By now, for most of you, the cat is out of the bag. Ridley Scott’s long-awaited return to sci-fi has well and truly landed and has thus far split critics and fans right down the middle. To be fair to Scott, I’m fairly sure that this reaction is exactly what he expected, and more to the point, what he had hoped for. There are always going to be haters. Some people even seem to like to hate, because it makes them seem cool, or whatever. Hell, I can almost guarantee that when ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ drops in six weeks time, the first people to turn their noses up at it will be the relentless Nolanophiles who have deconstructed every pixel of every photograph on every website. As discussed in my previous blog regarding ‘Prometheus’, the most anticipated blockbusters are becoming more and more succeptable to an almost unrealistic standard of expectation. While ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ will find it easier to tick people’s boxes for the simple reason that it is the ‘epic conclusion’ to a franchise that is only seven years old, the public reaction (so far) to ‘Prometheus’ can be partially attributed to the fact that this is Scott’s first venture into sci-fi since 1982. Let it be known, I am in no way using that fact as an excuse for anything. In fact, the last thing I want is for this piece to come across as defensive. I’m very much of the mind that the film does just fine speaking for itself.

See? I managed to write an entire introductory paragraph without mentioning ‘Alien’ once. Not so hard, is it? This ‘prequel’ preconception that critics have driven themselves mad over has turned out to be without a doubt the single most detrimental attitude you could possibly take into your first screening of this film. If you are in some way able to block it out of your mindset for two hours, you are guaranteed an incredible journey. It’s almost that simple.

Unfortunately, almost everyone involved with the making and the marketing of this film is responsible for this unnecessary bloodlined attachment to Scott’s ‘Alien’. Don’t get me wrong, it’s true, the film does ‘share DNA with Alien’, as Ridley Scott himself has repeatedly put it. And although that particular line has up until this point sounded simply like some sort of artsy cop-out, having watched the film twice in 24 hours, it could not be a more true, sensical statement. I only wish that if they had been 100% committed to the film being viewed as a standalone piece, perhaps they might have eased off on the trailer/featurette/overall marketing angle. But hey, at the end of the day, you want to sell as many tickets as possible. We would have to be fools not to understand that. Especially when you consider how much box office take 20th Century Fox will have sacrificed by allowing Scott to release the film as a 15/R.

Negative as many may be having had the secrets of ‘Prometheus’ revealed to them, it is important to recognise that positive or negative, the narrative content of the film is a massive talking point. Sparking debate is a dream come true for any filmmaker, and ‘Prometheus’ has certainly done that in the few days since it’s international release. As it is not released in the US until Friday, we will have to wait until then to discover just how much of a summer box office juggernaut the film will prove to be. Could the internationally negative word of mouth spread to the US in time to affect flock numbers? Time will tell.

Critics opinions and statistics aside, underneath it all is an incredibly thoughtful science fiction narrative. Save for a few choice moments of underwhelming dialogue (mostly delivered by Charlize Theron’s Vickers), ‘Prometheus‘ is solidly written. Now, before you throw your chips at your screen and start yelling, ‘are you kidding me?!’, I am aware that this statement may come as a shock to those of you who have seen it. If you haven’t seen it, I would recommend you stop reading now. My definition of ‘writing‘ in the case of ‘Prometheus‘ has to do entirely with the narrative content of the film rather than the actual dialogue. And though the narrative structure is admittedly flawed, it succeeds in its messiness by asking five times as many questions as it answers. Through it’s flaws, what is actually contained and presented in the film is about as mouthwatering as it gets.

‘Since when did leaving things open for interpretation and debate make a film dissatisfying?’

- Simon Pegg, June 2012

From the opening aerial shots that soar over vast landscapes, ‘Prometheus’ is jaw-droppingly epic in its overall scope, not only in terms of direction and cinematography, but in its ideas. The pre-title sequence is noticeably Kubrickian, inclusive of everything from a rising earth to the kickstarting of human intelligence by an unknown alien superior, and the rest of the film, thematically, follows suit though it never quite defines itself in the way that you would expect. What was defining about films like ‘2001’, ‘Alien’ and ‘Blade Runner’ had a lot to do with the era during which it was made. It is becoming increasingly difficult to impress in a market dominated by astonishing visual effects, so to compensate for the public’s new found numbness to what they are seeing (I’m casting eyes at you, ‘Battleship’), filmmakers (and more specifically, screenwriters) are under more pressure than ever to tell a story that counts for something other than thrills and spills. Luckily for Ridley Scott, he had a head start having helmed two of the most original sci-fi films ever made. The question on everyone’s minds leading up to the release of ‘Prometheus’ was, would Scott be able to harness the power of his younger self and set a brand new benchmark for a genre he is massively responsible for, especially in terms of helping to drive into the 21st century.

Though many, many critics (as well as a lot of my peers) will disagree with me, I think ‘Prometheus’ has accomplished a lot more than it is currently being given credit for. In my opinion, there have only been an handful of outstanding science fiction films since the turn of the century. If for arguement’s sake, we say that those films are ‘A.I. Artificial Intelligence’, ‘Solaris’, ‘Children of Men’, ‘The Fountain’, ‘Sunshine’, and ‘District 9’, ‘Moon’ and ‘Star Trek’, when you then throw ‘Prometheus’ in to the mix considering themes, conventions and visual spectacle, it becomes more difficult than you might think to not put it at the top, if only for it’s loose ties to ‘Alien’ which (let’s be honest) make it all the more enjoyable. To have that cult familiarity already attached, and to know the questions you want answered before you’ve even really got any knowledge of the film’s plot is undeniably exciting.

As far as the early criticisms go, they seem to mainly revolve around the fact that we don’t get the answers that we seek, and in fact, the film asks five times as many questions as it answers. But doesn’t that mean that as viewers, we are sharing the same frustration that Shaw and Holloway encountered when they first arrived on LV-223? And if that is the case, how can one deny connection to the characters?

While connection to the characters is surprisingly limited, I don’t recognise this as as much of a flaw as an overlooked necessity. ‘Prometheus’ is a film that is about the origins of mankind, the birth of humanity, the idea that the human condition is the experimental spawn of a superior (in every way) race of humanoids from halfway across the universe. If you feel like you need to be disappointed with the depth of character attached to the ship’s captain (who self admits ‘I just drive the ship’) or the Weyland fat cat who is questioned as to whether or not she is a robot, I’m afraid you might be missing the point slightly. These characters are not important, and should be viewed as vessels for supporting and then driving the overall narrative forward. If they happen to die in the process, and you find yourself feeling like you don’t care, don’t be dismayed. The universe didn’t shed a tear either. These characters died alone, half a billion miles from anyone who cares for them. The fact that the viewer is left feeling nothing for them is representative of the bigger picture that ‘Prometheus’ attempts to frame for us. Are any of them really that different from say, Lambert, Brett or Parker?

That being said, the film revolves around two characters on which it fully depends (well, three if you count the engineers). Shaw and David represent everything that is necessary for the story to proceed and to succeed. Shaw, her ability to reproduce, her intimidating intelligence (doctorates in paleontology, archeology, human mythology and metics), and the fact that she is a woman of faith means that she is perfect candidate for representing the entire human form. David, on the other end of the spectrum as a David 8 cybernetic individual, represents the furthest advancement of human technology. If we are to consider them in that particular semiotic form, then the other 15 members of Prometheus’ crew begin to feel even more defunct.

If we first consider the latter, David is integral to the story for a variety of reasons. The most intriguing being his questionable decision making process and his apparent eagerness to withhold information from the crew members he is allegedly on board to serve. As a servant, he doesn’t half take liberties as far as jeopardising the safety of his human colleagues. Whether it be pressing buttons, opening doors without any way of knowing what harm could potentially lie beyond, or plunging needle-based sedatives into people’s arms and legs, David’s agenda is initially hard to place. That is, until you start to view him as sort of very capable and helpful Frankenstein’s monster. And who is Frankenstein in the case of ‘Prometheus’? None other than Peter Weyland himself, a man driven by arrogance and the quest for (what else?) immortality. Once we can start to understand Weyland as David’s ‘master’, the choices David makes over the course of the film start to make a lot more sense.

David happily obliges his colleages, but he operates entirely on a need to know basis. Having been programmed by Weyland, it is for this reason that we often perceive him to be following his own agendas, specifically in the crew’s first visit to the pyramid and then later when he explores the pilot room. Most interesting though, is the way that he goes about infecting Dr. Holloway. This is something he has been instructed to do by Weyland himself. But why? The simple answer is, Weyland wanted to move things along after their initial discoveries yielded no lifeforms.

The bigger question regarding Holloway’s infection is, how did David know that the black matter would result in an effect on Holloway that would enable him to impregnate the infertile Shaw with whom he was known to be intimate? Without reading further into it than we need to, he didn’t? ‘Prometheus’ very much deals with the theme of faith, and when instructed by Weyland to ‘try harder’ (as in, any type of lifeform will do), David took it upon himself to take that particular leap. He had no idea what would happen should he successfully infect Holloway, nor if dropping the black matter in his drink would ‘infect’ him at all. But being the calculated being he is, one can only assume that the route he decided to take on the back of Weyland’s command was mathematically the most likely to produce any sort of result considering the limited resources to hand. And to be fair, he gave Holloway the chance to opt out. When asked how far he would go to get the answers he sought, Holloway replied that he would do ‘anything and everything’. If you’re going to give answers that generalised to a very much goal-oriented synthetic, he’s going to assume self-sacrifice is included.

The fact that Shaw was able to become pregnant is admittedly somewhat questionable but only if you’re approaching it in a logical sense. In the words of Doctor Emmett Brown, ‘you’re not thinking fourth dimensionally!’. This is sci-fi by one of the forefathers of sci-fi. No one should be shocked and shaken if an infertile woman is magically pregnant with a ‘non-traditional fetus’. I for one thought it was a fantastic reveal, and really highlighted the power of this mysterious, biological black matter. I mean, hell, Kane was able to develop a fetus and he was a damn man! You don’t hear many people picking holes in that!

What follows is an intense sequence involving a auto-surgery machine that is classic Scott. Out of nowhere, I found myself clutching my fists tight and squirming in my seat for the entirety of a scene that epitomises sci-fi horror.

Keeping with the theories surrounding the black matter, through the transformation and eventual death of Fifield, we learn that should one make direct contact with the black matter, you become an extremely hard to kill, superstrong menace. So far, we know that direct contact and ingestion produce unfavourable transformations, but with what intention? Well, the conclusion that Prometheus’ crew lands on is that our ‘engineers’ were testing it as a biological weapon of sorts. A weapon that essentially ‘weaponises’ any organic life it comes into contact with. What appeared to be simple earthworms mutated into angry cobra-like worms upon contact, Fifield became a raging killing machine, and finally (and perhaps most shockingly) Holloway’s sperm. The latter producing a cesarian-born squid-hugger that eventually impregnantes the surviving engineer. The results of which are the most familiar sight in the entire film.

If you choose to break it down further, it could well be that the black matter is an evolutionary elixir with no less than three underlining properties: a) when ingested by a complex organism (the sacrificial engineer from the opening scene/Holloway), the organism breaks down into primordial material that can then reproduce through cell division to be ingested by simple organisms, b) when ingested by simple organisms, the organism mutates exponentially resulting in a kind of accelerated evolution (Cambrian life on earth etc, cobra-worms), and c) when coming into contact with dead cells/organisms, the result is re-animation (Shaw’s womb/dead Fifield).

Janek points out that they were clever enough to test their weapons far from home, and with good reason judging by the results that we see. My question though, is why they were experimenting with such dangerous methods of bioweaponry in the first place? What were these life-creating, physically intimidating and all-intelligent beings so afraid of that warranted such drastic measures? Another answer best saved for the sequel, it seems. Thanks, Lindelof. The only theory I have been able to conjure up is that the engineers that we encounter in ‘Prometheus’ are some sort of cloned ‘worker bees’ that have been manufactured by a superior intelligence that is even higher still. Perhaps the same beings who thought it would be a good idea to mass produce Xenomorphs. ‘What ifs’ aside, I would say that in all probability, there is a race of beings from another planet that are not included in ‘Prometheus’, and they are fans of terraforming and genetic manipulation/domination.

The next riddle worth having a look at involves the latter stages of the film, in particular when Shaw, Weyland and David come into contact with the awakened engineer. We know that David is the only one educated in ancient languages to be able to communicate with the engineer, but that’s not to say that the engineer was not intelligent enough to understand English. If they ‘created us’, there’s no telling how much influence they may have had in the construction of human languages. What’s most important to consider is David’s loyalty to Weyland. Regardless of Shaw’s pleading, David was always going to follow his own agenda (Weyland’s agenda) when making this first contact. In a rather intense interaction, Shaw desperately tries to find out from the engineer why if they created humanity, then why do they hate humanity and want to destroy it. This is a far more pertinent way to start a conversation than ‘how can you make me immortal, please?’, but nevertheless, David’s grand logic is overruled by the fact that he essentially a cybernetic extension of Weyland and he proceeds to pose Weyland’s queries.

What’s most interesting about what happened next is the engineers reaction to what is happening. He is of superhuman strength and intelligence, and is most likely cranky due to the fact that he’s just woken from hypersleep, all his friends are dead, and he is being squawked at by a group of pithy humans. What he does do though is react to Shaw’s pleading with what can only be described as a curious consideration. For a brief moment, it almost looks as if he is at least willing to hear her out and, who knows, perhaps even offer some sort of explanation. Even if he couldn’t understand exactly what she was saying, for me, he clearly recognised the emotion in her manner and was prepared to respond to it empathetically. This fleeting chance at a truce is then completely ruined by David’s immediately following actions.

Upon the posing of Weyland’s arrogant query to the engineer, he proceeds to rip David’s head off and kill everyone else in the room (apart from Shaw, who escapes). Without having any guarantees that the engineer would understand the language that David has considered appropriate, I believe that the reaction would have remained the same for the simple reason that the engineer was deeply offended that upon first contact he was being questioned by an inferior synthetic life form. Couple this with that fact that he may have also felt threatened by human kind’s apparant ability to create (a self aware, cybernetic individual) and all of a sudden you’ve got a number of reasons for him to pop off and go loco.

Finally, there’s the speculation as to what the ending not only means for Shaw, but what it means for the franchise. That is, if you choose to include ‘Prometheus’ as part of the Alien franchise. Because of the undeniable links, I suppose you have to. But I wouldn’t expect to see it as part of any boxsets any time soon.

Rather than decide to return to Earth, we learn that Shaw is still driven, more than ever, to uncover the secrets of our origins. David, now only a head (the part of him that matters most), agrees to help her travel to the Derelict-spaceship’s home planet. The reason they are able to do this is because of the many ships buried under the surface of LV-223. Ships that, according to David, can just as easily be piloted by a human. Given that the last engineer was impregnated by ‘Shaw’s Son’ and then became the victim of a chest-burst birth, as the final scene proves, Shaw is now potentially going to be chased down by what can only be described at this point as a ‘first-gen xenomorph’ that is comprised not only of the DNA of Holloway, Shaw and the last engineer, but of the biological compounds contained in the black matter. This makes for one powerful, intelligent and angry son-of-a-bitch. Seeing as gestation periods have been so short up to this point (both within Shaw and the engineer), it seems natural to assume that it will mature rapidly and use its wealth of intelligence to figure how to commandeer another one of LV-223’s remaining ships and try and find it’s way off the planet.

Taking all of this into account (and I realise how speculative it must sound), it got me thinking about how much time separates the end of ‘Prometheus’ from the beginning of ‘Alien’. A mere 29 years separates Shaw’s escape from LV-223 from Kane’s discovery on LV-426. If we speculate that the alien from the final scene of ‘Prometheus’ does in fact pursue Shaw, is it beyond the realms of the Ridley Scott universe to suggest that Shaw may in fact be the female DNA responsible for spawning a more familiar face? I propose the following as final food for thought.

The ‘first-gen’ catches up with Shaw and impregnates her. Having survived the attack but not the (for want of a better word) rape, she, driven by her unflinching determination, continues on her quest for answers. Whilst in transit, she falls victim to a ‘chest-burst’ and is killed. Her ship descends, out of control, and crash lands…on LV-426.

‘The Hunger Games’ is approaching $700 million at the worldwide box-office. ‘The Avengers’ has recently cruised past the $1 billion mark and will only be slowed by a brief MIB3 shaped blockade, and will most probably be almost brought to a halt by ‘Prometheus’ next week. Saying that, the 12A certificate held by ‘The Avengers’ may mean it still draws huge numbers as opposed to the mass-appreciated ’15′ with with ‘Prometheus’ was bold enough to accept. Who’s to say? All I know is that come July 20th, ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ will leave all of these films in a very large, loud, Batwing sized wake. All of these massive films in just the first seven months of 2012.

In our efforts to embrace escapism wherever possible though, are these heavy-hitters becoming victims of their own hype? And whose fault is that?

The last film that I allowed myself to get personally jazzed for was David Fincher’s ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ last December. Following ‘The Social Network’ (which I still regard to be one of the more important films of the last 20 years), I was thrilled to hear that Fincher was to be revisiting the darker territories where he made his name. He promised something uncompromising, which he ever so slightly failed to deliver on. Upon my first screening of the film, I felt somewhat disappointed, and I couldn’t figure out why. I have come to determine that it was majoritively thanks to the fact that I held the original film in such high regard, but that’s not to say that I wasn’t in favour of Fincher prospectively doing a better job with the source material. Having had time to reflect upon the film, and watch it for the second time just this week, it would be more conclusive to say that the reason I didn’t appreciate ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ on Boxing Day was because I had built it up so much in my mind that I wasn’t able to enjoy what is essentially a technically perfect film.

Sure, I don’t like Daniel Craig, and sure, Rooney Mara oversexed the character of Lisbeth, and sure, Steve Zaillian’s script was ever so slightly too light hearted in places, but those flaws aside, the film’s marketing and my own Fincher-fanboy anticipation killed the experience for me, to the point where I had to wait six months before watching the blu-ray and appreciating all the wonderful elements of the film that had previously been masked by the insane release day hype for which I am as guilty as Columbia Pictures’ marketing guys.

So, I tell myself, ‘don’t let yourself do that again’. And my girlfriend reiterates, ‘you’re only going to disappoint yourself’. And she’s right, the last thing I want to do is build something up so highly in my mind, only to be left underwhelmed come release day. But is it entirely my fault? Or have marketing campaigns become such an awesome force in our moneyless quest for cinematic satisfaction that we allow ourselves to invest far more than just our ten pounds?

I wanted to address this now because tomorrow is going to be a very difficult day for me to try and keep it together. The marketing campaign for ‘Prometheus’ has been so relentless over the past few months that once again I find myself on the brink of a midnight IMAX screening frantically typing blogs to pass the hours that separate me from (what I have ashamedly built up in my mind to be) science fiction destiny. Looking back to Christmas time, I had the choice to either black myself out completely from the inevitable ‘Prometheus’ onslaught that was to come or allow myself to be treated to various samples of just what Ridley Scott and his team have been up to for the last year or so. My mistake was watching anything that came after the first trailer. In fact, I probably shouldn’t have even watched that. But what am I supposed to do when Ridley Scott is posting goddamn teaser trailers for the teaser trailer in a three-day Apple.com countdown?

So, as it would happen, the first trailer was mind-blowing. It was the first real evidence that ‘Prometheus’ would exist in the same Weyland-infused universe as the Scott’s original ‘Alien’, and all of a sudden I’m sold. So sold in fact, that had I not watched any further promotional materials for the film, I think I still would have bought a ticket for a midnight IMAX screening. This begs the question, so why did I elect to continue watching every sliver of footage that Fox released (via two further full length trailers, various featurettes and having listened to the score repeatedly over the last two days)? If I knew from the original teaser that the film was going to tick all the boxes, then why torture myself? And why allow myself to be exceedingly miffed when I see something of a Space Jockey in the final three-minute plus trailer? The reality is, I have no right to be miffed. I’ve done this to myself, again.

Unlike the slightly more subtle but no less buzz worthy marketing campaign for ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, Scott and Fox have (in my opinion) revealed far more than they needed to in an effort to generate a massive interest in this film. The fanboys were always going to be on board anyway, but considering just how much of a visual spectacle it is no doubt going to be, I feel like they could have held back a little bit more.

Another recent example of over marketing something and consequently being underwhelmed would be ‘The Raid’, an Indonesian martial arts ‘masterpiece’ that would have been just that, had it not revealed almost every ‘good bit’ in a two-and-a-half minute red band trailer months ago. Hype was generated, the people came to expect a visceral, action-packed bloodbath, and it was exactly that, but I for one was disappointed having seen the majority of it already. Little was left to the imagination, and little was left to satisfy the hypebuds (you know, like tastebuds) when the film was eventually released.

Boy, do I hope that is not even slightly the case tomorrow. Even though I feel like I’ve seen a lot (too much), I still feel like Ridley Scott is playing things close enough to his chest whereby I will be left breathless. Revealing trailers or not, there are still important elements to consider. A) No one has seen any footage of this film in 3D. All of the trailers were released in 2D and without the earth-shuddering IMAX sound mix that is no doubt going to destroy our eardrums. B) Unless you’ve been naughty and read the early reviews courtesy of Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and the FRENCH, the intricacies of the plot are still very much a secret. Both of these things combined, for me, means that the two most important reveals are that which in no way can be conveyed in a trailer or a featurette. Finally, it is important to remember that Ridley Scott isn’t stupid. He knows every frame of footage that is released to the public, and if you consider how secretive the entire project has been, and how ignorantly coy he has been in every interview leading up the film’s release, I’d say that although the trailers released for ‘Prometheus’ have been nothing short of heart-pounding and impressive pieces of work in themselves, they are mere oeur d’oeuvres compared to the rich, hearty feast that will surely follow the last few months which have more than relentlessly banged the drum.

Prometheus opens in the UK on June 1st and in the US on June 8th.

Incredibly, the earliest notable uses of mockumentary conventions can be found only a few years after the term ‘documentary’ was coined. Going back as far as the 1930s, filmmakers were taking a medium largely used for the informative and ‘mocking’ it as a way of providing entertainment to a wide audience. Many would agree that the finest spoof-satire is that which fools a section of the audience into believing what they are seeing and hearing. This, of course, is virtually impossible in the modern era. Celebrity culture and the internet all but prohibits it. But in the earlier years of the 20th century, the moving image was still an exciting new development that found it easy to fool people.

Luis Bunuel’s ‘Land Without Bread’ was produced at a time when the word ‘documentary’ was barely a whisper, but Bunuel was bold enough to make a documentary about something entirely unfascinating (the poverty and culture of the Las Hurdes region of Spain). Coupled with a blasé yet somewhat sarcastically exaggerated narrative voice over and the use of Brahm’s 4th, Bunuel was able to entirely confuse audiences who could only have left screenings pondering the earnestness of the piece. So offended were the Spanish upon discovering the film’s parodical nature, they banned it for three years following the film’s release in 1933.

Almost 75 years later, documentary filmmakers were still causing a stir with the way they played on non-fictional situations. Sacha Baron Cohen in particular, has become a superstar as a result of his individual take on the documentary/mockumentary genre, for the paramount reason that the only entirely fictional element of his films is the central characters that he himself portrays. While his almost entirely improvised content is often funny in itself, the biggest laughs come in the form of the reactions of the ‘real’ people with which he interacts. The mockery of modern society is something that has been existent in comedy for decades, but Baron Cohen individually triumphs in the way that he toys with the comfort zones of others, often forcing members of the public into the most awkward conversational spots imaginable through a well-read use of sociocultural opinions and taboo violation.

The character of Borat and his skewed views of religion and politics was thrust into middle-America in the film, ‘Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan’ over the course of which he commits various solecisms; all caught on camera and all exposing of the stereotypical middle-American standpoint on God, homosexuality, and social status. So much so, that by the end of the the film it is difficult not to feel as if you have been somewhat educated to the ridiculousness of core groups of the American public, their beliefs, opinions, and the way they live their lives. It is this point in particular that forces one to consider Baron Cohen’s films as a credible form of documentary filmmaking as well as a box-office comedy smash.

Bill Nichols comments on documentary story telling in his book, ‘Introduction to Documentary’. He states that ‘to the extent a documentary tells a story, the story is a plausible representation of what happened rather than an imaginative interpretation of what happened’. While this statement separates documentary storytelling from other filmic forms, it isn’t able to define the sub-genre that Baron Cohen’s works belong to. ‘Borat’ cannot be lumped into the mockumentary genre based purely on the fact that the only thing fictional in the film is the central character; the definition of mockumentary being ‘fictitious events presented in the documentary format’.

A more definitive example of the true mockumentary format would be the works of Christopher Guest who over the years has created endless memorable, lifelike characters and realistically imagined worlds for them to reside in. As an esteemed artist himself, Guest has scripted, directed and starred in a variety of films that satire musicians (‘This Is Spinal Tap’, ‘A Mighty Wind’), dramatists (‘Waiting For Guffman’, ‘For Your Consideration’) and even proud dog owners (‘Best In Show’), all through what has become a trademark use of the mockumentary form. The difference between Guest’s mockumentaries and others though, is that he never intends to fool the audience into believing the film to be anything other than a form of entertainment that uses the documentary format as a comedic device.

Based on Guest’s firm grasp on the mockumentary and Nichols’ definition of what constitutes documentary, it almost humourously leads one to assume that the likes of ‘Borat’ (and more recently ‘Bruno’) lend themselves more to the documentary genre than any other. If we are to conclude this though, it cannot be without acknowledging the fact that Baron Cohen’s use of a deeply thought out but fictional central character is almost entirely individual to his films alone.
More so with Borat than Bruno or even Ali G, an entire biographical back story is given to these characters. Why this is so integral to Baron Cohen’s comedy is for two reasons. Firstly, by writing and then (in front of the camera) diligently living by the history of the character, it enables Baron Cohen (as an actor) to be able to form a continuous cohesion with regards to the humour of the character, committing the beliefs and practices of his comic creation to any social situation he might find himself in.

Secondly, when performing the character as a relative unknown outside of the UK, it made Baron Cohen dreadfully difficult to ‘catch out’. Though most of the people he found himself in contact with were more often than not less intelligent than he, on frequent occasions he was forced to defend himself with the sharpest of wit and most inescapable conviction. This mechanism is most evident in his portrayal of Ali G, a seemingly unintelligent character who would often interview politicians, clergy, and other intellectual figures. Baron Cohen, under the guise of ignorance, used his own intellectuality against his subjects who consistently took the ‘interviewer’ for granted. Just like the American public found themselves treating Borat like a toddler for the simple reason that he was ‘culturally different’, Baron Cohen allowed Ali G’s lack of intelligence to be taken advantage of until the point whereby he (Baron Cohen) could embarrass his subject into an awkward conversational corner from which there was no escape.

Should one not want to categorise Baron Cohen’s films as documentaries, it should be noted that these films draw parallels with modern reality programming; series such as ‘Jersey Shore’, ‘The Only Way Is Essex’ and ‘Made In Chelsea’. In programmes such as these, as impossible as it is to defend them, they are known for prefacing episodes with a caveat that reminds the viewer that although all the people in the show are ‘real’, some of what they do and say has been set up purely for entertainment. In a way, this is the artistic opposite of what Baron Cohen does, but in terms of realism probably the closest in comparison. The difference being that in films like ‘Borat’, all but one of the people on screen are ‘real’, and the scenes that are ‘set up purely for entertainment’ are only known to the actor portraying the fictional character while the rest of the cast (if you can call Baron Cohen’s unaware public that) are forced to partake and react in a way that is entirely unrehearsed and in no way predetermined.

The reason for the unprecedented success of films like Borat and Bruno may well be down to the same factor that makes these types of television series such massive hits. The viewing public enjoy watching a live reaction. Whereas reality programming has evolved from the likes of ‘Big Brother’ and now seems to predominantly focus on groups of rich youngsters and their playground romances, Baron Cohen has adopted and confirmed the notion that it is far more appealing to use this unrehearsed format as a means for comedic exploitation. Despite the fact that Borat is an entirely fictional character with an entirely fictional set of beliefs and opinions, if we are comparing this film to the likes of ‘Made In Chelsea’ et al, you would be hard pressed to argue that the former is in any way less real in its depictions of actual people. While the entire cast of a reality show are forced to enter certain predetermined situations and say certain things, Baron Cohen enters conversations as a lone wolf and uses his fictional portrayal to coax an honest reality out of his unsuspecting subjects.

In recent history, other satirists that have risen to popularity as a result of this type of reactional comedy include Chris Morris and Paul Kaye. Like Baron Cohen, they used the documentary format as a front to such an effective extent that over the course of the only season of ‘Brasseye’ (a nightly news parody) Morris was able to convincingly trick a range of respected celebrities into supporting varied causes such as a crackdown on a fictional drug from the Czech Republic and even a spoof charity organisation called ‘Nonce Sense’ that was ‘set up’ to protect children from paedophiles. Kaye similarly was famous for disguising himself as celebrity interviewer Dennis Pennis and crashing red carpets and press junkets at venues as reputable as the Cannes Film Festival where he managed to gain access to the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis.
It is probable that Morris especially was a hefty influence on Baron Cohen’s work. Morris’ willingness to destroy taboos at Channel 4 (where Ali G first appeared) tore the wall down in terms of what comedians could get away with presenting, and also highlighted a type of comedy that not only attracted viewers, but caused media controversy. Never one to shy away from controversy himself, Baron Cohen has used controversy to his ultimate advantage, using it to create a media buzz around his films before they are even released. Whereas controversy surrounded Morris following the airing of his content, Baron Cohen is known for using it as an advertising ploy. Most recently, he appeared on the Academy Awards red carpet as his newest character ‘Admiral General Aladeen’ where he proceeded to spill an urn onto television personality Ryan Seacrest which Aladeen said contained the ashes of form North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il.

While Sacha Baron Cohen is not the inventor of his specific comedic craft, he has certainly refined it in the last ten years. He would probably be the first to admit that he owes much to those that came before him, but through an informed and effective use of delivery tactics, improvisation and strategic situational positioning (Borat’s venture to middle-America being the best example of this), not to mention his brash, in-character advertising stunts, he has made a name for himself not only in the realms of modern comedy, but in the smallest sub-genre of amusingly exploitive documentary filmmaking.

Best Motion Picture of the Year
With a very specific nine nominees in this category it’s easier to rule pictures out than in. Firstly, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is without question is one of the most divisive films of the year and was openly booed when it’s nomination was announced. It, along with The Help, The Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris and The Descendants have picked up under five nominations in total so it’s safe to rule them out. Similarly, Moneyball and Warhorse have amassed only six. This leaves only two possible out comes; Scorsese’s Hugo or The Artist. Both films are love letters to the medium itself so there’s the chance of an upset, but with award show momentum in it’s favour, not to mention the ‘gimmick factor’, I think producer Thomas Langmann will walk away the statue.

Head – The Artist
Heart – Hugo

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
When the nominees were announced people were frantically IMDbing Demián Bichir, and I think recognition is the real prize for the Mexican actor. A lot of chatter around Brad Pitt’s nomination relates to why he was nominated for Moneyball rather than The Tree of Life , and with that in mind it’s unlikely Pitt will accrue enough votes to win. Gary Oldman was unable to pick up the BAFTA despite the home advantage, so his chances in Hollywood look slimmer than ever. That leaves Clooney vs Dujardin in a straight up Hollywood vs Europe fist fight. Personally, I think Clooney has the more challenging, nuanced role and to say he knocked it out of the park is an understatement. That’s not to say Dujardin wouldn’t deserve the award equally. His dialogue free performance brings with it it’s own challenges, I just think Dujardin had a template from which to work.

Head – Jean Dujardin
Heart – George Clooney

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
This is certainly one of the tighter categories. Personally I’d rule out Rooney Mara purely for the reason that if Noomi Rapace was overlooked surely Mara cannot be awarded for what is, let’s face it, a solid, but fundamentally inferior performance. On the surface Michelle Williams is an outsider but when you consider that this is now her third nomination in six years, it would seem that she is destined to win a statue. Of course, she won’t win this year because if nothing else she’s up against five time loser Glenn Close. Despite picking up five nominations in the eighties Close is yet to win and unfortunately, unless the Academy is feeling controversial she’s probably going to fall at the sixth hurdle as well. Hilariously though, despite having two Awards on her mantle piece already, Streep is in fact the categories biggest loser having missed out on no fewer than fifteen separate occasions. In contrast, Viola Davis has only lost out once. In 2009, both Davis and Streep were nominated for Doubt and both lost out (to Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet respectively). Although it’s undoubtedly going to be a close run thing this year, I think the previous awards shows have signalled the over riding consensus.

Head – Viola Davis
Heart – Viola Davis

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
This category it would seem, is another two horse race. Christopher Plummer and Max von Sydow are two of cinema’s elder statesmen. Both 83 and both with one previous nomination to their name, it would seem they are leading the pack this year. Everyone knows that Hollywood loves a good come back narrative (see Micky Rourke in 2009) but more often than not, a nomination is all the rejuvenated actor can hope for. Nick Nolte returned to the fold with a solid performance in Warrior but it certainly wasn’t enough to take home this award. Like Oldman, Kenneth Brannagh failed to pick up the BAFTA in his homeland so he’s unlikely to cause an upset here. If anyone was a revelation this year it was unquestionably Jonah Hill who’s responded to his various nominations with an impressive display of humility and if that was the deciding factor, he’d certainly be in with a shout. Unfortunately it’s not, but it’ll certainly be interesting to see where his career goes from here.

Head – Christopher Plummer
Heart – Christopher Plummer

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Like the Lead Actress category this had the potential to be a close run thing. Melissa McCarthy’s ‘surprise’ nomination is testament to her performance in the brilliant Bridesmaids , but it’s unlikely the Academy will break the habit of a life time and commend such an openly comedic performance. Janet McTeer was another surprise nomination, and if Glenn Close doesn’t win for lead, she’s unlikely to win for supporting. This is also likely to be one of the ten nominations where The Artist doesn’t come out on top. Despite arguably being equally as good as Dujardin in the film, Bérénice Bejo has missed out at previous award shows due to the sheer quality of her rival performances. It’s The Help that makes up the other two nominations with Jessica Chastain and Octavia Spencer both up. When you consider that Chastain could conceivably have been nominated for three separate performances (The Help, The Tree of Life and Take Shelter) you’d think she’d be a shoe in, but like cast mate Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer has been cleaning up in the run up to tonight and it’s unlikely anything will change in the next twelve hours.

Head – Octavia Spencer
Heart – Melissa McCarthy

Best Achievement in Directing
If you ask me, and by reading this far you technically did, Terence Malick’s nomination is a joke. Of course I’m being somewhat polemical but that doesn’t detract from the fact that The Tree of Life was the kind of product I’d expect from a first year film student with rich parents and a new digital SLR. Woody Allen has also been nom’d for one of the prolific directors better outings in recent years however, he’s much more likely to take home a writing award. The same can be said for Alexander Payne who’s also unlikely to come out on top of Hazvanavicius and Scorsese. In the past this award tends to go hand in hand with Best Film so really, there’s only likely to be one winner. Whilst Scorsese should be awarded for his fusion of nostalgia and technology (Hugo demonstrated that 3D can enhance the story telling process as opposed to just the money making process), you cannot deny the gutsy drive of Hazanavicius’ silent movie.

Head – Michel Hazanavicius
Heart – Michel Hazanavicius

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
This is one of the harder to predict categories of the night. At the Golden Globes, Woody Allen walked away with best Screenplay but he’s nominated in the ‘Original’ category so he’s not a contender. At the BAFTAs, the home bias worked in the favour Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy despite the films somewhat incomprehensible plot. I suspect that this will work against Tinker tonight and I think it’s also safe to rule out the underachieving Moneyball and The Ides of March. Whilst both Hugo and The Descendants are worthy adaptations it’s likely that the Academy may just lean in favour of Alexander Payne’s movie in light of the fact that it is likely to have pipped in a number of other categories.

Head – The Descendants
Heart – The Descendants or Hugo

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
What this category comes down to really is semantics. Can a dialogue free movie really be awarded an Oscar for Best Screenplay. Obviously, to anyone who’s ever written a screenplay, the answer is yes. Margin Call and A Separation were both deserved nominees but don’t realistically stand a chance. Bridesmaids is also unlikely to come out on top but if McCarthy gets a shock win in the supporting category we could potentially see a shock here as well. Realistically though, this is between Midnight in Paris and, you guessed it, The Artist. Woody Allen won the Globe and is little less than an American institution but only time will tell if that’s enough to topple the seasons dominating picture.

Head – The Artist
Heart – Bridesmaids

Other Tips
Best Animated Feature – Rango
Best Foregin Language Film – A Separation
Best Cinematography – The Artist
Best Editing – Hugo

Other than being mildly inconvenient and less attractive, the other thing this does, in a Roland Barthes-esque way, is destroy pre-conceptions around the book which can be built up from the blurb on the back, the ‘Richard and Judy Book Club’ permanent sticker on the front or the carefully chosen quotes from famous people. Even after reading all three books, I have trouble remembering the author, to be honest. That would be Suzanne Collins, by the way (and also, good name). Take of that what you will – the kindle/e-reader argument is one to be had another day.

The reason I want to write about books on a film website is that the first of the trilogy, “The Hunger Games” is released in cinemas in the UK on March 23rd, 2012.

Katniss Everdeen is an inhabitant of the 12th District, in a post-apocalyptic world where everything is ruled from the mysterious Capitol and no free movement is allowed, especially outside of the District’s barbed wire electric fences.

The first chapter was ably assisted by the kindle’s blank background, as it very carefully keeps Katniss’ sex hidden. Before I go any further, it is my duty as a reviewer to inform you that SPOILERS MAY LIE AHEAD. I’ll try to keep them to a minimum, of course, but the odd plot item may squirm out. If you prefer to keep unspoiled, I have a summary of the rest of it for you, spoiler free: go and read it! Read them all!

We follow Katniss as she hunts for desperately needed food and returns to the family home to get changed into ceremonial clothes: a dress. Collective gasp as we realise she’s a GIRL. It wasn’t quite that dramatic, but I definitely got the feeling that it was meant to be amazing that she’s a girl who hunts. Has everyone seen Pocahontas?

The ceremony she’s off to is the televised lottery. This sees one boy and one girl aged between 12-18 years old being picked to participate in, yep, you guessed it: “The Hunger Games”; a live, televised concept where each player is imprisoned in a games arena. The games have been going on for decades, and are described as a celebration of how far the districts have come since the apocalyptic disaster that the Capitol saved them from. Essentially, it’s a sacrifice as all but one of the participants will die at the hands of their peers. Only one can be victorious, and that one will return to their district with more food than they can eat. This is emphasised by the fact that the players are called ‘tributes’. In times where everyone is struggling to get enough to eat (apart from those in the Capitol), taking part in the games isn’t a choice – it’s a privilege where the last one standing gets to save their district from starvation.

As far as the film adaptation goes, Jennifer Lawrence (Winter’s Bone) is Katniss. She is almost exactly how I envisioned Katniss throughout the books. Despite her rather weak introduction, she is a fantastic character who grows throughout the books and has to face some difficult choices. She’s strong and resilient, a great role model, but most importantly, she doesn’t always get things right, which makes her more accessible. Personally, I’m really looking forward to seeing Lawrence playing Katniss. Likewise for one of her leading men – The Kids are All Right and Little Manhattan’s Josh Hutcherson. He plays blonde baker boy Peeta, and from the still shots I’ve seen he doesn’t look quite as blonde as he’s described, but that’s something I’m willing to let slide. Katniss’ other love interest is dark hunter Gale, played by Thor’s brother, Liam Hemsworth. As far as the casting goes, the only thing I would say is that he doesn’t look lean enough to be Gale, who’s spent his whole life hunting squirrel to survive and always puts his family first.

The three leads are, therefore, strong and well cast. The supporting actors are even better, and include Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci. For Tucci in particular, I will see anything that he’s in. I even saw Burlesque because he was in it. He was worth it (although the rest really wasn’t, and I found myself wishing that Veronica Mars would die in a spoiled bitch accident, just so something would be happening)

None of this sounds very tween friendly, does it? I worry that the trilogy is about adult themes and theories, especially in the later books, around capitalism and socialism, but because it’s about young adults, it will be forced into the 12a bracket. Some of the action in the book is horribly gory, and is described in detail. For example, the Capitol has a weapons system dubbed ‘muttations’ which are cross breeds of animals. One of these is the jabberjay – it looks like a bird but contains a recording device used to catch rebel spies. Another are the wolves which have four inch razors for claws and can stand on their hind legs. They have also been spliced with dead tributes’ DNA, so they have human eyes. (Super spoiler) The last three tributes are attacked by a pack of these wolves, and two manage to climb into a barrel, essentially. One doesn’t, and as he is wearing armour it takes the wolves all night to kill him. The remaining two players can do nothing but listen. I don’t think that’s a suitable 12a material.

So there are two options: make it a 15 certificate or cut out the detail of the book to rein it back in for more family friendly fun. There’s always secret option number 3 – don’t bother changing it but as long as you can’t see blood it’s fine (War Horse, I’m looking at you).

Given the vision that Collins had for The Hunger Games, I am really looking forward to it being brought to the silver screen. I hope that it’s not sanitised for family audiences and that the more subtle themes of the plot aren’t sidelined in favour of more action orientated scenes, but we’ll have to see. On March 23rd. See you in the queue!

First of all it doesn’t matter if you have zero knowledge or interest in American football. I knew very little about the sport when I started watching the show, and five seasons later I know not much more about the rules of the game. Take it like this; you don’t need to be an expert in drug distribution or police surveillance work to enjoy The Wire and the same goes for the American football backdrop in FNL. It is part of the fabric of the show but it isn’t necessarily the real focus; the community, the kids in the team and family life is what matters here.

Friday Night Lights began as a book that tells the story of a high school team in Odessa, Texas in 1988 that was then adapted for the big screen by Peter Berg in 2004. The film scored an impressive five stars from Empire Magazine but didn’t even make $1 million in the UK (it made $61 million in the US). This is likely through poor distribution thanks to the American sport centric theme and a similar pattern can be seen with the recent baseball movie Moneyball, which despite awards buzz and a big name star with Brad Pitt, only made just over $1 million in the UK (and $75 million in the US). Sports themed movies are a hard sell if the sport isn’t popular, and this is probably why it has taken so long for FNL to properly hit UK screens at primetime. The show struggled for ratings in the US even, despite being a critical darling. It was only in its fifth and final season that the award nominations finally starting coming in, with Kyle Chandler (Super 8, King Kong) winning Best Actor at the 2011 Emmys for his role as Coach Eric Taylor.



At the centre of it all is Coach Eric Taylor and his wife Tami Taylor (Connie Britton -Spin City, American Horror Story) who are one of the best representations of a married couple to grace the screen, big or small. They fight, they laugh, they talk like real people and they also care about their jobs and the kids that they work with. Connie Britton played the role of the coach’s wife in the film Friday Night Lights and didn’t want to initially take the TV role, as her part in the film had been cut to shreds. Creator and director Peter Berg assured her this wouldn’t happen again, and he was correct as Tami Taylor is one of the strongest female characters that TV has ever seen. Coach Taylor is often a man of very few words, but when it comes to inspirational speeches he is king, and they will possibly leave you a little misty eyed.

The show is shot in a somewhat documentarian style, with the first episode really evoking this method. It’s not all shaky cam though so don’t worry about that. It is just something that adds to the realism. Shot on location in Austin, Texas, you get the sense of what this community is like and several of the minor speaking roles are played by non-actors; including the pastor and a jewellery shop owner adding to the authentic Texan feeling.

As it is set in a high school, you would expect a roster of stereotypical characters; the lead quarterback douchebag, the head cheerleader bitch, the bad boy, the arrogant one, the arty one, the one who doesn’t care about football, the slut and the nerd. While elements of all these characters exist, they play on these stereotypical elements; turning them on their head rather than having it as a central characteristic. Certain high school experiences are featured such as first loves won and lost, as well as social issues such as racism, financial woes and abortion. Don’t worry, it’s not an after school special and doesn’t lean towards the preachy.

Will you be watching? Have you seen the show before and want to watch it all over again? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Friday Night Lights begins on Sky Atlantic Tuesday, February 14 at 8pm and you can watch the trailer here.

“Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can’t Lose!”

I know. I’m standing on the border of cliché town but don’t worry, I’m not going to the gift shop and I certainly won’t be buying the T-shirt. Of course, as a disgruntled film studies grad and a multi-award winning film geek, there are going to be some awards that I disagree with and some I down right cannot understand. Having said all that, for the most part, I can at least see the reasoning behind most of the Academy’s choices. For those of you who came here before going to IMDB. Here’s my thoughts on last nights winners and losers. Most news shows today will be regurgitating their post-Golden Globe platitudes as once again, the dominant film of the night by some distance was of course, The Artist.

Walking away with no fewer than seven awards, the French/American co-creation enjoyed continued dominance on a night where so often it’s British films that are showered with statues. As with any great success story, the backlash begins now. As someone who enjoyed The Artist, but did not think it was the greatest, most incredible thing of all time, ever; I feel it’s my duty to offer up some perspective. Whilst I wouldn’t necessarily have voted for it in all of it’s triumphant categories, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it didn’t deserve its successes. To me, cinema is all about brave choices and it’s that which usually garners the trophies come award season. Yes, on occasion I think film makers can be too gutsy. The likes of Steve McQueen’s Shame and Paddy Considine’s Tyrannosaur have been criminally over overlooked this season I think, for that very reason. At a time when everyone is obsessed by surround-sound, true-colour, IMAX girth, you cannot tell me that the decision to release a silent film, in black and white, in Academy ratio, is not brave.

The acting awards were spread evenly over four films with Dujardin and Plummer winning the male categories (The Artist, Beginners) and Meryl Streep and Octavia Spencer picking up the Female gongs(The Iron Lady, The Help). With only one disparity between the BAFTAs and the Golden Globes it would seem that three out of the four acting categories are sown up with Best Actress being a straight up fist fight between Streep and Viola Davis (The Help). It’s probably in part due to my insatiable hatred of Thatcher, but I know who I want to win.

A few other pictures picked up multiple gongs. Senna picked up Best Editing and Best Documentary in a competitive category which, any other year, could have seen either Project Nim or Martin Scorsese’s George Harrison documentary take the prize. Scorsese did eventually get up on stage when Hugo emerged victorious in the Production Design and Sound categories. If you add Hugo’s two gongs to the plethora awarded to the The Artist you could argue that the night’s real winner was nostalgia for the silent era. Expect a remake of the 1957 Buster Keaton biopic to be winging its way to cinemas in the next year or so.

John Hurt collected a thoroughly deserved ‘Outstanding Contribution’ award having traversed TV and film in Hollywood and the UK for nigh on half a century. The multi-BAFTA winning, double Academy Award nominee has been at the pinnacle of British cinema for years and is ever-present in some of cinemas most iconic images.

As you’d expect there were a few surprises along the way (thankfully).Rango pipped Tin Tin to Best Animated feature despite the former’s British contingent (it was writen by golden boys Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish). Also, in probably the biggest shocker of the night, Adam Deacon won the coveted ‘Orange Wednesdays Rising Star Award’ despite being responsible for the abysmal Anuvahood. The fact that Deacon triumped over the likes of Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Redmayne and Chris O’Dowd is perhaps indicative of how difficult it is to get films made in this country now. The fact that Deacon even managed to get his film made is apparently an award winning feat.

Despite the fact that I crowned Submarine (Richard Ayoade) my personal favourite film of last year, I am neither surprised nor disappointed that Paddy Considine was commended, ahead of Ayoade, for his stunning debut Tyrannosaur. If ‘Oliver Tate’ is a lover, then Peter Mullan’s ‘Joseph’ is a fighter, and the two movies typify what British cinema does best. The fact that Tyrannosaur has been overlooked at almost every other award show is a bone of contention amidst many critics, but at least BAFTA had the smarts to recognise Considine’s burgeoning off camera talent.

In sum, I’m personally perturbed that there’s not been more love for both Hugo and The Descendents but then, there’s only so many awards to go round. The Artist is an inspired bit of movie making, and an incredible bit of marketing and thus is indisputably deserving of the plaudits being lavished upon it. Certainly silent cinema might not be to everyone’s tastes but then if we don’t applaud the extraordinary, all we’ll be left with is the ordinary.

I’m looking at you Adam Sandler.

Finally, an extensive look at my Top 23 Films of 2011 and why. ‘But it’s February?’, I hear you ask. I know, I know, I’ve been slack, ok! Better late than never I say. And besides, the list kept changing! Before we begin, I ask that you please forgive the fact that some of the writing will seem pre-dated. I began putting this particular blog together well over a month ago (yikes). Off we go then, Thisfilmisonners!

23. Bridesmaids

Easily the funniest film of the year, and not a Rogen or a McBride in sight! Having said that, ‘Bridemaids’ continues the Apatow tradition, but for the first time with women at the forefront. It has proved to be a phenomenal vehicle for long-time Apatow favourite and SNL vet Kristen Wiig, but even more so for Melissa McCarthy (whose previous TV credits include ‘Gilmore Girls’ and more recently ‘Mike and Molly’) in her first major feature film. McCarthy is unforgettable as Megan, and as the critics associations of America start to announce their end of year awards thick and fast, it’s looking increasingly likely that McCarthy will secure an Oscar nomination for her bold, hilarious turn that single-handedly launched this film to ‘The Hangover’ heights. Wiig’s screenplay is sharp as you like, and she along with a brilliant Rose Byrne are both fantastic, but it’s McCarthy’s film from the moment she appears on screen.

22. Rise of the Planet of the Apes

The initial trailer for this film really didn’t sell the overall quality of the picture. At first, I found myself thinking, ‘Franco! What on earth are you doing?’ After a stellar 2010, I was fearing a slight sell-out. I was to be entirely incorrect. ‘Rise of the Planet of the Apes’ is THE blockbuster of the year. It features arguably some of the strongest visual effects ever seen on screen and an award-worthy supporting performance from Andy Serkis as Caesar, the first ape to experience threatening levels of intelligence. Serkis has long been the king of mo-cap performance, but this really needs to be seen to be believed. He gives Caesar just the right amount of humanity that he needs to anchor the story, and contrary to how the trailers may sell the movie, it really is in the story that ‘Rise’ excels. Personally I can’t remember the last time I had this much fun gawking at visual effects and extensive action set-pieces while being completely gripped story-wise and entirely invested in all of the characters, most of all a CGI one.

Nice try, Cameron.

21. The Guard

‘The Guard’ definitely caught me off-guard. Literally. Though aware of it’s existence and the positive reviews it was pulling in, it was only on a word-of-mouth recommendation that I felt the need to seek it out while it was still on a cinematic run.

Directed by John Michael McDonagh (brother of ‘In Bruges’ director Martin McDonagh), he more than follows in his brother’s footsteps when constructing the ultimate buddy-cop comedy. The wild brashness of ‘In Bruges’ is played upon to great effect, with Brendan Gleeson’s ‘Gerry’ being both perhaps the funniest and most politically incorrect character you will see on screen this year. He’s borderline racist, full of contempt, a drinker, and a regular frequenter of escort girls. What more could you ask for in a police sergeant?!

Strong complimentary performances from Don Cheadle as the initially unwilling American partner, and Mark Strong as the baddie round off ‘The Guard’ as THE European comedy of the year, hands down.

20. Super 8

J.J. Abrams is pretty much the prince of advance viral marketing (Nolan is the king). People were talking about ‘Super 8′ for well over a year before it’s release. The teaser trailer was excellent, and the plot was a tightly guarded secret. Abram’s homage to Spielberg sci-fi was always going to be a huge deal. And it is! But as special as it felt when I was watching it, it didn’t quite live up to it’s hype. I don’t think that’s Abrams fault though, or executive producer Spielberg’s for that matter. These days, when a film is promoted with such fervour, everyone expects the best film ever made. Hell, even I was chatting Best Picture nominations before I’d even seen it.

‘Super 8′ has unlimited strengths. The 70′s sheen is untouchable, the younger actors are pretty much perfect (and I’m not a fan of kid actors), and the story is wonderfully solid by Spielberg standards. My only two teeny-tiny gripes are that perhaps it is slightly too much (at times) of a Spielberg homage rather than a J.J. Abrams stand-alone piece, and that I felt that the alien was a teeny-tiny bit too Cloverfield/Star Trek-y. Neither of these criticisms are 100% negative, as I’m aware of the intent of the film and the creature style that Abrams has developed for himself. I guess I just felt like I’d seen this creature before, in some shape or form.

Nevertheless, a wonderful family film that I warmed to instantly, and carried with me long afterwards.

19. Source Code

To put it lightly, there was no way that I was ever not going to like ‘Source Code’. ‘Moon’ had been such a revelation in terms of modern sci-fi, I was always eager to find how how he would follow it. The answer is ‘Source Code’. While Jones didn’t self-pen his second feature, he certainly played a massive part in creating the world of the source code. As with ‘Moon’, it takes place in a perfectly feasible near future. And, as with ‘Moon’, it is the subtlety of fictional science that elevates Jones’ film into his own stylistic realm. Rather than cloning and moon mining, ‘Source Code’ sees Jake Gyllenhaal unwilling solider replaying the last eight minutes of the life of a man who died in a terrorist train bombing. Through this admittedly far-fetched experimental process, he is able to use his skill set to try and identify the source of the attack in the hope of preventing a second, all through relentless, tailorable flashbacks. Think ‘Vantage Point’ meets ‘Back to the Future’ but in a far more appealing manner than you could ever imagine.

It’s a mind-blow to try to explain, but well worth the time and consideration. It leaves you with questions that will never be answered, but for me that was part of the fun. Parallel universes aren’t necessarily meant to be questioned. Overall, it is a total blast and further proof than Duncan Jones has a massive future ahead of him.

18. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

I had all but written off the Harry Potter franchise until late last year. My girlfriend pleaded with me to give them a go as I had previously turned my nose up at it, deeming it ‘kids stuff’. I reluctantly agreed to give them a go, starting at the beginning, more because I wanted to join her for the ‘event’ that would eventually be the release of the final chapter; ‘Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2′.

Here I am holding my hands up. I was completely off the mark with my views of this world-beating film series. It is astonishing not only in its storytelling, but in its technicality, its character development, humour, action set-pieces, the whole nine and then some. Once you get past the first couple of films, it all kicks off. ‘Azkaban’ descends in to a darkened maturity and never looks back.

While I personally prefer ‘Part 1′ as a piece of filmmaking, ‘Part 2′ is pretty much all you could ask for in a final chapter of a phenomenon that has dominated the box-office for the last ten years. Where it doesn’t quite have the reflective delicacy of ‘Part 1′, that was never the point. The action comes thick and fast, giving you more than enough time with each of your favourite characters, discovering various fates in the process. When viewed as an ‘action’ film, it presses all the buttons. It is all out final war. Good and evil clash in a way never seen before on-screen, and a fine use of Imax 3D means that you are right in the thick of it.

And to think, I almost missed out on this entirely memorable spectacle.

17. Warrior

If awards were given out for the most overlooked films of the year, Gavin O’Connor’s ‘Warrior’ would probably be at the top of most people’s lists. While at first glance it may look like potential straight-to-dvd, testosterone fuelled nonsense, I’m hear to tell you that that’s about as far from the truth as you could get. I was speculative of a MMA film too, don’t get me wrong. What transpired though was an epic tale of disconnected families, financial hardship and redemption.

No one would have ever predicted such an emotional film. Fantastic performances from Tom Hardy and (possible Oscar contender, no shit) Nick Nolte provide the initial strength of the story of two brothers who end up fighting professionally for different reasons, but peel back the layers and this is not just “‘The Fighter’ goes UFC”. It is a beautifully acted and beautifully executed film about the powerful effect that sport can have on a family. The characters are solidly anchored separately, and offered the chance to build and build to the eventual climactic clash.

If any film pleasantly took me by surprise this year, ‘Warrior’ was most definitely it. Stunning.

16. The Ides of March

You know a film is solid when it falls slightly below your expectations but is still easily one of the finer films of the year. My opinion of George Clooney is so high that I guess I just expect everything he touches to turn to gold. Unfortunately for ‘The Ides of March’, its not even George Clooney’s best film of the year, nor Ryan Gosling’s or Paul Giamatti’s or Philip Seymour Hoffman’s (though it was Hoffman’s strongest performance and one that will be forever overlooked). Saying that, all of these individual dramatic strengths still contributed to one hell of a movie.

You either love or hate political thrillers, but when they are presented so masterfully without being over-preachy, they sure are hard not to appreciate. More than a Clooney film (though he plays a central character, it is a supporting role), this is a massive Ryan Gosling vehicle. It almost, in a way, feels like a slight mantle passing from father to son. Gosling is the youth among all the ever impressive experience, and holds his own fantastically well, more so than he did in ‘Drive’ earlier in the year.

All in all, it will confirm your love for Gosling and solidify the idea you had that if Clooney ran for president, you would probably vote for him.

15. 50/50

As if ‘cancer-comedy’ is a sub-genre now? I mean, hell, Seth Rogen’s done two of them now. This is far and away the better one. If any movie ever found the balance between hilarity and sensitivity, ’50/50′ is that movie. Penned from the real-life experiences of Rogen’s friend (and soon to be Golden Globe nominated screenwriter) Will Reiser, it tells the story of 27-year old Adam’s (Joe Gordon-Levitt) struggle with ‘type-4 back cancer’. With a spot-on supporting cast of Rogen, Anjelica Huston, Bryce Dallas Howard and the enchanting Anna Kendrick, it’s as funny as it is heart wrenching. You honestly laugh as hard as you cry. In all my movie going experiences, I’ve never come across a film able to evoke contrasting emotions so admirably. Where Adam is hit with bad news, Rogen’s Kyle is right there to share a joint and make a dick joke. It all just works so well that you can’t help but fall in love with it. Claiming original screenplay awards across the board already, prepare your box of Kleenex for real-life survivor Will Reiser accepting that Golden Globe in January.

14. Another Earth

‘Another Earth’ is a beautifully constructed piece of low-budget indie sci-fi, comprising the elements of many of its influences to create a modern beauty. I would write more about a film that I have come to love over the past year, but as it turns out, I already have!
Click here to read a more in-depth appreciation of Mike Cahill’s Sundance darling, ‘Another Earth’.

13. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

Whilst David Fincher’s follow-up to 2010′s ‘The Social Network’ (easily the best film of that year) has managed to crack my Top 15, let it be known that after one viewing, ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ picks up the prize for biggest letdown of the year. It’s not that the film was in any way ‘bad’, it just didn’t tick all the boxes that I was expecting it to. For example, much of the dialogue is just too sharp for my expectations of this story that I have come to know so well. While that worked perfectly in ‘The Social Network’, I had a lot of trouble buying into the quips of this script. It was wonderfully written, no argument there, but it was awfully light in places considering the dark content with which it deals. Not to mention the way it was marketed. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I was expecting a new level of bleakness that only David Fincher could have provided, and fanboy though I am, part of me feel like he compromised. Why appeal for bleakness you ask? Why not appreciate the lighter lifts that the script provides for relief when it all gets a bit much? Because for me, that’s not what the story of Lisbeth Salander is. It is a painful, harrowing journey that is entirely uncompromising, and thats exactly what Niels Arden Oplev’s adaptation had going for it. It literally pulled no punches.

Those gripes aside, this is a fantastic film. The cinematography is typically stunning, the acting ensemble is strong (even Daniel Craig), but this movie is all about Rooney Mara. She is incredible from start to finish disappearing into a role that could have just as easily destroyed her career before it ever really began. Thankfully though, Fincher was right. Mara was the right choice, even if she is a teeny tiny bit too cute to be 100% convincing as the modern legend that is Lisbeth.

12. Midnight In Paris

I’m new to Woody Allen. He is the product of a generation slightly removed of mine, unfortunately, but I am taking great delight in revisiting that era though his countless films. ‘Annie Hall’, ‘Manhattan’ and ‘Hannah and Her Sisters’ have all been thoroughly educational from a screenwriting point of view, but with his 2011 offering ‘Midnight in Paris’, I was able to truly enjoy Woody Allen at the cinema for the first time.

What I didn’t realise when taking my seat in the auditorium was that I was going to be watching a film about fantastical time travel! And what a treat it was watching Owen Wilson charmingly travel night after night to Golden Age Paris for frolics with the likes of Picasso and Hemingway. Ridiculous you say? Well, sure, but when its all put forward in such a joyous fashion, why question it? I, for one, certainly didn’t find myself asking any questions regarding how this all came to be. Why ruin it? The film looked great, was written great and acted great by a smorgasbord of talent that includes (*deep breath*), Rachel McAdams, Marion Cottilard, Michael Sheen, Alison Pill, Tom Hiddleston, Kathy Bates, Adrian Brody and everyone’s second favourite character actor behind J.K. Simmons, Kurt ‘Wayne’s World’ Fuller. Oh yeah, and Carla Bruni?

With just enough Allen to easily be able to regard it as Allen, and enough Owen Wilson to satisfy even the toughest of exteriors, ‘Midnight in Paris’ is Allen’s best film in years, and certainly one of the best films of this year.

11. Margin Call

Taking place on the eve of the 2008 Wall Street crash, mega-indie ‘Margin Call’ was a pleasant surprise as 2011 drew to a climactic close. The debut feature from JC Chandor, it tells the story of one man’s startling discovery and the controversial efforts of the many that strived to combat the impending financial doom. For the record, I didn’t really have any idea what anyone was talking about in ‘Margin Call’, but I certainly had no trouble feeling the impact of it. That impact specifically, the accessibility that it allows, is what makes this film impressive. The same way that no one really understood anything Mark Zuckerberg was banging on about in ‘The Social Network’, or Billy Beane in this year’s ‘Moneyball’ (if you were clueless about baseball statistics which most of us are), ‘Margin Call’ enables the viewer to feel the power of the foreign land of Wall Street.

While the jargon is indecipherable, the way in which the characters respond to it is almost Shakespearean in its valour. Zachary Quinto shines as the junior analyst who develops the underused Stanley Tucci’s discovery, while big shots Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons turn this zeitgeist-fest into something that pans out more like a Broadway stage play than a Wall Street boardroom drama.

With terrific performances all round and one of the screenplays of the year, be sure to keep an eye out for ‘Margin Call’ when it makes an extremely limited cinema run in the UK next year.

10. Snowtown

‘Snowtown’ was probably the toughest film to watch all year. Basing my expectations on a beautifully crafted trailer, I expected the worst. A film that deals with the relationships between a mass murderer of suspected pedophiles and homosexuals and his unwitting accomplices was never going to be an easy watch. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever watched a film and been as personally upset by what was transpiring.
This is for many reasons, and all to do with the filmmaking.

First of all, the two lead performances are nerve-janglingly real, to the point where I could barely stand the sight of John Bunting (Australia’s most notorious serial killer), let alone try and process what it would have been like to share a room with him. There is an awkward threat that surrounds his character from the moment he appears on screen, a terrifying sensation that lingers into the afterglow of the film as a whole. You long for Jamie to find a way out of John’s manipulative clutches as the situations grow darker and more violent. But this is not a film about justice and redemption. What makes the scenes these two characters share all the more uneasy is the lack of scoring. Unsure silences fill your ear canals as Jamie slowly becomes sucked into John’s twisted world. As a viewer, you could not feel more involved in this journey, right there beside Jamie as he goes from victim to potential accomplice in the space of two hours.

The cinematography is poetic and the writing sharp, creating all the more reason to fear the barren open spaces of Australian suburbia. Not for the faint-hearted, ‘Snowtown’ is a film that I would encourage any budding filmmaker to watch once.

9. Moneyball

I got really excited for ‘Moneyball’ months before its release for a few reasons. The main one being that strong, memorable baseball movies are extremely rare. When I heard that Aaron Sorkin was co-writing a movie about baseball statistics and strategy, it became an instant must-see. And it didn’t disappoint.

Brad Pitt is effortlessly brilliant as Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane who managed to turn one of the poorest (financially) teams in baseball into a genuine contender, using brains rather than bones. In a sport dominated by money, and making plenty of enemies in the process, Beane developed a scouting strategy that has now been adopted by most of America’s major league teams. ‘Moneyball’ tells the powerful human story of that development with the help of an Oscar-worthy screenplay from last years across-the-board victor Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian (Oscar winner for ‘Schindler’s List’). A powerhouse writing combo if ever there was one.

Featuring superbly solid supporting performances from Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman (and a cameo from Spike Jonze), ‘Moneyball’ is proof that Bennett Miller is worth his salt as a filmmaker.
Don’t like baseball? Doesn’t matter. If you like storytelling, you’ll like this.

8. Melancholia

I’m absolutely over the moon that I liked ‘Melancholia’ as much as I did. As a previous blog will evidence, I saw ‘Antichrist’ at the cinema and hated it. I found it’s pretension and unflattering use of infantile shock tactics to be offensive and tasteless. ‘Melancholia’ though, is an entirely different monster whilst still employing many of the pretensions that put me off Lars Von Trier in the first place. Almost as if watching and hating/not quite understanding ‘Antichrist’ was a necessary preface to prepare me for my appreciation for ‘Melancholia’. Simply put, it is a masterpiece. Through a gorgeous use of apocalyptic personification and music, Von Trier has gone from offensive nut job to artful genius in one fell swoop creating a lasting piece of work that will affectionately reside long in my memory.

Kirsten Dunst gives the performance of her career as the depressive Justine, capturing the harsh realities of an affliction that prevents her from feeling anything given that the world is coming to an end. She is stunning in every scene from start to finish, outshining equally solid turns from Kiefer Sutherland, John Hurt, Charlotte Rampling, the Skarsgards and Von Trier regular, Charlotte Gainsbourg.

Beautifully blending art, music, character study and sci-fi, ‘Melancholia’ is one film that I would recommend seeking out at all costs if you’ve passed it over up to this point.

7. Take Shelter

Back in September, I saw a trailer that gave me all kinds of funny feelings. ‘Take Shelter’ immediately rose to the top of my ‘must-see’ list, so imagine my disappointing rage when November 25th came and went without the slightest suggestion of a screening at any of Norwich’s cinemas. I moaned and I cried and scoured the internet for hi-def screeners (desperate times, desperate measures), but none were to be found. Then, in mid-December, our lovely friends at Picturehouse cinemas decided to give it a six-day run. Thank the Lord.

In ‘Take Shelter’, Jeff Nichols has managed to reintroduce Americana to the cinema going public. He could not have recruited finer talent in Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain, and they are put to fantastic use. The film tells the story of Curtis, a man who is either an unwilling prophet or a paranoid schizophrenic. Or maybe both? Maybe that’s the point? Either way, Nichols has struck every available nerve with a modern classic that addresses the zeitgeist of the nation. The subtle use of an ‘impending storm’ as a metaphor for social decline never wavers and never seems in any way obvious or over political as we watch Shannon’s Curtis slowly destroy himself and his family in the blind hope that his decisions will eventually save them all from what he deems to be certain doom. It all sounds a bit heavy, and believe me, it is.

As far as though provoking, independent American cinema, this is where the bar now lies. In a fair world, Michael Shannon will squeak in with an Oscar nomination having already fared better than expected with the critics associations, while Jessica Chastain can assuredly add her performance to an already stellar 18-months in which she could easily garner multiple Supporting Actress nominations. While she won’t win for ‘Take Shelter’ (more likely, ‘The Help’), her performance in this powerhouse of a psycho-thriller is simply further testament to the fact that Chastain is an acting legend in the making.

6. We Need To Talk About Kevin

‘We Need To Talk About Kevin’ is the most overlooked film of 2011. Hands down. No arguments. In a stunning adaptation of Lionel Shriver’s 2004 novel, Lynne Ramsay has gloriously crafted what I think was the most impacting film of the year. The subject is simple. Imagine how awful it would be to find it hard to love your first born child? From birth, Kevin is difficult and cold. Cue puberty, and he becomes a demonic domestic force, a shadow of traditional parental expectation as he manipulates his family and attempts to sabotage his mother’s mindset at every available opportunity. This journey through childhood and into adolescence all climaxes in a mesmerising way, and it is through one element of this film that ‘Kevin’ is able to peak with such untouchable intensity. Tilda Swinton.

I know a lot of people have mixed feelings for Swinton, more often than not because she’s ‘a little strange looking’, but no one can deny that her lead performance in this film is incredibly powerful. The bravery of her character is echoed in the bold and relentless charge that is her performance, not for one second allowing anyone to doubt her perseverence. Behind closed doors, he character is tortured and destructive, but in public she is untouchable.

There is a lot to be answered for in terms of how women are portrayed in modern cinema (I’m pointing my finger at Michael Bay), but this year has seen the likes of Rooney Mara and Meryl Streep in assertive female roles, laying waste to male rivals in the process. This year though, with all the female revival, no one came close to Tilda Swinton who gives the performance of her career in a film she can call her own. Perfect acting. More or less perfect film.

5. Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy

Are actors working for less money these days? Is that it? It certainly seems like a lot of movies in the last few years have had a lot of talent in them. Just look at ‘Valentine’s Day’ and ‘New Year’s Eve’ for example. Or don’t. Please, don’t.

‘Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy’ involves the most male talent since ‘Glengarry Glen Ross’. Headed up by the masterful Gary Oldman, the movie also features Colin Firth, John Hurt, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch and everyone’s favourite big shot and in this instance, scene stealer, Tom Hardy. They all come together to create a uniquely underplayed thriller that aches for repeat viewings. At the same time, it is an exhausting watch. A quiet, thoughtful piece of work, ‘Tinker’ thrills the mind rather than the senses, leaving you feel like you have been challenged by what you’ve seen. With a thriller, that’s all you can ever ask for. Whilst hard to follow in places if you don’t already know the story, it is a beautifully shot, beautifully written and impeccably acted le Carre adaptation that commands the attention of any serious film lover.

4. Hugo

Anyone who has read an interview with Martin Scorsese over the last few years knows the passion he has for the preservation of our cinematic roots. Year after year, precious celluloid prints are left to be lost or destroyed while films like ‘Clash of the Titans’ and ‘Transformers 3′ pollute our screens.

‘Hugo’ returns us to the birthing point of the golden age and tells the story of a delightful young orphan (Asa Butterfield) with a love of the movies who forms an accidental but crucial relationship with real-life filmmaking pioneer George Melies (an effortless Ben Kingsley). The film as as visually stunning as anything released in the past few years, and the single most affecting use of 3D technology that (personally) I have ever seen. This use of 3D, I think, is what makes the film that little bit more impressive.

Martin Scorsese is a known champion of traditional cinematic technique, so to opt for what is largely a recently fashionable technology to tell the story of modern cinemas humble beginnings was a bold and out-of-character choice indeed. It turned out to be a magnificent decision and made for perhaps the most immersive experience I had at the cinema all year.

With hugely impressive support from Sasha Baron Cohen and Chloe Moretz, ‘Hugo’ is something unmissable that if you didn’t catch at the cinema, you must be sure to experience at home with the family.

3. The Tree of Life

Cue controversy! I thought that ‘The Tree of Life’ was one of the single best pieces of filmmaking that I have ever seen. My experience of this film at the theatre is certainly something I will never forget, namely because I have never been exposed to anything like it in the mainstream before.

This film is hit-or-miss with everyone who’s seen it, sure. Half of it’s viewers marvel at it’s intelligence, personality and overwhelming cinematography as it addresses the issues of family and religion head on. It asks huge questions about ‘what it all means’, and challenges viewers to perceive the ‘why’ on a whole new plain. Doesn’t it?

The other half hated it, describing it with such words as ‘vacuous’, ‘pretentious’ and (the hands-down favourite) ‘boring’. So let’s just be straight for a second here. Terrence Malick is pretentious. He is an artist! ‘The Tree of Life’ is not a film made for your entertainment, it is a film made to satisfy his own personal longings to visualise life; adolescence, innocence, questioning your very existence. A huge undertaking for anyone, Malick presented his views on this issues through beautiful cinematic form and (for want of a better phrase) visual poetry.

Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain excel in their supporting roles, Pitt representing ‘nature’ and Chastain, ‘grace’, alongside a fine, young group of actors who adapt to their director with maturity beyond their limited years, offering effortlessness in their realism.

2. The Artist

Where to start with ‘The Artist’? It is, without a shadow of doubt, a truly fantastic film. The inevitable backlash has begun though, with a majority of blogger and online critics coming down hard on it’s silent film ‘gimmick’ and asking the question; had this film actually been released during the silent film era, would it be receiving even half of the praise that it has been receiving for the simple fact that it was released in 2011? The answer is, of course not.

Sure, the fact that it is a majoritively silent film is somewhat of a gimmick, but isn’t it a refreshing and joyous one? As far as filmmaking goes, ‘The Artist’ doesn’t touch some of the other fine releases of 2011, but as far as a cinematic experience and pure, innocent enjoyment goes, it is untouchable. Should it win Best Picture at the Oscars? Probably not. But it will, for the simple reason that is has reminded the public of the charm and importance of silent films as part of our film heritage while telling a warm, funny and impeccably presented story of two people falling in love; one representing a dying age and one representing the future. As far as any silent film goes, the score in unrivaled in its brilliance, while the acting for this time as place is delicately wonderful.

1. Drive

Oh, ‘Drive’. You really do get more unbelievably freaking awesome with every watch. What began as cult anticipation turned into cult appreciation. That transmorphed into unrelenting critical acclaim, and with it’s blu-ray and DVD release this week it is already a cult classic.

There are so, so many reasons why ‘Drive’ is the best film I saw last year. The main one being the commanding performance from Ryan Gosling as the central character. As far as acting opposite extremes goes, you’d be hard pressed to find a performance this year that offered as much range as Gosling’s. At times he is fragile, soft-spoken and caring, selfless in his dimeanor. In the flick of a switch though, he quivers with a buried rage that leaves bodies mutilated in his defensive wake. With a range of death-tools from curtain rails to bootheels, ‘Drive’ employs the most effecting use of mainstream sporadic extreme violence outside of Tarantino.

As a film student, I am already hearing whispers of projects being influenced by the films cinematographical style. Newton Thomas Sigel’s unforgettable visual construction is something already being cited as reference through a fashionably stylistic use of angle and colour filtering. I bet that none of us expected to be using the term ‘modern-day 80′s noir’ this year, but alas, there you have it.

What Nicolas Winding Refn has done is pretty much reinvent the genre film in the way that, ‘Drive’ isn’t a genre film (?). It spans everything from the romantic to the ultra-violent, and most things in between. It’s a mob film and it’s a love story. Win win?

With Refn employing Gosling for his follow-up, Bangkok-based mob/MMA film ‘Only God Forgives’ which will be hitting our screens later this year, I think it’s safe to say that this particular partnership will continue in it’s solidity and provide the necessary cure to mainstream cinema’s current ills through it’s coupled strength and vision. Who knows? Maybe we’ll find the same director and leading man at the top of this list this time next year?

That’s all from me, folks. Ignore all of those that penned 2011 as a duff year for films. If I had to make my Top 10 a Top 23, someone was doing something right. Apologies again for this belated annual review. Hopefully, it has in the least invited you to check out a film that you may have missed this past year. Here’s to a top-notch 2012!

So, let’s take a break from the awards season fare and look at what might feature in next year’s race or what either way will be hitting screens later this year. The nine films that I have chosen to showcase stood out for a variety of reasons and include comedy, drama and documentary. I have not seen trailers for any of these movies and was drawn to them because of the cast, the story and from festival buzz.

The Surrogate

The Surrogate stars Sundance favourite John Hawkes (Winter’s Bone and Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene), as disabled writer Mark O’Brien who is bed ridden and reliant on an iron lung. The writer who suffered from polio is also a virgin, and with the blessing of his priest (played by the always brilliant William H. Macy) he sets out to find a surrogate to do the deed. Step forward previous Oscar winner Helen Hunt (for As Good as it Gets) as the hired hand, and we have a personal tale that won over the Sundance audience thanks to be being both heartfelt and funny. The film won both an Audience Award as well as one for the ensemble cast, and has been picked up by Fox Searchlight. Don’t be surprised if people are talking about this film when awards season rolls around next year, especially if you take into account that it is based on a true story.

Save the Date

This is one of two wedding related comedies that screened (the other was Bachelorette and also stars Lizzy Caplan) and the obvious reference point would be Bridesmaids. I’m sure that any comparison to last year’s monster success will be splashed across the poster (see The Five Year Engagement, which looks great and also stars Alison Brie).  Caplan and Brie play sisters who are dating guys in the same band (a two-man band to be precise), and things turn awkward when one sister breaks off her relationship while the other is planning her wedding. Both Alison Brie and Lizzy Caplan have shown comedic talent in other projects such as Community and Party Down , and the guys in the cast also have fantastic comedy resumes; including more Party Down, Freaks & Geeks and (500) Days of Summer. This is one rom-com that I am definitely saving the date for (terrible pun alert).

Safety Not Guaranteed

What happens when a classified ad is placed seeking out a time travel companion? In this movie, we have three journalists who seek the person who placed this ad who all have very different agendas that range from cynical and hopeful. The ad was genuinely placed 15 years ago, and the filmmakers were able to successfully track down the real author and reveal who he was at the festival. The film stars some of my favourite faces from TV comedy at the moment with both Jake Johnson of New Girl and Aubrey Plaza of Parks and Recreation, the latter show appearing to be a running theme through the festival this year ( two of my other choices star Parks and Recreationcast). What this film does is take an ad that seems ludicrous and uses it to tell a much larger and heartfelt story making this film one of the Sundance successes; leaving with a distributor and winning a screen writing award.

Smashed

Smashed is a comedy of sorts about alcoholism. Yep, bet you weren’t expecting that to be the subject of a funny film. Probably better to call it a dramedy as this film explores what happens when a married couple who both drink too much decide on very different paths for their partying ways. Mary Elizabeth Winstead (who should be a bigger star) is the one trying to get sober, and Aaron Paul (Breaking Bad) is her drunken counterpart. The supporting cast is strong and includes Octavia Spencer who is riding high with several awards for her performance in The Help, and real-life married couple Megan Mullally (Will & Grace) and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation). Alcoholism is a tricky subject without going full-on dark, but Smashed sounds like it treads the line between the good and the bad without revelling in the behaviour of the characters.

Arbitrage

Margin Call was one of the success stories from last year’s Sundance, and Arbitrage is another film about Wall Street and the cost of big financial errors. Consequences of your actions on the small and grand scale is what the film focuses on with Richard Gere in the central role as a billionaire hedge funder who is trying to sell his company before his dodgy dealings are discovered. Gere has received high praise and his performance has been lauded as his best; it’s very early but can we expect to see his name doing the rounds this time next year? Supporting players include Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth and Brit Marling in this timely thriller, one which has been reportedly purchased by Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions.

Celeste and Jesse Forever

A romantic comedy that looks at the end of a relationship rather than the beginning of one seems like a hard sell, but Celeste and Jesse Forever is selling just that. Andy Samberg (SNL) and Rashida Jones (Parks and Recreation) play the titular couple who are separated and are dealing with the pieces of their relationship. It looks at what happens when a break-up isn’t full of screaming and shouting; how can you move on if you still get on? Ari Graynor (who I will be talking about below), Eric Christian Olsen, Elijah Wood and Emma Roberts round out the cast in this movie that is about letting go of what is comfortable, and moving on. Rashida Jones also co-wrote the film and the sharp wit that we have seen in her performances thus far is hopefully evident here.

The Queen of Versailles

A family decide to build the biggest house in America (inspired by Versailles), and then the economic market collapses; sounds like it could make for a good movie right? Well, this documentary follows the Siegels both before and after their financial strife that impeded this project of building a 90,000 square-foot mansion. Showcasing all that is good and bad about the American dream, especially in light of the economic crisis, the Siegels are a warm family who might be a tad out of touch with reality.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Fox Searchlight has already purchased what has been described as one the big surprises of the festival, one which received the top grand jury prize. Starring a host of unknowns, the film follows Hushpuppy (Quevenzhane Wallis), a girl who is trying to survive in her flooded Louisiana town. The film has been praised for the excellent and beautiful cinematography (which it also won a prize for) and is one that I am definitely excited about seeing.

For a Good Time Call…

Ending my selection of Sundance films on a lighter note, this comedy sees two roommates who don’t seem to like each all that much but start a phone-sex line from their apartment. Ari Graynor (Celeste and Jesse Forever, Whip It) plays the feisty one of the pair, with newcomer Lauren Anne Miller (co-writer of the film and wife to Seth Rogen) getting the uptight role. The comedy focuses on female friendship through some smutty jokes as it is a film about a phone-sex line after all. Justin Long co-stars and is always a welcome sight.

So, what do you think of this selection of films? Any that you want to see? Any that I haven’t included from Sundance that you want to hear more about?

It’s hard to fathom that Roman Polanski has been making films for 50 years now. His early output was a revelation, making a name for himself with a unique brand of taut claustrophobic thrillers (See Knife in the Water/Repulsion). Seething with a palpable sense of anxiety, Polanski pushed his subjects to psychological breaking point with the enclosed surroundings amplifying the tension to almost unbearable levels. In short, they were bad places to be, especially if you happened to advocate bourgeois values. Downton Abbey, had it been made in 1960′s Poland probably would have had the entire cast holed up, soiled knickers and all, in the study with wolves roaming the corridors. It was in its mockery of the Bourgeoisie that European cinema was in its element. While never overtly political, Polanski revelled in using them as fodder. Even through visions of the American dream in Rosemary’s Baby & Chinatown, widely considered all-time greats, many of the hallmarks of his previous work shine through.

However, since that 1960′s/1970′s golden period; whether making conspiracy movies with Harrison Ford, big budget pirate adventures or dodgy horror flicks, his output has ranged from the strange to the down right awful, picking up a best director Oscar for The Pianist along the way. He seemed out of sorts for such a long time. So it was a surprise to hear that Polanski was seemingly revisiting his roots with an ensemble character study in Carnage.

If walking into the experience blind, you could look at the ingredients; a Polanski film, based on a play called ‘God of Carnage’, with the single apartment setting playing host to an all-out bourgeois smack down. You would be forgiven for expecting a world of pain, and upon seeing the film you wouldn’t be far off, except that you’re going to laugh. A lot. In fact, you’ll be hard pressed to find a more satisfying comedy all year.

Set over the course of a single afternoon, in the aftermath of a playground scuffle between two 11 year-old school boys, the Cowans (Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz) visit the Longstreets (Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly) to discuss the problem between their respective sons. What begins as a straightforward social courtesy develops into polite finger pointing and before long, prejudices slip out, the veneer of civilized discussion fritters away, and that’s when things well and truly kick off. A barking dog, a bottle of whiskey, a ringing cell phone, some not-so tasty left overs; all at some point seem to conspire, almost supernaturally to pour gas onto the fire.

Not unlike Luis Bunuel’s 1962 masterpiece The Exterminating Angel the Cowans find that they’re bound to the apartment, except this time not by a mysterious unspoken force, but by invitation of the Longstreets. Neither able to let it drop. This is something Polanski could have possibly made 30 years ago. Like Repulsion, the downtown Brooklyn apartment is a black hole. The irresistible pull of psychosis replaced with one of egocentric stupidity. Even the opening scene, in the context of a Polanski film (a static shot from behind the trees), showing a peripheral conflict in the scope of a wide shot encompassing both the playground and the Hudson river could be viewed with a more sinister connotation if it weren’t for the Alexandre Desplat score which appears straight out of a feel-good 80’s comedy.

Despite the films origins as a stage-play being entrenched in its DNA, this is a dynamic film that is unflinching in its moments of tension whilst allowing for larger than life, eccentric performances from its cast. Huge credit of course has to go to the screenplay which reduces the concerns of adults in modern society to schoolyard triviality. Considering the setting is restricted mostly to one room, the pacing is perfect. With a simple symmetry to the composure of the shots, movement between rooms is expressed with a roaming handheld camera style familiar within Polanski’s early work.

Waltz and Reilly are in their anarchic element as the sneering egotistical attorney and the blue collar blunt tool. It is Foster though, as the anthropological writer; the sanctimonious, emotional ticking-time bomb, and Winslet as the elitist, emotionally sterile investment broker who, playing against type, really let everything hang out and provide the film’s funniest moments. Their group breakdown is a gleeful crescendo of farce and political incorrectness. And as none of the characters have much in the way of redeemable personality traits, all four collectively make up the ultimate toss-pot. You enjoy their descent into hysteria like watching animals on a wildlife documentary or ironically small children in a playground.

I have to admit my first thought as the credits rolled, ‘I can think of a handful of situations in my adult life, which I would look back on with a much greater fondness if they went a little more like that’. One interpretation is that Carnage is a comedy for anyone who has had to bite their tongue. It is also Roman Polanski in his element; society eating itself under the stress of its own vanity.

A very funny film, with excellent performances all round.