Propaganda aside it is a really good flick, think of it like a cross between Hot Fuzz and Inglorious Basterds but made in the 40’s. 4 Stars. 

Joe's Week

Philadelphia (1993)

As far a courtroom dramas go this film is pretty much an A to B straight forward case with all the classic cliches. They way they demonize the other lawyers is laughable but in a way the whole thing is oddly endearing. Its so eager to impress, like a little kid coming home with a drawing of a cat, you can't say it's rubbish cause it'd break his little heart so instead you pat him on the head and send him on his way. 2.5 Stars.

Year of the Dog (2007)

Mike White does 3 things better than any working film maker in the world;

1. Write movies in which Jack Black is genuinely endearing  

2. Really really creep me out beyond what any Saw movie can achieve (see Chuck & Buck)

3. Surprise me.

This film has been on my shelf for a really long time and I was expecting this average kooky indie comedy that would, like Chuck & Buck, creep me out more than entertain but turns out that this film is actually a little hidden treasure about grief and influence. 4 Stars.

Les Vacances de Monsieur Hulot (1953)

Unlike the Buster Keatons and Charlie Chaplins of this world, what Jaques Tati does is ask us to pay attention to the crowd, rather than the exploits of one bizarre man we notice the oddities of the many. 4 Stars.

An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

To me, a documentary can be so much more than a vehicle for alternative journalism (alternative to the news) it can be a snippet of life (Life in a Day) , the illustration of an idea (Encounters at the End of the World) or even a simple piece of pure art (Restrepo). An inconvenient Truth strips all external elements of the documentary film and instead is essentially a PowerPoint presentation. A bad thing? Well it could very easily be a terrible thing but Al Gore's passionate and genuine approach mixed with a comprehensive nutshell view of all things to do with pollution, global warming and all that eco-based fun makes it the most compelling and simply watchable PowerPoint I've seen since....well a friend of mine did a good one in year 5 about ducks. 4 Stars.

Still Walking (2008)

I could probably talk about this film for longer than any of us really want me too so I'll just say this; It is one of the best films I have ever seen. 5 Stars.

Weekend (2011)

Just like Still Walking, I could go on and on about why I loved this as much as I did but instead I'll just say this; Best Romantic drama I've ever seen? Probably. 5 Stars.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

Similarly I could go on and on about why this film is the dullest piece of trash I have ever witnessed but instead I'll just give it the Stars it deserves. 1.5 Stars.

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (2005)

It's funny and sharp and snappy but for the most part feels like a Tarantino movie not directed by Tarantino. Still damn good. 3.5 Stars.

Anything for Her (2008)

For those of you that think that French cinema is nothing but perfect gold watch this and tell me it isn't one of the most meh thrillers ever created. The leads arc makes little-to-no sense and for the most part it just feels like they are simply going through the motions. 2.5 Stars.

Fish Tank (2009)

Sure, Wuthering Heights was a big disappointment with it's superb first half and disjointed silly looking second round, but looking back nothing can tarnish how fresh and honestly enjoyable this council estate drama was/is. Their is something incredibly relatable in Mia even if I'm nothing like her. 4.5 Stars.

Encounters at the End of the World (2007)

Herzog asks some big questions in what turns out to be a bit of a double meaning of a film. March of the Penguins this is not, and thank god for that. 4.5 Stars.

SLC Punk (1998)

I will always love Matthew Lillard. After Scooby Doo 2 he somewhat dropped off the map and it's never really made any sense to me. In all the films he has at least a supporting role in, he carries the film. In the case of SLC Punk there is really nothing to watch without his presence. It's heavy handed and obvious, also the subject matter is some heavily trodden ground but it's still sincere in it's approach and at times dumb enough to work. 3 Stars. 

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

A product of it's era and it often shows for the worst, in many cases making you feel like you are missing out on a bigger joke but their is still a lot of fun to be had in this Hollywood classic. Next boxing day, bust this one out and watch a one man single-handedly rip apart a petrol station. 3 Stars.

A Kid With a Bike (2012)

Review Forthcoming

3 Stars.

The Woman in Black (2012)

Review Forthcoming

(Cliched, stupid, predictable and completely un-talented mess)

2 Stars.

L'Atlante (1934)

In many cases, the older a comedy gets the less funny it gets. This certainly does not apply in L'Atlante a film that screams charisma and humor and kittens. 4 Stars.

Scream 4 (2011)

If you are a fan of Scream and horror in general then consider this a return to the originals glory, my only real problem with it is the flimsy psychosis of the killer. 3 Stars.