Film: District 9

I've tried to watch this film several times, but always been variously interrupted by takeaways arriving, needing to leave as it was not my house, my mother pitching a fit about wanting to watch something easy and so on. So I've seen the documentary-style beginning quite a few times and always thought it was a really interesting idea. I think it's pretty difficult to make alien plots original these days, but this is by far the most outside-of-the-box approach I've seen. For more details on the plot, there's the IMDb page and TV Tropes (which, as always, is far more entertaining).

What I Liked:
As mentioned above, the approach to aliens is truly off-the-wall and unique - if you went into this film knowing absolutely nothing about it, you would not know what the bloody hell was going on for a long time; but not because it's confusing, just because it's like nothing you've ever seen before. That said, the film does an excellent job of using something decidedly not-ordinary to comment on Big Issues that are upsettingly ordinary - none of the metaphorical aspects are too heavy-handed, but very perceptive and clever. Though it's a small thing (and repeatedly lampshaded in the film), I really appreciated the action being set in Johannesburg, rather than your standard New York or London. Also, I've never really been a big fan of mockumentaries, but I really enjoyed the way this was filmed - the documentary elements were used brilliantly towards the beginning of the film, but you don't notice when they start being phased out to make way for more traditional film-making - again, very subtle and very clever.

What I Didn't Like:

I'm not really sure whether I actually considered this a good or bad thing, but the film-makers, clever, introspective and subtle though they were, were certainly not above your standard action movie shoot-'em-up. What I definitely DID object to was watching the main character PEEL HIS OWN FINGERNAILS OFF. That was very much a:

moment.

****

(My laptop is allowing gifs again! I'm sure you're all thrilled.)

Update #2

 Steel Magnolias

So for the first half of this film, I was very much like "...what?" But I had been warned that would happen. It was all big hair, Deep Saaaaath Draaaawls and, shall we say, just a touch right-wing. But you have to stick with these things. The laughs were partly in that kind of I'm-mildly-horrified-by-these-people kind of way, but Shirley Maclaine's character was a superb lovable bitch, and Sally Field is just the Queen of Everything. Also, I love Dolly Parton. There. I said it.

It did get a little bit too schmaltzy at the end, and whilst I saw where Julia Roberts's character was coming from, I still found her frustrating for most of the film. But whatever schmaltziness crept into the end of the film was overruled by Sally Field's "I just want to hit something!" monologue. What. A. Woman. 

***

The Art of Getting By

Yet another mildly disappointing foray into the world of indie cinema. When I saw the trailers for this, I thought it was going to be a touching, charming, The Perks of Being a Wallflower-esque tale of the difficulties of being a teenager who doesn't live in a John Hughes movie. And whilst it did have an interesting leading character, some good background from both of the 'mother' characters, and a nice touch with the years-worth-of-homework-in-three-weeks thing, ultimately my thoughts were:

Because to be honest, through most of the film I was silently screaming at the main character to just get a bloody grip. I mean come on, kid, stop pouting and get over yourself. 

**

One Day

I have to say, this film was better than I remembered it being - the one-liners are very well crafted, and there's just a general air of wittiness to the whole story. The characters are what make this, film and book; the angrily political, Northern, takes-no-shit would-be writer is a character so well put together not even Anne Hathaway's wincingly bad Yorkshire accent can ruin her. The male lead (Jim Sturgess) manages to successfully rattle though roguishly charming, total asswipe, long-suffering husband and normal person with a constant childish adorability - which is character development at it's very best.

What kind of lets the story down is actually the story itself. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, it just doesn't have the pazazz (well how would you spell it?) and originality of the characters. Also - and this is my main issue - the ending Really Pisses Me Off. I don't have a problem with bittersweet endings, but I am not happy to be sat enjoying a pleasant, easy-watching film when suddenly a desperate-to-be-interesting plot twist comes barrelling out of nowhere (literally) and then the film ends, leaving you with this "...what the BLOODY HELL just happened?" feeling. 

***

Film: Take This Waltz

I try to be artsy and studenty, I really do. I love independent cinemas - I love their quirkiness, I love that they all seem to have an attached bar, I love their events and I love that I feel like I'm making more of a difference. But every time I watch an indie movie, I always come out feeling like this:

And Take This Waltz was a perfect example of that. I get that it was trying to be subtly overwhelming and an accurate reflection of life and blah blah blah, but I just - very simply - didn't enjoy it. The IMDb page for you - this film doesn't have a TV Tropes page, which - frankly - would have told me all I needed to know...

I mean it wasn't actively bad - I liked the realism edges it had, and I really liked the alcoholic sister-in-law character (Sarah Silverman). But frankly, I would much rather have watched a film about her than the story which actually unfolded.

The main character - whose name I hadn't picked up on until two-thirds of the way through the film, and have since forgotten - was just really, bloody irritating. The plot doesn't work unless you sympathise with her, and frankly I just wanted to give her a slap - at least it would shake some of the sappiness out of her. The guy she has an affair with is equally irritating, not having any definable character outside of mysterious-and-sexy-stranger, whereas I actually liked the husband who got thoroughly shat upon. All the sort of coupley-quirks between the protagonist and her husband might have been supposed to be cute, but personally I just found it weird and uncomfortable - as I think is a pretty normal reaction to being outside of the couple with the quirks. Maybe that was deliberate, but I still didn't like it.

*

Basically, the whole film just frustrated me...I thought the characters were bland, the plot slow and irritating, the ending very much a "...whut?" sequence and...yeah, no. Indie, artsy and clever it may have been, but I didn't get it and I won't be watching it again.

Film: Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy

So, Batman is quite a big deal in my house. I've watched a lot of Batman. I'm just gonna leave that there.

Batman adaptations have been camp, cheesy, flat-out ludicrous and strange, but Christopher Nolan took the franchise in a darker, edgier, in some ways I think more loyal direction. Aspects of the comics (of which I am IN NO WAY an expert) are camp as Christmas, certainly, but I can remember being genuinely frightenend by some of the images I saw in them when I was a kid. Anyway, I recently re-watched the first couple of films, in preparation for watching the new release, and thought I'd do a Mega-Post for the trilogy.

Batman Begins - IMDb and TV Tropes
I think I was basically a child the last time I watched this, so it was nice to watch it and actually understand what was happening. I really appreciated the way they took their time with the exposition and back story, rather than having Bruce Wayne become Batman inside ten minutes, so they could get on with the punch-ups and explosions. I also was impressed by the very literal use of actual bats - it was really effective, and gave them opportunities for some truly cracking Batman-descending-through-a-swarm-of-bats shots. I love a good snarky comment, and both Alfred and Lucius Fox are golden for them - in fact, I love everything about those two characters. (Fun fact: the little kid who pops up now and again throughout the film, is actually Joffrey from Game of Thrones, looking astonishingly cute and adorable for such an evil little shit.)

The only thing that kind of annoyed me was the confusing, non-liner narrative at the beginning - which jumped all over the place more than it really needed to. Also, the totally illogical sequence wherein Bruce Wayne refuses to execute a murderer, but in order to avoid it blows up a mansion full of ninjas - a little moronic.

****

The Dark Knight - IMDb and TV Tropes
It's going to be hard to not turn this into a drooly, adoring speech about the Joker, so I'll just say I think that character is one of the most extraordinary, genuinely frightening villains ever created, and the bar has been set very high by previous adaptations - but The Dark Knight still wins. I've got a slightly sick interest in moral dilemmas within stories, but they only work when they're done well - but The Dark Knight takes the whole Sadistic Choice thing to a whole new level. The pacemaking in this film is superb - it's really one-part superhero movie, and four-parts thriller - I've never known another film take you along for the ride the way this does. Also, someone among the collective screenwriters has some sort of doctorate in Epic Lines - the "Some men just want to watch the world burn" anecdote is inspired.

I have now literally spent about twenty minutes trying to think of something I didn't like about this film, but all I've got is Batman's voice. It's a little bit panto.

*****

The Dark Knight Rises - IMDb and TV Tropes
I think I've decided that this film was my least favourite of the three, but I still thought it was excellent. I particularly appreciated that they took their time bringing Batman back - unlike the standard Superhero Sequel, wherein the hero has one Profound Encounter and whips the mask back out in the first five minutes, it takes ages for Bruce Wayne to turn back into Batman. As an extension of that, I was also pleasantly surprised that they went for realism over Hollywoodism in Batman's first fight scene - he doesn't just get beaten, he gets annihilated in a straight punch-up; no explosions or gadgetry, he just gets the crap kicked out of him because he's simply not as good as he used to be. The intricacy of the plot was very clever - much more reminiscent of what made Inception so brilliant; so confusing it's genius.

That said, though Batman's voice has always been annoying, this time it was easily outdone by Bane - it was like Sean Connery in a Darth Vader mask. There were fewer laughs in this film too - I mean, the laughs in The Dark Knight were mainly slightly-horrified, but this film was taking itself too seriously. I also thought the middle section went on for way too long, and was (and I am aware of the irony as I say this) a bit too far-fetched.

****

Film: Inglourious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino really freaks me out. Not his films (necessarily), the guy himself just unnerves me whenever I see him in interviews. I can't really explain it, but this slightly negative association meant that the first Tarantino film I saw - Kill Bill - I thought was utterly shite. Sorry, many many internet people who love it, but I thought it was just boring and much more style over substance. So I was only really watching Inglourious Basterds to say I had, but in the end I actually did enjoy it. IMDb and TV Tropes, for you.

That said, it was still obnoxiously self-indulgent - every single scene was a goodly five or ten minutes longer than it needed to be, and tension-building became a sort of watch-tapping, get-on-with-it. I also am no massive fan of the inevitable Tarantino violence-orgy, though was quite pleased that he'd restrained himself a bit more - there was a surprising amount of quiet, dramatic scenes in comparison to scalping/clubbing-to-death/shoot-'em-up scenes. I also couldn't help a bit of an eye-roll (SPOILER) at the fact the only significant character out of a huge ensemble left standing at the end of the movie is the takes-no-shit American.

That said, I was surprised to find that I liked plenty of other things about the film and its story.  I found it inexplicably brilliant that historical accuracy was entirely abandoned for a magnificent moment of canon subversion - I well and truly Did Not See That Coming. There were a lot of pretty decent one-liners, and I'm not sure if it was the writing of Colonel Landa or Christoph Waltz's portrayal of him that made that character so evilly brilliant, but he was. I was also surprised that at no point during the film was I entirely sure whether the whole thing was being played for laughs, or if it was serious - there's a cleverness in confusing people like that.

***

In short, Inglourious Basterds has made up for the damage done by Kill Bill. (Though I still think Tarantino is creepy).

Film: The Amazing Spider-Man

It's going to be really hard to talk about The Amazing Spider-Man without comparing it to the Sam Raimi trilogy (of which I think 1 is fine, 2 is better and 3 is just one big fat raspberry), but from my perspective, I don't think that's really going to do the new film much harm. Also, for a proper comparison, this blog does a brilliant breakdown that I almost entirely agree with. Superhero movies are, by nature, treading a dangerous line of cliches, and it's usually very easy to pick the best (Avengers Assemble) from the worst (Hulk). For information: IMDb, for hilarious perceptiveness: TV Tropes.

Before I get into the story aspects, I've got to put it out there that Andrew Garfield - due partly to being just an excellent specimen of human being - is twice the Spider-Man Tobey Maguire was. I think Maguire is a good actor, but he just wasn't right for my idea of Spider-Man; too wet, too dopey and without any sex appeal to speak of (and the guy's wearing a spandex body suit).

But, to the point. I really liked the extra element of humour in the new Spider-Man - I never read the comics, but I used to watch the animated TV show as a kid, and Spider-Man's quippy one-liners were sadly lacking in previous efforts.

Now I've tried for a good ten minutes to think of a word other than 'realistic' to describe what I thought of the plot, but I got nothing. When I say it's 'more realistic' than other superhero movies, I'm trying to explain that I thought the characters were more perceptive, Peter Parker was more flawed and the details of character and story were all surprisingly three-dimensional for a story so not-rooted in realism.

I also have to spare a thought for Emma Stone. I've expressed my love for her before, but seriously guys, Emma Stone is wicked. In terms of her character, I (and my eardrums) seriously appreciated that she took the character of Gwen Stacey beyond the Kirsten Dunst school of 'Be Thrown Around And Scream A Lot'. I tell you what though, I'd really like to see a superhero film in which the girl was the superhero, and boy was the stay-at-homer. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single girls-superhero film in which the boys weren't also superheroes - can you? (That's not rhetorical - seriously, can you?)

That said, it wasn't perfect. I didn't like the not-infrequent cases of Protagonist Does Something Profoundly Dense To Move The Plot Along - the scene in which Peter gets bitten by the spider was shouting-at-the-screen levels of idiotic.

There were also some classic superhero/action movie cliches, the most eye-rolling example being the 'Before I Die Speech'. That 'Here Are Lots Of Deep And Heartwarming Moments And Now That I've Said Everything Important In A Not-Very-Subtle Poorly-Voice Please Excuse Me While I Die' which gets very:

****

Film: Easy A

American high school movies are like Doctor Who episodes; you watch them because you feel you should, but every now and again, one of them comes along that is so awesome, it makes you realise how painfully average all the others have been. Easy A is one of those high school movies.
For your delectation, here is the IMDb page, and the TV Tropes page.

(Disclaimer: mainly I liked/loved/had a massive girl crush on Emma Stone, but that's not really relevant to the story. Possibly worth bearing in mind though.)

Again, the brilliance of this film lies in the fact that it shamelessly takes the piss out of all the other cheesy high school romances with searing wit. John Hughes, Judy Blume and Mark Twain are all sacrificed on the alter of Funny, and it's the combination of shrewd observation and clever satire that makes this film brilliant.

The main character, Olive Penderghast, aside from having a vampire-romance-novel name, is a perfect example of a Teenage Everygirl. Loads of stories try to achieve this, so that the reader can 'connect' to their protagonist, but painfully few actually succeed. So often the Everygirl is secretly lusted after by all the beautiful men (not a feeling most real-life Teenage Everygirls are probably familiar with), are actually really popular and just don't know it, or are so perfectly Girl-Next-Door-esque that you actually just want to punch her. But Olive genuinely isn't very cool (see the "I've Got A Pocketful of Sunshine" sequence), and we like her all the more because of it.

The actual romance scenes, disappointingly, managed to be every bit as cheesy as the stories the film was taking the piss out of. In particular, any scene with Woodchuck Todd is eye-rollingly predictable. I think it's really hard to have your audience support a romance without making it cringe-inducingly corny, and I was a bit gutted that this film didn't manage it.

****

Initially I wanted to start my film reviews with some burningly intelligent, intense, indie flick that would make you think I was clever. But then I had a bad day, and I thought Easy A would cheer me up. But you know, it definitely worked.