Rester ou partir. La question ne se pose plus pour Zina et Kamel qui ont décidé de voir une dernière fois l’Algérie qu’ils aiment tant mais qui le leur rend mal. Dans le climat hostile des années 90, entre répression et terrorisme, chacun survit aux rythmes des couvre-feux.

La Madrague, banlieue d’Alger, va peut être offrir aux deux jeunes une porte de sortie. Le parcours pour y arriver est parsemé de décombres, de chantiers abandonnés et de cette indicible atmosphère de guerre invisible jalonnée de contrôles de police et exécutions sommaires : un climat de terreur.

I went more for shapes and colors for this shot. I wanted something abstract, so I’m not going to tell you what it is, though I’m sure you could sort it out if you wanted to. Shot indoors with flash.

Had a crazy busy “film” day today. Started with the Women in Film @WIFTV breakfast meeting where Carole Tarlington @TarlingtonT was a speaker. Got some great insights into casting and working with child actors.

I told everyone about my upcoming workshop on July 20, 2013 for newbie directors (check out my website for details www.tracydsmith.com). In four hours on a Saturday afternoon, learn everything you need to know to shoot your first short or web series! Only $50!

Also, ran into Cameron Grierson, a filmmaker/director who was gracious enough to be the “blind date” for a segment on a CBC lifestyle TV show I was shooting with Christine Lippa. Anyways, I was delighted to see that Cam had read my blog about tweeting and how it affects actors and now he’s committed to figuring out wordpress (which is what I use for this blog) and also to tweeting! So give him a shout at @cgrierson!

Yvette Lu @yvettelu was also there and we had a great chat about characters and culture for this project. Yvette is an incredibly valuable team member and has wonderful insights into the “East Meets West” aspect of the show! @eastmeetswilde

In the afternoon, with Emma in tow, I went to a board meeting of the Crazy8s Film Society @Crazy8sFilm. I have been on the board for almost two years now and have managed to take Emma to one previous meeting where she was young enough to sleep through the whole thing. Today, she was far too excited by all the smiling faces to sleep. Sue Biely thankfully bounced her on her knee for a while and Lael McCall held her as I got the baby carrier ready for a failed attempt at getting her to nap in it.

While we were there, Paul Armstrong (the new Executive Director) told me about the live Twitter watch along with cast and crew of the Canadian horror film “American Mary”. He said to check them out as an example of how to do it up right with distribution and social media these days! So hold tight all, I am going to do some serious research into this movie and my next blog with be “American Mary: A Case Study”!

Luckily, you’ll have your answer 5 lines down with the sentence beginning, “Produced in Singapore…” but I’ll give you the rest, too.

“Produced in Singapore, the series has already become an international phenom, hitting 18 Asian countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines.” Ima just slip this other phenom hit from the Philippines in here to give you where the phenom baseline lies:

Here’s a quick description of the show:

“At the center of every episode is Maddie (Karylle Tatlonghari), a talented graduate of Le Cordon Bleu in Paris, and a new Sous Chef upstart. Born with a silver spoon in her mouth, Maddie struggles to stamp her creativity and individuality in a kitchen run by the brilliant, sarcastic, perfectionist Executive Chef, Alex Marcus (Stephen Rahman-Hughes). On every episode, new dishes, desserts, and recipes are created and the all-star ensemble sings to familiar tunes as the comedy, drama, and romance brews. Follow Maddie as she cooks her way to the top with her invincible determination and her spicy je ne sais quoi.*“

It’s strange, because every time I was watching Gordon Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares in week-long marathons, I kept thinking, wouldn’t it be cool if they were all singing? But I also don’t want them to be cooking the same old shit, so I want new recipes on every show, but maybe we could have the snotty waitress get fired and return for every new episode as the love interest. And she’s spoiled.

Said Joy Bovatsek, Head of Programming for Myx TV, “As the first scripted series on the network, this one of a kind musical drama combines great food, song, and dance which are all quintessential for Asian and Asian American cultures.” Really? All your shows need a musical drama combining great food, song, and dance geared toward Asian and Asian-American cultures? That’s just…a lot of work. Can’t it just be 2 guys and a kid, or 3 guys and a baby? One sexy lady, no words?

* This literally means “I don’t know what,” so it doesn’t really pertain to food, kitchens, music, or Asian romances. It’s just French words and looks like you also literally didn’t know what to end that paragraph with.

June 28th will see the Australian horror-comedy, 100 Bloody Acres, hit VOD platforms and I’ve got a handful of new stills and a trailer for you guys to take a look at. Conveniently they’re covered in all of that red stuff we enjoy so much around these parts! Written and directed by Colin and Cameron Cairnes, the flick stars Damon Herrriman, Agnus Sampson, Anna McGahan, Oliver Ackland, Jamie Kristian, and Wolf Creek’s John Jarratt.

Take a look at the new stills and trailer below and try not to get any on you!

In 100 Bloody Acres, brothers Reg and Lindsay Morgan are struggling to keep their organic blood and bone fertilizer business in motion. Their secret “recipe” for success (using dead car crash victims in their product) was a huge boon to business, but lately supply has been gravely low. Months have passed since their last find, and an important new customer is now waiting on a delivery. When junior partner Reg (Damon Herriman, “Justified”) stumbles upon three travelers stranded on a remote country road, he cooks up a radical solution to their problem and a way of finally gaining the respect of his bossy big brother (Angus Sampson). But when Reg starts to fall for Sophie, one of the intended victims, things get complicated…

[Written for AITH]

SCINEMA on SouthBank will play 19 to 21 July at The Edge, State Library of QLD. Sessions are currently being finalised and will be announced 3 May 2013.

SCINEMA travelling festival will play at a venue near you – watch this space for more information or subscribe to our mailing list here.

Click here to see the list of winning films from our 2012 festival competition

If you work for a school, public library, government office, town hall, art gallery, museum or public space, we would love to hear from you – SCINEMA is free for all venues. Grab a copy of our venue application form.

We hope to see you at one of our sessions!

The SCINEMA team

For more information about SCINEMA 2013, visit http://www.csiro.au/scinema/program/index.html

Click here to read about the amazing trip to Australia’s space observatory facilities Kristian Lang – the winner of our 2009 Best Student Short Film prize – took as part of his SCINEMA prize.

Superman has a fear of being rejected and further alienated by humankind if he reveals his true nature and, without the intervention of General Zod, he would have continued in his isolation indefinitely. The choice he makes to surrender himself is both fitting given his nature and the logical way for him to enter our world, it makes perfect sense, particularly in the chosen setting. Hovering over the arid desert, he presents himself in true biblical fashion, returned from isolation at the convenient age of 33, like Christ. And like Christ, he has his moment in the garden of Gethsemane, visiting a Catholic priest for guidance. In the bible, this was the place of Jesus’ betrayal and, like the Son of God, he knows his decision will pave the way to his own end if only to save the people of Earth. The allusion is treated bluntly but there is a depth of feeling here I wasn’t expecting. Like Jesus, Kal-El’s mind is already made up but he needed the words to find his real conviction. Even though the decision was already made for him, he still needed the counsel of an ordinary man to steel his resolve. Because, although we know he is invulnerable and incredibly powerful, he doesn’t, not yet. This is that heroism that exists in those rare individuals, the firefighters, the police officers, the soldiers that run towards danger instead of away from it, unlike the rest of us. The difference here is that he is doing it alone, without a brotherhood or a family, for no other purpose than that it is the right thing to do.

A big question surrounding a Superman film is this: why do we care about this perfect indestructible being? When will we ever believe that he is in danger or worry at all? The answer, as has been addressed in previous films, is in the lives of the people around him. Will he or won’t he show up in time and, in previous films, he always does. Previous films still carried the stigma of camp, the violence portrayed had no real significance or effect. If people died off-screen it was barely supplemental. The only lives that mattered were the principal characters and Man of Steel capably confronts this in its depiction of our military forces failing miserably against superior technology. Casting easily recognizable faces in secondary roles had a powerful effect. And while saving Metropolis and Smallville (heretofore known as Product Placement-ville, Sears, 7-11, IHOP) Superman effectively pulverizes both. The falling skyscrapers and ensuing chaos were pretty horrifying in context, they had a Cloverfield vibe that I really enjoyed. Showing how the ordinary citizen deals with these super beings beating the living hell out of each other in the middle of a major metropolitan city is shown with vivid deference to actual disasters. With the falling ash, the concrete and steel rebar, all the awe and wonder of seeing this other-worldly spectacle evaporates in the ensuing melee. Superman is not there for everyone. Many people die. To quote a more cleverly written film, the definition of a hero is someone who gets other people killed. The reality that if war of an advanced alien culture took place in the middle of a metropolitan city is perfectly realized, we wouldn’t stand a chance.

It is a good thing that we embrace our heroes along with their failures, it says a lot about us as a people and where we are as a civilized culture. Where Batman, Iron Man, and Spider Man are real human beings trying to being accepted and assume responsibility for their demons it is important to realize that there are still higher ideals that we can aspire to. It has become cliche to ask What Would Jesus Do as it has evolved into the world of bumper sticker philosophy and coffee table wisdom but dismissing this ideology because of its trite and possibly pedantic nature is to also deny a truly humane and powerfully positive edict towards living an honorable and good life that has endured for two thousand years. However misdirected organized religion can be, the fundamental message is a personal one, to be interpreted as such. This does not come from a practicing Christian or a particularly idealistic perspective but what I will say that there is nothing wrong with having someone to look up to, someone who always makes the right choice. These ideas are epitomized by Jonathan Kent and Jor-El; how lucky is Superman’s Universe that these two men were the ones guiding him. Instead of dictating his behavior or badgering him, they gave Kal-El the opportunity to choose for himself, only informing him of what consequence is. Further, what responsibility he has.

This should be the enduring message of how Superman needs to be interpreted in the following films and in pop culture in general. There will not always be a perfect savior that is going to save the day when we need them, he simply can’t be everywhere all the time. He will fight the big fights, the ones that are above and beyond us, but in the mean time we can aspire to be as good as he always will be. And when hope is lost and there is no one to fly in and save the day, ask what he would do. I think he would say, in your darkest hour, when no one else is there, that means it’s your time to be the hero.

Things are finally starting to pick up for the Sam Mendes and John Logan produced Penny Dreadful series which is said to be of the of the psychosexual horror variety. The latest news to come out of Showtime’s upcoming series is that they have hired Juan Antonio Bayona (The Orphanage) to direct the first two episodes. This is fantastic news folks. Not only do they have one hell of a director in place, but they’ve got one who knows a thing or two about the horror genre and considering he’ll be responsible for some of horror’s most classic characters, I’d say that’s a pretty good thing.

The series draws from famous works of literature, posing that some of the most terrifying protagonists — Dr. Frankenstein and his creature, Dorian Gray, Dracula’s Van Helsing and more — come together in Victorian London.

Showtime President David Nivens describes the series as “very realistic, it’s very grounded; the characters are are in very human form in turn of the century London. There will be one central point, but it’s a fairly ensemble series in the way Downtown Abbey is an ensemble.”

[Written for AITH]

Although I have never been a huge Superman fanatic, and I definitely don’t like Zach Snyder’s movies, I was looking forward to Man of Steel more than any other summer blockbuster this year. It’s a difficult one for which to pinpoint its flaws. It has all the ingredients for a great superhero movie, from the prestigious cast, to the eye-pleasing visuals, to the Hans Zimmer score, and yet 145 minutes later the recipe still comes out of the oven tasting like something was not prepared correctly. Even though there was a rigorous competition in comic book world for who could write the best reboot script, the final selection of David S. Goyer’s is still a disappointing misfire.

The most interesting aspect of Superman’s identity has always been the nature-nurture hue of his predicament as an alien being, human in appearance, who has spent all but his first few hours of life with Earthlings. The film’s main thematic trajectory is spurred on by this notion, but it never finds a firm foothold in the narrative. There is much deliberation about whether or not Clark Kent (a stiff and under-challenged Henry Cavill) should reveal himself to the world as a superhuman individual.

This conflict takes place through flashbacks, conversations with Ma and Pa Kent (the strongly performing Kevin Costner and Diane Lane), and the primary personal threat of supervillain General Zod (menacing but restrained Michael Shannon). Clark doesn’t know where he came from and who he should trust, and we get a solid sense of this inner dilemma throughout the film. But Man of Steel hinges itself around him choosing one world over the other, and it never satisfies the intrigue of its own proposition by having him do so. The closest we get is a tossed off line at the end of the film, following an oddly placed political joke about surveillance drones.

Snyder manages a surprisingly poised and visually poetic hand, making this his most successful work in terms of cinematic craft. He avoids slow-motion for once and tackles the chronologically complex origin story with a measured sense of ease that takes the form of even pacing and skillful camera movement. Coupled with Zimmer’s unceasing but highly affecting score, the film is undoubtedly a sensory treat. But like so many superhero movies before it, it descends into a final 30-minute dialogue-free battle royale. Laden with CGI and a disturbingly high body count that goes completely unmentioned, we’re forced to spend the last act of the film disengaging our prior moral and intellectual stimulation in order to be bludgeoned with video game-style action. (I fell asleep halfway through the sequence.)

While it is not an absolute failure, there’s not a whole lot that is satisfying about Man of Steel. It starts strong and returns to that form in fits and spurts, but it’s more attractive façade than gratifying storytelling; kind of like entering an elegant model home only to find barren walls and no furnishing. It wants us to be interested in a mysterious artifact referred to as the codex (a definite MacGuffin), expects us to be fine with its lazy love story, and presumes we will care about underdeveloped sketches of characters who have unknown or weak motives. It can’t make good on any of these aims, and a shiny veneer has never compensated for tarnished innards.

How do you make a film about someone’s life that is visually interesting when most of the story occurs in the past?

Stories We Tell was a very good film – it was never boring, and I never wondered when I’d actually see something other than a talking head. In fact, there was so much footage of the events being described that I started to wonder how she was able to get so much that was so specifically relevant to her film – how many hours of home movie footage did she have to sift through to find them? How many years did it take her to make this film? Turns out, I was right to be shocked at the relevance of her “home movie” footage. As she subtly reveals late in the film, Sarah used her skills as a director of fictional films to re-create the scenes her family describes in the interviews. Part of me felt cheated and tricked, but at the same time I was impressed at how well this was pulled off. If I hadn’t experienced the difficulty of telling a personal story that happened in the past, I don’t think I would have noticed the footage wasn’t real. No one else in the theatre seemed to notice until it was revealed onscreen.

As I was leaving, the two women who had been sitting near me were discussing how they felt about knowing the footage was fake. Out of everything that happened in the film, this is what they left the theatre talking about – which brings up more questions. Should a filmmaker fake archival footage to tell their story? If so, should they tell the audience? Is this really the best way to tell the story if it ends up being your audience’s first reaction as the credits roll?

What is the responsibility of the filmmaker when telling personal stories?

Sarah is telling an intensely personal story in this film. It is the story of her family, and I don’t think you can get more personal than the family issues tackled in this film – marriage, divorce, affairs, love, public scandal, depression. Her approach is to tell everyone’s version of the story. In this approach, there are some clear discrepancies in the story, but they ultimately give a clearer picture of what actually happened. At one point, Sarah and her siblings are convinced a certain actor friend of their mother is actually Sarah’s father. Upon interviewing the man, he is completely shocked that this was “common knowledge” in her family, and states there is no way this is possible. For several minutes of screen time, the audience thinks this is where the story is going – this man is Sarah’s biological father. Then in just a few seconds, the story is cleared up when the man closest to the actual events adds his version of the story. This gives us the basis for Sarah’s search for her biological father, the emotions and realities she and her siblings experienced, and, eventually, the facts of the situation.

While Sarah sticks to this approach of making sure everyone’s perspective is represented, toward the end of the film, there is shift that may or may not have been intentional. She states (and makes a pretty big point about) that the only way she was willing to tell the story of finding her biological father was if everyone involved was equally represented in the story – that each version of the story carried the same weight. This comes up while interviewing her biological father about his desire to publish the version of the story he wrote. He states that since he is the only person still living that was around for the actual event of Sarah’s conception, he should be the only one to tell the story. The existence of this film shows that Sarah won that argument. According to Sarah, this film gives everyone’s story equal weight. However, in watching the film, it is clear that Sarah and her father’s versions of the story carry the much more weight than others. The film is narrated by her father reading the version of the story he had put on paper. Her biological father is only present for a short amount of time, while Sarah, her father and her siblings are present throughout the entire film. It makes me wonder if this is just a byproduct of a conflict with her biological father over the method of telling the story or if this was intentional, and Sarah is making a statement about her right to tell the story. Whether intentional or not, Sarah seems to feel a responsibility to let each person present the story as they remember it rather than strictly focusing on the actual events.

Can you ever really tell the real story?

Truth is illusive when telling personal stories because there will always be bias. Stories We Tell acknowledges this bias, and takes an approach that strives to tell the whole story in pieces to compensate. It reminds me of that illustration about a blind guy trying to describe an elephant – he is only able to describe the part he can feel. Once everyone tells their piece of what they feel/see, a whole picture is created…also kinda like paint by numbers. That might have been a better analogy since I don’t actually remember the specifics about the describing an elephant thing….there may or may not have actually been a blind guy involved. Even though each version of the story contains bias and may be lacking information, piecing all versions together presents a clearer picture.

_______

Overall, this was a really good film. The story was compelling, and it opened up a lot of questions – I haven’t even touched on any of the things about human nature it made me question. That might come another day. I wish I could see it again and go sit at a coffee shop with the audience and pick their brains.

If you get a chance, go see Stories We Tell. You can check out the trailer here.

Among the DVDs that came out today is Jack the Giant Slayer from director Bryan Singer (X-Men, Superman Returns). This film modernizes the classic fairytale, Jack and the Beanstalk, turning the story from being about Jack stealing golden eggs from a giant’s house to a full scale war between humans and giants. It stars Nicholas Hoult (Beast in X-Men: First Class and R. in Warm Bodies) in the title role alongside Eleanor Tomlinson (who has played several roles all over Hollywood, including Young Sophie in The Illusionist) as Princess Isabelle. Ewan McGregor (Star Wars Episode I through III, Haywire) plays the supporting role of Elmont, the princess’ noble protector. Gathered around with the kids, I hit play.

The story starts out much like the fairytale. Jack is sent into town to buy a horse (though while he’s there he defends the princess’ honor without knowing it’s the princess) and comes back with beans. He is given specific instructions to not get the beans wet and that is exactly what happens while he is talking to the princess whom has recently run away. As the beanstalk grows it carries Jack’s house into the heavens with Isabella trapped inside. When the king and his men arrive, Jack volunteers to travel with Elmont and the other soldiers to rescue her. The only problem is that one of the men on this expedition has an ulterior motive. Using a magic crown made from the heart of a giant, he controls the giants and intends on using them to take over the world. Thus begins the war between human and giant.

Featuring a very fun and unique look at the beanstalk story and one of the best performances from McGregor since his portrayal of Obi-Wan, this movie has a lot going on for it. There are plenty of huge action sequences and special effects. The effects themselves are very well done, though I think some of the giants should have been actors on scaled sets instead of CG the whole way through. My biggest qualm with the film though is the sequence when Jack’s father is reading the legend of the giants to him. The sequences from the film were done completely in CG (even the people). While I have no problem with them doing these shots in animation, I think doing them in CG removes the audience from the medieval world Singer was trying to create. They would have been better done in flash styled animation using wood carving styled illustrations like one would find in a medieval book.

Originality: 3/5 – The film does an amazing job with creating an original look at Jack and the Beanstalk. However, there are several clichés throughout the movie (i.e. – commoner falls in love with prince/princess who is only allowed to marry nobility, yet they find a way around this).
Story: 5/5 – Very well written with a swift and evenly moving plot. The dialog is quite funny in places. Singer has done a very nice job in this area.
Performances: 5/5 – Again, love Ewan McGregor in this movie and Hoult is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors.
Special Effects: 4/5 – Great work in many areas, though I think the giants could have been a little better.
Repeat Viewing: 3/5 – I would watch this over again, but only if I had seen Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit more recently.

Score: 

If you are a fantasy or action/adventure films this is a definite buy. Otherwise, give it a rent and watch before you decide if you want to add it to your library or not.

Early this year, myself and a few friends had the privilege of attending a free pre-screening of The Place Beyond The Pines at the Angelika in Dallas (shout-out to http://www.dallasmoviescreenings.com). I’d been thinking about making a drama film for a while before that, but always thought of myself to be more of a horror movie kind of filmmaker. I’ve directed a few horror shorts, but after seeing Pines it gave me inspiration to go back to the little story I had in my head and see what I could do with it.

I loved the movie! I also love how the trailer gave away nothing while still getting the viewer intrigued. Too many movies (especially horror) give away too much in the trailer.  I’m glad I was able to see the movie before everyone else too because critics were giving away too much in their reviews. Going into Pines knowing very little made the experience that much better.

Anyways, after the screening and Q&A, I got to meet director Derek Cianfrance (Blue Valentine) and take a pic:

I was hoping Ryan Gosling or Bradley Cooper would surprise everyone by showing up unannounced, but as a film student and filmmaker, meeting directors is just as cool.

Weeks later, I won a contest that gave away a movie poster, “Ride Like Thunder, Crash Like Lightning” t-shirt and two tickets to see the movie again. So I can assume that Derek is signing my poster in this pic:

So cool! Back to writing that story..

Superman isn’t an easy movie to do.

Superman (Henry Cavill) is ready to save the world. For the record, I looked exactly the same way in my Superman duds last Halloween. (Man of Steel, Warner Bros. 2013)

The Last Son of Krypton doesn’t relate well to Earthlings. After all, it’s quite difficult to find common ground with someone who can crash through building, after building, after building, after building, afte — well, you get the idea — and emerge unscathed. For years, Superman movies have struggled to show an invincible person be vulnerable.

Man of Steel has less of struggle with that fact.

Director Zach Snyder (300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead), aided with the story written by the The Dark Knight Trilogy crew of Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, does a good job of showing audiences the more human side of being superhuman. Flashbacks throughout the film show a young Clark Kent struggling to hide his true self. The young Men’s Health cover-boy-to-be is warned time and time again from his caring adoptive Earth father, Jonathan — played superbly by Kevin Costner — that it is far safer to turn the other cheek to bullies, rather than risk revealing his other-worldliness to a society that may fear him more than revere him.

Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) consoles his adopted son, Clark (Dylan Sprayberry) after an indent with a crashed school bus nearly blows Clark’s cover as a normal human being. (Man of Steel, Warner Bros. 2013)

It was also wise of Snyder, Nolan and Goyer to show the struggle Clark experienced in dealing with his powers as they became more pronounced with age. In one flashback, we were shown a grade-school aged Clark sitting in a classroom unable to answer his history teacher’s question because his power-enhanced senses couldn’t shut out everything he was seeing and hearing. The slightest tap of a pencil boomed in his ears and in his mind. He could hear everything everyone was saying about him. It drove him so insane he ran out of his Kansas classroom and locked himself in another. Only the soothing voice of his loving mother, played earnestly by Diane Lane, could provide peace within his chaotic mind.

And that’s the strength of Man of Steel. 

The flashback moments provide a human element a God-like character like Superman can easily lack. It’s in these scenes we relate with Kal-El — a refugee from a destroyed world who uses the guidance from his adoptive Kansas parents to live with humans, instead of ruling them.

That’s not to say the film isn’t without its flaws.

Some plot-devices are a bit too convenient and blockbuster-y for the sake of being blockbuster-y. While the special effects are top-notch and the destruction these superhumans leave is impressive, some of it is overdone and should have been trimmed in editing. We get it… Superman and his enemies are extremely strong and powerful. We get it. We got it the first time one crashed through a building/truck/tank/jet/hardware store/another building/a bank vault/etc, and we sure as hell got it the third and 19th time.

Still, it’s the flashback scenes that balance the mountains of loud! and explosion! that any summer blockbuster demands. The scenes with his Kansas father will strike an emotional chord with anyone who has always seen his/her dad as Superman — just as Jonathan was Clark’s Superman first. Snyder is sure to show the same fatherly connection with his biological father Jor-El, played valiantly by Russell Crowe, who sees his infant son as a symbol of hope for peace and prosperity to any civilization that will have him.

Superman’s physical strength is impressive, but it’s his mental strength and dedication to his hard working, small-town Kansas values and upbringing that make him soar.

My score: 3.5 Jeff Goldblums (out of four)

By Jordan

Directed by Bryan Singer

Starring Nicholas Hoult, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Eleanor Tomlinson

Everybody knows the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, so even when the story is altered somewhat as is the case here, there is little point providing a plot summary. What I will say from the outset however is this: I flaming loved this movie!

Like the majority of the film-going public I went into Jack the Giant Slayer with very low expectations; actually disappointed that one of my favourite directors had resorted to churning out a family-friendly, cliché ridden disaster… I’m happy to report I was wrong. This is a film that does in fact play largely to conventions, but in such an energetic, feverishly entertaining way that I was more than happy to abandon any overly critical thoughts after the inventive introduction and be swept away in a grand adventure full of likable heroes, villainous monsters and stunning locations. I’m in no way suggesting this is Lord of the Rings, it’s a film that doesn’t aspire to be, but after recently viewing Oz the Great and Powerful it does suddenly seem worthy of 10 Oscars just for understanding the exhilarating aspects of the genre.

Not since The Princess Bride have I had this much fun watching mythical creatures be dispatched in a light-hearted manner.

The one glaring fault that must be mentioned is the often shoddy look and movements of the CGI giants; whilst they interact with the real environments well enough, problems arise whenever they need to display emotion (often anger), as their facial features aren’t as realistic as they need to be. This is a forgivable issue however, as there really is no other way to translate these characters to screen, and they are helped greatly by some quality voice work and distinct personalities. One giant in particular stood out as my favourite: an old, labouring chef who is tasked with cooking our helpless princess and Chief Guard Elmont – he is of course thwarted, but in his brief screen time provides a great laugh and lasting impact.

I am aware that it may seem I am being overly kind to a movie perhaps deserving of only pedestrian praise, and that the pleasure I felt in viewing it is due mainly to the element of surprise which for anyone reading this review has now been ruined, but I believe that a movie which aims for pure thrills and escapism and nails it squarely on the head is quite a rare thing at present, and I’m happy to lend my support.

Jack the Giant Slayer is big, bold, boisterous entertainment with an opening to the ignite the imagination and a wondrously large-scale third act to initiate applause. The 3D is clear and used to wonderful effect, the story engaging and each character cast perfectly.

4 out of 5 magic beans

For more info email us at ben@beattankproductions.com or visit http://www.beattankproductions.com.

An excellent essay by the always insightful, intelligent, and presumably handsome FilmCritHulk. I feel exactly the same way about Star Trek, Man of Steel, and the past season of Doctor Who.

Seven Psychopaths is a smart, funny and surprising film supported with a strong script and a fantastic, diverse cast.

Sam Rockwell is a long time favourite of mine, and this movie cements that love. His character is, without a doubt, the most interesting and fun character in the film.

Continually questioning and shattering the typical Hollywood story, Seven Psychopaths proves that sometimes Meta is Better. The road-trip into the desert is a real meta/comedic highlight.

“Epic…and yet too small”

It is a cliché, and I always feel trite and silly when I say this—the book was better.  The phrase rolls off the tongue too easily, so I would like to explain precisely why.  To get the ball rolling, I’m going to describe my own relationship to the novel/film phenomenon.

Since as far back as I can remember I have been both an avid reader and a film enthusiast.  I appreciate both mediums equally, but not interchangeably.  The two function differently, which is why I am often so forgiving of film adaptations.  I know that the film format requires significant alterations to be made to a story in order to utilize cinema’s strengths and avoid its weaknesses.

My appreciation of a film adaptation is greater if I have seen it before I’ve read a book because I can appreciate it on its own terms.   If, on the other hand, I’ve read the book first, I run the risk of being disappointed by the film.  Not because of what changes have been made, but because of what those changes imply; they draw attention to the mechanics of film, of how quickly and simply information must be imparted.  It makes film seem…well…cheap and shallow.

Cloud Atlas is a film that I greatly enjoyed.  I did sense, however, that the film was trying to give me too much information too quickly.  I felt, in my gut, that I was missing something important—that some crucial aspect had been lost during the process of adaptation.  I wanted to spend more time in each of the five distinct worlds of the story.  So, I sought out the source.

By juxtaposing five storylines that span several centuries and show how the actions of the participants echo throughout, both novel and film illustrate the inter-connectivity of our lives.  We see patterns of behaviour transcend the limits of time and space.  The core of the story is this—We affect others, and ultimately the future, in ways we cannot fully comprehend.  From the moment we are born, we have a great burden on our shoulders—we carry the weight of the past and pass it on to the future.

The film does not alter the plot significantly, but there is an important structural change—the framing device.  The film highlights the notion of reincarnation, and so relies heavily upon mysticism to suggest the inter-connectivity of our lives; whereas the novel allows the reader to discover the subtle and naturalistic echoes that occur between storylines.  Reincarnation is mentioned, but not as a major framing device.  The novel has a decidedly self-aware quality.  It references its own devices, and draws attention to itself as a story.  The novel is very much about the telling of stories, it illustrates their importance to us as individuals and in our shared history.  Narrative is hardwired into us, and Cloud Atlas shows us the many forms it takes—belief systems, culture, law, evolution… Our human experience is a narrative.

The philosophical underpinning of the novel is diluted in favour of exciting Matrix-esque action sequences. These sequences are exceptionally well executed and the film as a whole is beautiful and breathtaking, but the visceral thrill is short-lived. It’s fun to ride a roller-coaster, but once the adrenaline has stopped coursing through my veins, there isn’t much to take home with me except a memory that will fade.  But spark my imagination with an insight into the world and my place in it, and suddenly I’m reshaping my own reality.

Cloud Atlas is exciting, poignant and thoughtful, but it could have been so much more if it had allowed itself to be as examining and meditative as the novel that inspired it.  Despite its epic sweep and stunning production values, the film just seems… too small.

Cloud Atlas  (2012)

Directed by:   Tom Tykwer,  Lana Wachowski and Andy Wachowski

Written by:  Tom Tykwer,  Lana Wachowski and Andy Wachowski  (screenplay)

David Mitchell  (novel)

Starring:   Tom Hanks,   Halle Berry,   Jim Broadbent

To start with, let me just admit I am a massive fan of anything related to DC or Marvel Comics…well usually, we all know there’s been some flops in the cinema world where superheroes are concerned. I won’t point out the obvious here either, yes Henry Cavill is a particularly stunning specimen but that’s not why you need to see this film. 

The 2006 relaunch under the eye of Bryan Singer, didn’t really do anything for me. It’s had enough ridicule by now though, so I won’t prattle on, it was just that it had me going into the cinema sceptical that Superman’s reputation could be salvaged. I’m happy to say I was pleasantly surprised.

A single mild criticism I may have is that the story being told in this film is almost too big. On the one hand it’s a touching epic about the destruction of an entire world and a baby growing into a troubled an alienated young man desperate to ‘belong’ and ultimately discovering his destiny. Whilst on the other hand it’s an action packed tale of war and the battle between the survival of an extinct race and the fate of the planet Earth. 
I personally would have been happy to spend more time watching Kal-El discovering himself and growing into the role of that famous God-like figure defending humanity and ensuring justice is done. However, our man in tights barely has the chance to straighten his cape before there are a whole hoard of Kryptonians acting like they own the place and actually diminishing some of what it is that makes Superman so uniquely special and awe inspiring. 

I digress, although the two interwoven story lines seem hard pushed to condense into one film I enjoyed it immensely. Cavill’s portryal of immense strength but at the same time a sense of loneliness and vulnerability really allow to the audience to get close to Superman. He’s not an all knowing, revered and respected figure of authority so much as he is a friend, a genuine warrior for what is right, a proper and true hero. 

He has probably the most extraordinary powers and the highest sense of morality of all the Superheroes we know and love. He doesn’t have to ‘serve’ the human race by defending them and he makes this clear, he helps because he wants to and he’s more than capable. 

The battle between the archaic ideals of former leader General Zod and pure sense of humanity of Superman make for a gripping opposition. It is obvious that Zod will meet his demise almost instantly, and any setbacks only produce mild worry as a viewer, you really do hold all your faith in Superman, as you would expect from the hero that has it all. 
The romance between Lois Lane and Clark Kent is subtle, although Amy Adams would probably not have been my first choice for such a role she plays it well and the relationship is believable and touching. 

I don’t want to comment on every single aspect of this film I just wanted to say something. I felt I had to, it’s been the hit it was expected to be and I’m not one to automatically move with the masses but this is different. Man of Steel is a strong comeback for Superman and I for one welcome him back to his place among the top ranks of heroes. 

Timothy’s teeth-clenching pseudo-Kirk Douglas delivery really gets a workout here. Keep your eyes open also for a fleeting appearance by the supremely creepy Reggie Nalder. As we all know, Tim and Gazzara met up again in The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976).