Reviews

Tonight I was fortunate to see a special press screening of 'Watchmen', just two days after the World Premiere and going in with low expectations, I am pleased to say that the film was very enjoyable.

Being a huge fan of the Moore and Gibbons comic series, but not a fan of director Zach Snyder's 'visionary' directorial style, I went into the film not expecting very much, but was pleased to find out that the Alan Moore dialogue was left mostly in tact, the Dave Gibbons' art was replicated beautifully on screen and Snyder's irritating use of slow motion in '300' was thankfully kept to a minimum.

Presuming that the majority of you reading this are familiar with the story, I shall skip the story and move straight on to the 'good, the bad and the ugly' of Watchmen.

The Good:

>The film is accurate to the source material about 90% of the time, which means that often you have dialogue and scenes lifted straight from book to screen, often which results in a wonderful familiarity.

>For a book that is strong because of the story and not necessarily the action, it is a relief to find that the acting is mostly great. The acting from Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach), Patrick Wilson (Nite Owl II), Jeffrey Dean Morgan (The Comedian) are of a particularly high standard and the roles seem to have been made for each actor.

>I particularly loved the opening credits which showcase some of the subplots of the book, which including chronicling the deaths of Dollar Bill and The Silhouette and showing the group photo of the Minutemen.

The Bad:

>Nite Owl II calling their group of heroes the 'Watchmen'.

>The inappropriate use of certain songs at different moments. The use of 'Ride of the Valkyries', Hendrix's 'All Along the Watchtower' and Simon & Garfunkel's 'Sound of Silence' all seemed like it was descending into parody.

>The sex scene in the middle of the film which played like an outtake from 'Team America'...

>The changing of the plot towards the end of the film.

>Tyler Bates' bombastic score which seemed a little out of place...

The Ugly:

>Matthew Goode as Ozymandias was completely miscast. In the book, Ozymandias is strong, bulky and in many cases looks more heroic than most of the other 'masks', but in the film he seems weedy and snivelling and felt more like a low-grade Bond villain.

>My Chemical Romance's cover of Dylan's 'Desolation Row'. Ugh! Was I watching the same down beat film? For a second I thought I was watching the latest in the 'xXx' franchise!

So there you have it, my review of 2009's most anticipated film.

Sorry folks, it's not as good a comic book film as 'The Dark Knight', but it does try its best to be up there with the great comic adaptations. For me however, it seems frustrating that they nearly pulled off a pitch-perfect adaptation and chickened out to make it more populist.

8/10 - Recommended!

Nicholas Ray's 'Bigger Than Life' was released to little fanfare in 1956. Ever the proficient filmmaker, it was Ray's third film in the span of a year. Following the hugely successful 'Rebel Without a Cause' and the forgotten 'Hot Blood'.

Like 'Rebel' before it, 'Bigger Than Life' attempted to address a prevalent issue that was more often than not ignored by the majority of filmmakers. In 'Rebel' it was all about teenager disillusionment with their place in society and their disenchantment with their parents generation. In 'Bigger Than Life' it focuses on the surprisingly forward topic of the dangers on drug overdose. Moreover it creates an interesting debate on the dangers of conformity.

The story was inspired on an article by Burton Roueche, a medical writer for the New Yorker. Roueche was a highly intelligent writer who wrote of many case studies and the film's narrative was based on a case he had chronicled in the danger of experimental drugs. The film avoids documentary style analysis and instead experiments with melodrama and it mostly succeeds in getting its points across.

The film's protagonist, Ed Avery (Mason) is a family man who is devoted to his wife Lou (Rush) and his son Richie. Having problems in keeping up financially, he is employed in two jobs so that he can afford to keep their household running. The Avery's are an average American family and according to Ed are boring. They enjoy all the benefits of the typical 50s American family. They own a house, a station-wagon, a television and they have a group of friends to play bridge. Where the film delivers is in what it doesn't tell the viewer. This can be seen, for instance, in the Avery's desire to have something more than their domestic life provides. Their house, containing multiple tourism posters for world destinations, such as London and Madrid - hints at the desire to break free, yet this is a family that is unable to travel to these places, limited to viewing them from afar, on their wall.

Perhaps owing to his extra work, Ed begins to experience terrible pain, but ignores it deciding that he is just overly tired. One day after hosting a bridge evening, Ed falls unconscious in his bedroom after having an argument with his wife and he is hospitalised. Whilst in hospital, the doctors are particularly concerned with his symptoms and bring in several specialists who eventually diagnose him with a rare inflammation of the arteries. They say that his case will prove to be fatal, unless he takes an experimental drug, 'a miracle drug' - a cortisone injection, but in pill form. Ed agrees to take it and eventually is released from hospital, but not before being warned by his doctor to only take one tablet every 6 hours - no more, no less.

Upon being released from hospital, Ed feels great and returns to work immediately. Whilst taking the drug his moods vary significantly, but he feels great when he takes the correct amount, but his mood changes quite significantly when he overdoses. His personality completely changes and this ranges from making insulting (yet viable) statements on the state of child development to snapping at his wife and child. The drugs have changed him, but he is unable to come off them because he could die without them.

The film has been called by numerous critics as an attack on 1950s conformity. Ed is freed from these standards when he takes the drug, and the effects are truthful, yet terrifying. There is a scene in Ed's school where he complains of society raising their children as a race of 'moral midgets'. He delivers his points in an almost Fascistic method and one parent even jumps up and declares how Ed is correct in his opinions. His teaching friend Wally (Matthau) is concerned at Ed's sudden change and break from conformity and eventually discovers that it is a side-effect of the cortisone.

The film is magnificently shot with Ray's famous expressionist shadows employed in the later segments of the film, particularly when Ed is in pain or has his mood swings. The bouts of pain that Ed experiences are shot exactly like a scene in Mamoulian's 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' - dark shadows employed and Mason's face is obscured. Close-ups are often used in order to emphasise Ed's mood. Perhaps the most potent imagery in the film however is the use of the broken mirror, which could be seen as representing Ed's breaking free of conformity. The concluding fight with its carnival music blaring from a television is reminiscent of 'Strangers on a Train', but it is also terrifying. Ed's transformation is so significant that Ray questions whether it is just the drug that changes Ed. Are these psychotic tendencies inherent in all humans? Perhaps the only real weakness in the film is in the overly happy ending. It would perhaps be unfair to criticise a film for having a happy ending, especially in one that was produced under the production code, but with Ed's prognosis being that of having to take the drug for the rest of his life and under strict supervision, the character's future looks bleak - a fact that is glossed over by the ending.

All in all, however, 'Larger Than Life' is a highly recommended film that was ahead of its time. I feel that its current rating of 7.1 is unfair, but this is perhaps due to the lack of its availability on video. In my opinion this is a film that deserves to be on a par with Ray's other classic 'Rebel Without a Cause'.

Children of Men was a film that I went into seeing which I had no expectations for whatsoever. It is one of those odd films which, despite the big name cast and the huge budget had limited exposure through its lack of advertising. It was only after I saw some bus posters that I sought out more information, having been familiar with Cuarón's other films. Alfonso Cuarón, whose previous two films were essentially coming of age dramas has shown that he is a also highly adept in a futuristic setting. Whilst his take on the Harry Potter franchise may have left some feeling cold in terms of what he did with 'the best book in the franchise', there is no denying that he is a highly competent director and in Children of Men his complex direction shines more than any other quality. There are scenes which literally caught me by surprise, which looked so realistic or so complex that I did not actually know how they were completed. There is a scene in a car as the protagonists encounter a vigilante group in some woods. The camera is constantly floating and is done in a first person perspective, which not only gives you a real sense of claustrophobia but also a great sense of unease - as you can only see what is happening in one direction, instead of the multiple angles of montage that are usually reserved for action films. The constant shots which also look like a one-take shot also highly intrigued me and I still am eager to find out whether they were manipulated by CGI or were actually shot that way. Either way, it makes for a unique viewing experience which acts to increase the tension. Hand-held cameras also appear to be used quite often and it makes for a gritty, almost documentary style of narrative. The next best alternative I can think of to this style is Paul Greengrass' technique in the Bourne Supremacy or United 93. Indeed it is this camera technique which together with the small touches in the mise-en-scene which creates a realistic world. For me, it is all about the small touches in film, since I believe they are what makes a good film great. Children of Men is no exception, the opening sequence alone is full of them. After Owen's character orders a coffee and makes his way on to the London street in 2026 - the viewer is suddenly overwhelmed by these small touches, the different cars, the buildings which look familiar, yet look alien at the same time, the screens in the background advertising something or relaying some news - I was certainly overwhelmed with the level of detail and would gladly choose to watch it again just to try and take in some more of the detail. One of the criticisms levelled against the film is that the idea is great, but the story is poorly executed. Others still have criticised its moving away from the original novel by P.D. James and accused it of being a vitriolic attack on the UKs policies of immigration. Both of these claims I would say have merit and to be honest, they are the only things which prevent me from giving this film a perfect score. Yet with such expert direction and technical wizardry as well as fantastic performances by all involved; Children of Men gets a high recommendation from me. It will most likely be snubbed by any major award ceremonies, but it would be nice to see the technical team get some kind of recognition for creating such a terrifying prospect of the future.

Robert Bresson was one of those rare storytellers that could take a universal theme and apply it in real-world terms into an image that was both beautiful and horrifying. L'Argent is Bresson's opinions on money; and the evil lengths that some people do in order to get it. The idea being that it has the ability to turn moral people into evil creatures. It is no surprise then, in this instance that the story begins with two (supposedly moral) teenagers who begin a life of crime through the forgery of bank notes. The journey that the central character Yvon takes on his fall from grace is from devoted husband and father to ruthless murderer. Whilst his journey may seem a bit too simplistic for some, it should be seen as a metaphor that the capability for evil lies within every man and that the money of the title acts merely as an accessory. Yvon suffers a series of negative events which affects him until his character quite literally hits breaking point and then commits the ultimate sin; all of which was as a result of money. Bresson's style is famous amongst directors and it really is breathtaking stuff to watch. The amount of meaning and power that he can get in to a film with minimal dialogue, unprofessional actors and in a relatively short period of time is impressive. Some of the scenes are mesmerising simply because of their lack of typical filmic conventions. The lack of a soundtrack also adds to the horror of the conclusion; which only adds to its realistic nature. Perhaps it is the lack of filmic conventions which means that Bresson's films are not well known by the general public, but if people can view just one of his masterpieces; it would be difficult for it not to stay in the viewer's mind and increase the desire to see and speak more of his output. L'Argent was unfortunately, to be Bresson's final film, his long in development filmed version of the book of Genesis never came to be; but it is a masterful swansong and indeed is highly recommended.

The War Game was my introduction to writer/director Peter Watkins and it certainly won't be my last. Watkins' style is not too dissimilar from other 'what if' documentaries and when viewed in lieu of these more recent imitations, you realise how unique Watkins' was at the time. Watkins' creates a kind of alternate reality in which Britain is hit by several nuclear missiles. The film, using facts from various sources on nuclear weapons then creates the 'reality' or what would be likely to happen; which very often contradicts with the official line from the government. Which then creates a kind of horrifying image that the government is not prepared for a nuclear strike. Indeed as some of the other reviewers have said on this site; it is a genuine horror film as opposed to other Hollywood efforts - the documentary feel of the film adds to the authenticity of the horror. Originally designed during the Cold War as a film to educate viewers on the horrors of nuclear war, the film was seen as too grim by the BBC who originally commissioned the film. Indeed this is grim stuff; some of the most potent images include a citizens uprising which ends in the murder of policemen who were installed there to preserve order, in the name of food and interviews with a group of emotionally-scarred children who, having experienced the horror of nuclear war have lost the motivation to do anything with their lives. The War Game is done in such a realistic way that it can't fail to have a lasting impression on the viewer and it does more for me than any other anti-nuclear film. Although the Cold War has been over for about two decades; nuclear weapons are still very much still an issue and when viewed by the discerning viewer; The War Game will hopefully lead that person to sign up for the CND if they haven't already done so. Essential Viewing and highly recommended!