Toy Story 3 Review - Oh yes!

After being away on holiday to picturesque tat-central of the world Turkey, for a few weeks I have finally seen 'Toy Story 3', I suspected based on Pixar's track record that as reviews had said, it was brilliant, well I'd like to had to that and say, it's even better, it's absolutely brilliant, in fact bar 2 minor niggles, I would say it was perfect.

The niggles: I must confess I do not remember the previous 2 films in the franchise well (other than, I enjoyed them and they're fantastic) but I do remember the villain from the previous one was Stinky Pete, an old timer, and although Lotso(hugginbear) villain in 'TS3' had a different background and look and scheme he did remind me a little too much of him, with walking stick-an'-all. Secondly there is a sequence (of just a few seconds that plays a role in the plot to be fair) where there is a dressing up montage, which to me, seemed out of place and below Pixar. There, I did say they were minor.

Remember back when Pixar started, and they said they wanted to advance animated films (both in terms of genre conventions and depth, but also technology wise) and make great films for everybody. They have continually topped themselves and grown more mature, with always great films. Take their last offering 'Up'. I think it is somewhat overrated, but undeniably great and achieved a new level of emotion from animation and such thematic maturity (it's about getting old!); 'Toy Story 3' really takes this to a new level, and what better characters to do it with then go back to their first film with that beautiful ensemble (that once again all somehow get equal love, even among new characters...my favourite 2 are Ham, and Rex by the way), which we know and love. This is definitely the swansong for these characters, there is a great sense of threat actually, it's intense, the suspense and drama and all the excitement and emotion is cranked to 11. Thematically the movie manages to cover loss of innocence, coming-of-age, getting old, death and the afterlife...and the value of relationships in life (particularly the fascinating relationship between an owner and his toy, a sacred bond), all in its 103 minute running time. It's a lot to get through, and the film is never, boring.

So I covered how deep it is, covered how it advances the genre, covered how emotional it is, covered how well the whole feel throughout the film is, say goodbye to these characters; the whole film is very dense and poetic, a definite work of art. What I haven't said but really goes without saying is how funny it is all along the way, with great but toned down post-modern reference humour. Even better than 'Shrek' with its charming world scattered full of genius ideas. That stuff goes without saying...the film of course hits its mark...to the point of "infinity and beyond", and I'm sure Pixar are the only people truly doing family films these days. Usually we get kids films with some jokes adults will get but kids not likely, or adults films completely, but Pixar have so many layers to their films (the message in here of growing up and putting away childish things is for the adults, the kids are not that old yet), and the humour is funny for everyone, not some for kids, then some for adults. Brilliant.

Now obviously I'm not going to ramble about every little thing, like in such and such a scene the colour scheme evokes X and the music here evokes Y but suffice to say, the movie in every scene is do detailed and carefully crafted, what I will say, that deserves a special mention...is the 3D. This is the first movie I have seen where I was not bothered about the 3D...in the midst of the all round engaging experience of the film, I totally missed all the things that normally bother me about the 3D (most notably the glasses in my peripheral vision disappeared as I could only see this beautiful thing unfold before me in a sort of tunnel-vision). I appreciated the depth of the detailed and colourful picture throughout, and I actually enjoyed the subtle things 3D brought to the table, but almost instantly I had forgotten the 3D was there, thinking back to the picture, I see the 3D element and like it, but the negative points of 3D were just carried away...incredible. I stand by my view on 3D for now, but if it can be used sparingly and to this good-effect then I can accept 3D...hopefully when this silly craze is over, and it will stop being used just for the sake of it, it will just be another tool at a film makers disposal that may or may not be used.

I'm always hesitant to say "perfect", I don't really know what a "perfect movie" would be, but, technically, it should be, faultless, and that's very nearly what 'TS3' is...said niggles aside I would call it perfect. It's the best threequel I can think of. It's the perfect end to the trilogy. It's the evolution of 'Toy Story', it's the evolution of animated films, and once again the evolution of Pixar.

Inception Review

Yeah I had high hopes for this film. Even when minimising my hype, the expectation had been expecting it to be my favourite film of the year ('Kick-Ass' at number 1 and 'A Single Man' at 2, so far). Well I've held off till I've seen the film twice due to the first viewing being focused on the narrative and a 2nd needed to look deeper. My favourite film of the last decade was probably 'The Dark Knight' ((closely followed by 'No Country for Old Men'). Combine this, the fact that Nolan has never done a bad film, and the things I'd heard about 'Inception' (both positive reviews and the fact that it is apparently an art film wrapped in a Hollywood blockbuster - once again the best of both worlds, like 'TDK' - with surrealism, psychology, lush cinematography, a great cast, and epic soundtrack), and you can see why I was excited. Well there's no point in holding it back any longer...I did greatly enjoy it, and I think it's one of the best films of recent years, however I wouldn't say it was a perfect masterpiece and inferior to 'The Dark Knight'. Favourite film of the year...quite possibly, at least a tie.

Let us again, start with the negative. With such a complex narrative, some of the emotional resonance and thematic depth is lost. It is somewhat lacking in that department compared to 'TDK'. It's there, but it doesn't go all the way. That's a fairly big issue, if it was an out of 10, scenario, it would knock it down a 1.5/2 points for me; so we're looking at 8.5/10...because that is really, it. That is all I could complain about.

The film successfully challenges its audience just enough without ever losing them, creating a genuinely original, twisty, psychological action thriller. Oh I suppose, you might complain about that, it's big on the psychological thriller but there aren't many action scenes for 2 hours 20 minutes if that's what you want (although action fans should still see it for having an anti-grav fist fight resulting in a unique jaw-dropping scene that ranks as one of the greatest in cinema history). It is best described as psychological crime thriller. There are many heist movie conventions that are really well done, and hold the film together so that the heavy sci-fi dream concepts don't alienate the audience. Things are all well explained without seeming dull and expository.

The film actually feels almost Hollywood-esque with its pacing: building beautifully and becoming more and more complex (it doesn't dissapoint in Nolan's rep for complex narratives, with dreams within dreams, within dreams, within dreams, and flashbacks, etc.) as the film reaches its natural climax and genius ending without ever feeling formulaic.

The cast is great all round...and all have their time to shine. I have a particularly soft spot for Ellen Page who I always find a joy and never fails to impress, and this holds up here as the audiences stand in as the newcomer and the (amazing job of) the architect, she's gets some of the funniest stuff too. Also Marion Cotillard is downright scary but also tied in with the pathos, all while being a bond girl anti-heroine type, it's an impossible tri-part, played wonderfully.

I don't want to say too much but Nolan does it again, with that epic Dark Knight look and feel but really being more in the vein of 'The Prestige' (but better). The movie is best described as a mash-up between 'Heat' and 'The Matrix'. It'll feel familiar yet new...Nolan walks another tightrope. It's a great and original psychological thriller with few but brilliant action scenes, and somewhat lacking in emotional and thematic depth but a marvellous mind stimulant. Yeah I loved it, and look forward to seeing it a 3rd time.

Predators Review

This film only had to deliver an action film with mindless fun featuring many of the badass honourable hunters from space. It does that...and more.

This film was a treat. I went in hearing good but not great reviews, but I thought it really was impressive, a pleasant surprise, and was an absolute joy from start to finish.

Let's start with the negative (I am a pessimist after all): I thought the direction (while competent, and directed the action with, thankfully, comprehensible editing and lighting) could have been more adventurous and stylish, but it was fairly standard Hollywood fair, which is fine, and successfully absorbed me for most of the film; I did get taken out of the film by all the (overused) allusions to the original 'Predator', right from the first scene, I feared that the film would be a list of references, it doesn't go that far, but it is a bit much; the CGI is poor, but thankfully minimalistic in the film, giving way to latex suits, animatronics, fake blood, etc.; I was dissapointed by the fact that the ending is left open, likely setting up a sequel which would likely try to do more of the same thing this film does, missing the point that sequels need to be different; also they could have done more with the themes, it didn't quite go the final mile with it.

Right that's it then, let's get on with the praise.

The film builds with the first act being very suspenseful and bravely holds back on revealing the creatures (effective for fans, and would really be effective for people who aren't familiar with the creature design; which by the way, is really, really nice, bringing new fear and badassery to the predators, really surprised and impressed by it...I digress), this actually works really well and builds to a natural climax. The action scenes get bigger as the film goes on, and the suspense makes the action all the better when it comes.

While the idea of making a sequel bigger (more explosions, creatures, etc.) is unoriginal, it never feels formulaic. The action is comprehensible unlike the previous Predator's movie appearance (the dreadful 'Aliens vs Predator: Requiem' with the worst lighting and editing I can think of) and is really sit up, exciting.

In 'Predator' all the cast and characters were well defined (even if they were archetypes like, the black one, and the red indian) and likewise here, even more so, the performances across the board are great with Brody giving the lead a dark and more downplayed edge (in fact he's definitely an anti-hero, probably leaning more toward antagonistic...which is brave). There's no time to examine all characters greatly, but they're all played to top notch and make enjoyable, distinguished performances. All the characters have their moment to shine and while don't make one feel great sympathy for them on death, you do feel a bit, "ah, I liked him". I did have a favourite character having said which I did feel more for, the dark comic relief that is Topher Grace (who I hadn't really seen before, didn't appreciate at least when he was short changed with a shoddy run time as Venom in 'Spider-man 3').

The themes: the film didn't have to have any depth, it could have been mindless, but no...it studies humanity vs survival and how it's a give and take issue. One of my slight disappointments with the film, is that the themes didn't go the final mile with it, but I give it kudos for having any depth, and in fact tackling a different issue to the usual stuff like morality (which is always good like).

Lastly the individual points should include: the look of the film, particularly in Noland's hideout when the film reveals orange lights when I realised, that the colour scheme is the same as the original. The predator franchise colour scheme is green and orange, and they had that. The music from the original is in place (a welcome return), and things like the flares in the dark (but deliberate and comprehensible darkness) tunnels evoke 'alien'; all in all the film looks and feels more like the great original 'Predator' and 'Alien' films more than 'Predator 2' or either of the 'AVP' films ever did.

In summary: this is not a cash in heartless sequel trying to repeat the original formula poorly for the money. 'Predator 2' replaced the jungle for the city, and Arnie for Danny Glover with cops and gangs instead of mercenaries and soldiers...but this is different. It is a rare case of a true sequel...not made for the money....but revealed more of the predator civilisation instead and told a story that deserved to be told. It adds to the original film experience. It develops the Predator franchise instead of milking what was. What more could you want from a sequel?

Possibly on par with the original...this is how a sequel should be done!

Shrek 4 Review

Shrek Four, Shrek For...ever after, Shrek for...fucks sake.

Another cash in sequel seeing further deterioration of the experience once so great. The Shrek world is still enchanting, with little gem ideas like the pied piper being a bounty hunter but remember this film is a family comedy...and in that, it fails.

'Shrek' was a great film. Promising a family comedy, it charmed everyone with its world and alternative take on fairy tale characters (which admittedly I still love), and made the whole family laugh from start to finish. 'Shrek 2' was marginally inferior, but still great and pretty much saw start to finish laughter for all. 'Shrek 3' was strictly OK but the franchise was definitely stale then, it was dead and had overstayed its welcome, with little laughter. 'Shrek 4' is now the decomposing corpse of a once great franchise. Now I must give it credit for giving the kids the occasional laugh and on a personal level I enjoy the 'It's a Wonderful Life' plot (with a pretty damn good villain), but I did not laugh once!

Alas, poor Shrek! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow

of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath
borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how
abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rims at
it. Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know
not how oft. Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let
her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must
come; make her laugh at that.

Yeah I think the bard said it best.

I comedy that only gave even young ones a few laughs, is not really recommendable. If I were to give it a score (which I rarely do), it would be a 4 out of 10.

Raoul Moat & The News

I don't when or where you are reading this, but as I'm writing (July 7th 2010, North-East of England) a man called Raoul Moat is the most wanted man in the country, the nation is on full alert and the news is giving constant updates on the 'manhunt'. Apparently he got a bit annoyed and shot someone, understandable, but it's the way the news is going on about it that's starting to get up my nose. So, a rant is what we're all here for, so let's begin:

Bloody overblown nonsense on Raoul Moat. He doesn't exactly come across as the master criminal, but no, let's ask butchers, and bakers and other people that know nothing for the same reaction to the whole thing. Do they even know how he got the gun and how much ammo he has left? That would be useful information, wouldn't it?!

It's just to drive up the fear in people by taking it really seriously, blow it out of proportion, really dramatic news interfaces, ignore what experts have to say, because the news is about real people, so we talk to them. You're obviously not gonna get any great insight out of them. Let's ask a butcher: what do you think? Hmm, well I think we're just trying to get on really but it's not normal is it, we're a bit scared. (I wonder why that is, sky news, is it because you put the fear of god into people with your mile long line of SMG wielding armoured tribesmen searching for one man with handgun, presuming he's still got it, and presuming it's still got ammo.)

They've got everything they need and more.

Moat just got stressed, lost control, did an impulsive thing and ran, it's not like he covered his tracks, and they're looking for leads or he's already left the country or anything. Come on he's not bloody Hannibal Lector is he!

And it's no wonder that so many people just have the news on in the background, the picture's often bloody useless, some ugly bugger talking, or people standing around holding guns, looking like it's all very naughty what this bloke's been up to and that we all need to stand around getting angry about him, and get scared and stay indoors, even if you live miles away from the area he has to be. At best, you'll get updates that they've found a colleague of his that they're bringing in for questioning, then you'll get blurry, shaky footage taken from a distance, of a SWAT team escorting the man (that we can barely see anyway) with a pixelated out face. You may as well have shown us the latest poo known to have been had by the honourable Mr Moat, because it's just as interesting.

If I was a real criminal, I'd be thinking now's a good time to get up to various acts of naughtiness now they're all distracted, in fact watching the news is making ME so angry, I might just bloody do that.

Why 'Jennifer's Body' is Underrated

When I first saw this film, it was in a relatively small and empty screen near the end of its short multiplex run...immediately after the finish I thought it was some of the most fun I’ve had in the cinema in a long time, and harshly treated by critics. Some few hours later, I was still thinking about it, then the next morning I was still thinking about it, I came to realise I enjoyed the movie even more than I thought initially; the more I festered on it the more I found I liked about it.

Most importantly, surprisingly and standout for me is the direction of the film. Some may find it over-stylised but for me that is just the film shouting out that it’s different and should be treated as such, that the film deserves another look and vitally, that look should be under the hood. This is not style over substance as it is: style...and then substance. Just look at sequences like the prom scene, where primary colours are used to contrast with the ‘meanwhile’ shots of Chip being seduced, as it is washed out in brown and grey, the slow motion dissection of Seyfried’s thought process as she puts two-and-two-together, and the significance of the re-occurrence of the ‘Through the Trees’ slipping from diegetic into non-diegetic sound as Seyfried races through the trees quite literally, but more so her despair, in a dire attempt to save her boyfriend.

Likewise the performances ask more and receive more from Seyfried and Fox than one could reasonably expect. It’s fitting that Fox should be going from being so objectified in ‘Transformers’ to twisting the role of the cheerleader in a horror movie feminist style. Fox has way more to do here than in ‘Transformers’: she pulls off dead-pan humour, the racy hyper-real dialogue, and the sexually angst-based horror, relentlessly driving at a castration complex (among other things), even if she’s too inexperienced to really have an image (or type) to play against. Seyfried has even more to do: she has a bum-deal here, sidelined by Fox (in publicity and reviews), despite being the narrator and protagonist, her experience lies in TV (‘Big Love’) and singing (very successfully) in ‘Mamma Mia’; here she proves she can carry a picture even in the face of a more popular star like Fox.

Another thing is the snappy, quotable dialogue. Cody has clearly already developed her own style of writing that is standout if not all that believable (some have said that teenagers do not talk like they do through the pen of Cody...no kidding. They may all talk the same; this is a fault of her ability to write character, but a plus in her skill-set for dialogue). Speaking of the script, of course it can’t be ignored that a large amount of the appeal lies in its originality and deliberated feminist subversion of gender theory: so plot, we have a killer loose on a high school campus, archetypes galore, guess whodunit...now guess again. It really makes one anticipate Cody’s next film, what genre will she push her own version of next...she’s becoming the next Tarantino: recognisable dialogue voice and the fact that when you see a Tarantino film you know you’re in for a new take on a genre...or a post-modern summary at least. Back to that plot: it’s really nicely bookended, with a prologue presented through stills and diegetic cameras during the credits. It’s quirky: those little things like the devil’s kettle’s little abyss makes it memorable. The town feels lived in by presenting archetypes (which are of course later twisted), the voice-over narration helps this as it is always giving insight into the town such as the ‘Melody Lane’ club (or is it a bar?) being the only watering hole in the place; complete with its own local recipe drinks. There’s a typical indie soundtrack that ties in with the plot, blurring the film and the film making process...this leads to postmodernism.

The film features an inter-textuality with nods (mainly through cameo casting) to other genre pictures and Cody’s previous work: the rightfully acclaimed ‘Juno’. This postmodernist undercurrent gives an entry point into approaching the film as an intellectual work, on the nature of cinema and the theory behind the conventions of its genre specifically - and it is an intellectual work. One gets the impression that Cody will run all her work through with feminist fighting; she herself has quickly become a filmic feminist poster girl, going from stripper to Oscar-winning screenwriter with one screenplay.

Overall it should be said: the plot concerns a flesh-eating cheerleader...played by Megan Fox...it is so much smarter than it has to be. It’s so much better than it is has to be, yet it seems to have flown more or less under the radar and received mixed reviews: the film seems harshly done to. Could it really be because of the outspoken aspect of it, unlikely, it’s ridiculous to paint modern critics as narrow-minded misogynists, but seriously were they watching the same film...I can’t help but feel like people hear the plot and cast, then switch off completely. I’d have to say ‘Jennifer’s Body’ could easily go the way of the cult film: open to mixed-to-poor reviews, small fan base only, often a genre film, then ten years later, huge following! Ten years? Only time will tell.

Why 3D is a sign of the Apocalypse

So by now you’ll all have seen that the dreaded 3^rd dimension as infected all of Hollywood, with movies been translated in post-production (the new ‘Clash of the Titans’ for example), modern works on the horizon (the final Harry Potter films to be shot in 3D), and even old films being transferred (‘Star Wars’), so yeah thanks for that Cameron. Well I blame Cameron, but he’s not all to blame for this plague (and it is a plague, though you may not see it yet), so with pessimism cranked to 11, let’s just take a look at why “3D is a sign of the apocalypse”.

I hate 3D movies because: 3D was around in the 1980s and died out because it was the reserve of bad sequels such as 'Jaws 3D' and 'Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare' (a.k.a 'Nightmare on Elm Street 6'), though is these days used on good movies; 3D often seems tacked on, a gimmick that achieves nothing (a prime example being 'Alice in Wonderland'), the main reason the studios are throwing it onto all it's big movies is because it's a lot harder to pirate 3D movies; the apparent extra immersion and engagement in the film fails (actually takes me out of the experience) because (a) the glasses are so huge the frame inevitably lies in your peripheral vision, and so your eyes are trying to focus on the glasses and the screen at the same time so (it's defocusing your eyes - permanent damage and) blurring the picture, it is also anti-engaging because (b) you notice that it is 3D, pointy-pointy-on-your-my-head-annoity-noitty, and so are thinking about it being 3D and not being absorbed into the film (exceptions include when it is more subtle, in which case...why do it in 3D then...or using it for depth of field, as used in 'Avatar'...but one can get camera lenses that can put everything in focus anyway, it's been possible since 'Citizen Kane' in 1941 so 3D is not needed there either); if one is using the classic red/blue glasses then all the colours are ruined by red and blue tint, if one is using the new 'real 3D' glasses then the dark lenses mean a 30% colour loss; another thing is that the 3D is hyped to be such a spectacular selling point that (like the 1980s again) people are using it as an exception to things like a good script, so if people follow suit then writing will get gradually worse, films get stupider, audiences get stupider. So in summary: at best, it fails to do what it sets out to (engage the audience so you don't know you're watching a film, which can be achieved, as it is in the past, a crazy idea...make a good movie), at worst...it's the end of the world.