Moon

Popped along to the cinema with Little Girl Clark the other night and to our pleasant surprise twas 'Bargain Tuesdays'. We watched the Sam Rockwell film 'Moon', and I must say it was pretty darn good. If I went into any more detail it would wreck the entire plot.

But Kevin Spacey plays a robot.

Twilight

The teenage girl inside me had been bugging me to see this film. It seems to be all that anyone had been talking about for ages and so, when I spotted it in the sale at HMV I bought a copy, bowing my head in a feeble attempt to hide my face from the guy at the checkout. To his credit he showed no scorn whatsoever.

I was intrigued as to why there was such hysteria over the film. All I knew before I watched it was that it had a good looking vampire boy who falls in love with a human girl. Not exactly groundbreaking in terms of originality, but my sister had assured me that the tension between the two leads was unbelievable. Someone else had informed me that there were lots of luscious shots of woods, which was far more to my liking.

Encouragingly the film started well, as it followed a young girl as she moved to her father’s home in Washington State. The opening shots reminded me of an indie film, but unfortunately the rest of the film was fairly underwhelming. The main problem as I saw it was a severe lack of plot. I’m sure the Stephanie Meyer books are more complex, but the film was incredibly simple. The first half deals with Kristen Stewart’s character finding out about a vampire boy (and then falling in love with him) and the second half seems almost tacked on, as Robert Pattinson’s vampire attempts to protect her from another blood-sucker who has taken a shine to her.

The opening section is by far the better, as we learn about the vampire family (including a tour of their house in the woods) and love blossoms between the two main characters Bella and Edward. There are a few particularly nice touches: the vampires we meet are ‘vegetarians’ who feed on animals not humans, yet there is a tension between Edward and Bella as we are informed that, as much as he may love her, he also has a strong desire to drink her blood. Other interesting plot strands are brushed over, for example Bella’s relationship with her father (who she hasn’t seen for years), and the role of the American Indian tribe in relation to the vampires. Lots of angry glances don’t fully explain why the Indians have such power over the vampires.

A lot of the film is cheesy. The romance seemed inevitable as did the triumph over the vampire (who used to be in the O.C.) at the end. Whilst there are lots of great views of the woods, there are many more unanswered questions. Ultimately the film’s main problem is that it is the first in a series, and as a stand-alone film it doesn’t quite work.

District 9

It is always easiest to criticise films, as opposed to praising them. Such films also allow me to get out my trademark biting humour. Because of these factors it is somewhat disappointing that the first few films I should see as I start writing my blog should all be rather good, and District 9 is no exception.

The film ran a rather good marketing campaign, and for the last couple of weeks or so I have been bombarded with ‘For Humans Only’ adverts on bus stops. I was also aware that Peter Jackson had produced the film, which no doubt helped getting it so much exposure, especially as it was a South African film with a previously unheard of director (Neill Blomkamp). I had no real intention of seeing it however, for whilst I thought the alien/apartheid metaphor was a neat idea the trailer had made it out to be a crude horror film in which I presumed the aliens just massacred the humans due to their maltreatment. I cannot admit to being a particular fan of horror films, but I was luckily convinced to go by a friend.

Parts of the film are shot like a documentary, supposedly some time after the events took place, and this gives a ‘realistic’ feel to what otherwise might have simply been a simple sci-fi action film. It is on the whole well acted, and the fact it is in South Africa immediately distinguishes it from most Hollywood alien films. What surprised me most was the plot. I had been expecting a tense build up until the first glimpse of a horrifying alien, but in actual fact the audience are shown the aliens wandering around from almost the first minute. The fact that they are also vaguely human in shape also means that, as the film progresses, it is easy to feel sympathy for them (a point Blomkamp has admitted was necessary, even if it was not what he originally intended them to look like). After the initial explanation of events (an alien spacecraft appeared over Johannesburg in 1982, and the aliens were subsequently detained in the grotty ‘District 9’) a gripping thriller begins as a human is infected by the aliens and has to team up with an alien to save himself, whilst the alien tries to find a way to return to his mothership. It all sounds a bit run-of-the-mill sci-fi, but the realistic character development, as well as the fast pace of the movie mean it is a step above most films in this genre.

Unfortunately the film leaves a lot of unanswered questions, and was obviously developed with a sequel, or indeed prequel, in mind. Here are just a few niggling thoughts that filled my mind when I left the cinema:

• Why did the spaceship come to rest over Johannesburg in the main place? (PREQUEL)
• Why are all the aliens so ill? (PREQUEL)
• If the spaceship is no longer capable of moving, how does it manage to hover above a city? (this question is more to do with alien technology logistics, but still irritated me a little)
• Why do human rights groups campaign for the aliens?
• Why does the lead character sound Irish every time he says the word ‘fuck’?
• For a film that takes its inspiration from apartheid, and especially the relocation of black people from District 6 in Cape Town in 1966, why does it portray Nigerians as criminals, prostitutes and witch doctors? (In fairness I do not believe this was intentional xenophobia on the part of the filmmakers, but is nonetheless unfortunate).
• Why is the child alien so smart?
• Why does Wikus (the main character) insist on calling the main alien Christopher Johnson, when the humans gave him that name?
• Does Christopher Johnson (sorry…) save his race? SEQUEL
• Does Wikus ever turn back into a human? SEQUEL

Even with all these hanging queries I found the film to be highly enjoyable, and would most definitely recommend it. Hopefully the next film I see will be awful…

In Bruges

‘In Bruges’ is a film that I had only heard good things about before I actually saw it. Experience has taught me that this is rarely a good thing. Sacha Baron Cohen’s ‘Borat’ was universally praised by critics and my friends alike, but by the time I finally got round to viewing it, a good three months after everyone else in the world, I was left with a mighty sense of disappointment. Of course it was funny, but I was expecting it to be, and all of the best jokes I had already overheard via my loud-mouthed fellow students. I did not find the naked wrestling scene funny, for example, because I had already heard it described in excruciating detail and it was therefore not as shocking as it must have been for the unsuspecting cinema-goer. Similarly I recently saw the stag-do comedy ‘The Hangover’ at the cinema. Whilst I did think that it was a very good film, the sheer hype that had grown up around it, as well as the brilliance of the trailer, meant that despite laughing almost constantly throughout it I came out of the Brixton Ritzy trying to pretend I wasn’t just a little bit disappointed it hadn’t been better. But maybe I’m just fussy.

With ‘In Bruges’ however, I found it to be a case of the film bettering my expectations. Everyone I knew that had seen it encouraged me to do likewise, and with good reason. The story follows two Irish hit men, played brilliantly by Colin Farrell (of Ballykissangel fame) and Brendan Gleeson, who hideout in the Belgian city of Bruges after a job in London. The cockney boss baddie is played by Ralph Fiennes (who you may know as the uncle of the child who plays young Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) with what struck me as a slightly over-the-top accent, in nonetheless a good performance.

The film provides many funny moments, despite its heavy use of swearing and graphically violent nature. Farrell is at the heart of all of the best parts, from his wide-eyed amazement at the sight of a movie about midgets being filmed, to his violent reaction to being threatened by a bottle-wielding Canadian woman. The plot cleverly weaves its way through a multitude of little incidences, many which have greater significance towards the end of the film, all the while using the picturesque Belgian city as a backdrop. The relationship between the two leads is particularly amusing, and is highly reminiscent of a typical family holiday as one character (Gleeson) attempts to soak in the medieval culture, whilst the other (Farrell) spends most of his time childishly complaining.


It is indeed the characters that make the film so watchable. Despite their murderous natures you find yourself warming to all of them, even Fiennes’ ‘Harry’. Director Martin McDonagh (whom I must admit I had never heard of before) relates his comic-book characters to ordinary life in a sophisticated manner that, despite who they represent, allows the viewer to relate to them. One moment that sticks out is Harry’s anger at finding out that Gleeson’s Ken has not killed Farrell’s Ray. As he slams down his phone repeatedly his wife reminds him that it is just an “inanimate object”, to which he instantly retorts, “You’re a fucking inanimate object!”, before apologising moments later. Such a confrontation, irrespective of what triggered it, could easily be an argument in any family’s house.

The film is not just a comedy, but deals with issues of guilt and redemption. Farrell’s character, we learn, accidentally killed a child in the botched assassination that has led them to Bruges, and this provides both the drive of the plot (the gangster boss orders him to be killed by Gleeson), and the surprisingly touching moments that litter the film. Farrell is plagued by sadness, but McDonagh does not allow the film to become overly sentimental. When Ken raises the issue early on in the film for example, an obviously-distraught Farrell remarks “Why the fuck did you have to bring that up?” And the subject is not raised again for a while. The most touching moment of the film, and also one of its funniest, occurs when Ken is walking up behind Ray to shoot him in the back of the head. However when he is about the pull the trigger Ray raises his gun to his own head, prompting Ken to prevent him from killing himself. The rest of the film concerns Ken’s attempts to help the suicidal Ray, despite all the obstacles.

The characters are weird and wonderful, yet to a certain degree believable, the setting seems apt and indeed plays an important role in the story, and the humour throughout the film provides ample entertainment. What makes the film really great however is the love of the characters, especially Ken’s towards Ray. We later find out that Ken holds a debt to Harry, yet he forgoes it to help the young, misguided man. It is haunting to watch Ken, bleeding at the top of the church tower, reach into his pockets for the four Euros ninety cents (that he had earlier attempted to pay for his visit to the medieval building) before dropping them down through the mist below to clear the way for his hurtling body, all in an attempt to save Ray’s life. I cannot wait to watch this film again.