1/3 - 1/8: Fairies, Organs, Planets, Dumb Action, & Colin Ferrall

I think I've figured out how I'm going to keep this blog going and not completely bore everyone who reads it (hopefully). In the past I would watch a movie and then spend longer than most film's run-time writing a freaking novel about it. Yea, not doing that anymore. Call me lazy, but continuing on the way I was would tucker me out. Plus, no one really wants to read that much about some of the idiotic films I watch. I watch a lot of really awesome movies, but sometimes I'm a moron and rent the dumbest movie on the shelves.

Example: I'm going to rent Shark Night eventually. I know it's going to be horrible. I know I'll probably hate myself afterward. But it's called Shark Night and that guarantees at some point someone will get eaten by a shark. Sometimes that's all it takes for me. However, I don't want to write for an hour about Shark Night. I'm sure that neither do you.

So...

This is how this is going to work: I'm going to watch a bunch of shit, hope some of it isn't shit, and then I'm going to tell you about it.

Simple.

I'm planning to post at least once a week and give you a round-up of what I've seen since the last post. It's going to be semi-brief (unless the film warrants further discussion) and will maybe give you some clue as to whether or not it's worth your precious time to watch. I'm also going to single out one film as "Movie Of The Week." It'll be whatever was the best one I watched that week... or something like that (I've yet to decide whether that's a good idea or a dumb one but I'm rolling with it for now).

Tuesday 1/3/12: Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark (2011)

Despite only being produced/co-written by Guillermo Del Toro, Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark has the wonderful director's spirit casting it's shadow over the entire movie. I had a lot of fun with this movie. It's got a really entertaining premise of evil fairies trying to eat a little girl's teeth, a wonderful performance by Guy Pierce, and the classic gothic horror vibe that Del Toro is known for. Definitely check this out. It's classy horror fun.

Wednesday 1/4/12: Never Let Me Go (2010)

This may be one of those "novel vs film" issues for me. I absolutely adore the book that this was based on, and thus there is nothing this movie could do to make me completely happy. I've tried very much to learn how to separate a film from it's source material and judge each on it's own merits, but I'm apparently incapable of doing so. This is actually a fantastic film. Mark Romanek has done a great job staying true to the book and everyone involved is wonderful, but (for me) knowing what he leaves out ruins some of the impact. I'm going to steal what a friend said about The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo and say that the movie feels like a trailer or a highlight reel for the book. It all just seems to fly by so quickly. If you haven't read the book I'd imagine this will be a wonderful experience for you. I'd read the book again in a heartbeat, but I'd only watch this again to stare at Carey Mulligan and wonder why she's not my girlfriend.

Thursday 1/5/12: Another Earth (2011)

I had high hopes for this movie. A sci-fi film about a "second earth" appearing in the sky that seems to be an exact copy of our own sounded like a great idea. It is a great idea, but this was executed all wrong. Normally I'd praise a film that takes a sci-fi concept and chooses to focus on a human element instead. But what happens when the human story isn't very good? This is the case here. The film focuses on it's redemption story so much that the really intriguing idea of a mirror earth is almost completely ignored. On a technical aspect I've got nothing to complain about. It's all done very well and the performances are solid. I just didn't care. It all played out like a typical indie feature with a background concept that's far more interesting than the character's you spend 90% of the time watching.

Friday 1/6/12: The Bourne Identity (2002)

I'm in Hasting on Friday night and I've got several great movies in my hand (My Fair Lady, Roman Holiday, Bullitt), but an hour later I walk out of the store with The Bourne Identity. How does this happen? Well... I'm an idiot. I'd never seen this movie before and really never wanted to. Yet I see it on the shelves and I pick it over films I've been planning to watch for years. I didn't like it and really have no interest in trying the other films in the series (still won't stop me from renting them anyways). I would imagine that my neighbor Steve would love this movie, but my neighbor Steve is also a moron.

Saturday 1/7/12: In Bruges (2008) Movie Of The Week

I really really hate Colin Ferrall. And I really hate that I love him so much in this movie. Ferrall and Brenden Gleeson play hit-men who are hiding out in Bruges after a botched job, and both actors are simply a joy to watch. It's got some of the sharpest and wittiest dialogue this side of a Tarantino or Guy Ritchie movie but with a lot more heart. It's a funny, irreverent, and oddly touching meditation on doing the right thing and man's capacity for change. That's all I'm going to say about this one. Go rent it. Best movie I've seen all week and one I'm going to buy as soon as I get a chance.

Sunday 1/8/12: Cedar Rapids (2011)

You'd think that since I watched this film last night I'd have more to say about it. It was enjoyable and I laughed several times, but I'm already forgetting it. I'm guessing that doesn't speak well for it. I'd only rent this if you can't find anything else. You'll probably enjoy it while it's playing but won't care about it afterwards.

Top 10 Films (I've Seen) of 2011

Making a top 10 film list is near impossible for me. Living in Montana means that a very large number of films I wish to see will never get shown in theaters here. I have three options at this point: Hope and pray the DVD release hits before January first (this never works out), watch the film through less lawful means (which I try to avoid), or just give up on making a top 10 list (which has been the case the last several years). I'm pretty much screwed no matter what, but I've decided that I like making lists far to much to completely give up on them. Instead I will resign myself to compiling a list of the best films from the past year that I've had the pleasure (or luck) of actually being able to see.

This was not the best year for the cinema. There were a lot of good films but not very many great films. Maybe it's just the ones I choose to watch or maybe this year just kinda sucked. Either way I watched a ton of really horrid movies. I mean really awful. I'm going to use mental illness as an excuse and just say I was super depressed and made some unfortunate choices. I'm not proud of some of the movies I watched (Transformers 3, Conan The Barbarian, Apollo 18) but I can't say I wasn't fully aware of what I was getting into. Let's just blame sadness and move on, shall we?

One last thing: An argument could be made for many of these films that they belong in 2010. I'm basing inclusion on several by US theatrical dates (not festival premieres), and in one case the fact that I can't find a US theatrical date at all but the DVD was released in 2011. I'm sure none of you really care that much and just want me to get on with it. I just felt the need to pointlessly justify my choices. So there.

10. Rubber

This is a movie about a tire that rolls around and kills people with psychic powers. After watching this movie I sent a text to a friend that said something like this: "I watched Rubber last night. It was either absolutely amazing, or one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. I'm not sure." If I'm being honest, I'm still not sure. But this movie has constantly risen to thought again and again. I can't ignore that. I also find myself longing to watch it again. It's a curiosity in the extremist sense. The level of "meta" achieved in this movie is beyond words. There is a strong chance you'll hate it, but you won't be able to deny that you've never seen anything quite like it. Which is something you can't say very often.

9. The Housemaid

In the last several years South Korea has been a spawning ground for some of the roughest, most disturbing, and thought provoking films around. I was torn between this film and I Saw The Devil but ultimately picked this one based on the amazing Do-yeon Jeon. Her performance as a housemaid who begins an affair with her employer is one this year's best. The ending will leave you talking and thinking for quite some time.

8. Super 8

I doubt I need to say much about this one. I loved it. It's like old Spielberg but without all the things I hate about Spielberg. It needs noting that Elle Fanning is quickly becoming quite a force to be reckoned with. She's amazing.

7. The Innkeepers

Biggest surprise of the year. I watched this film last night and was completely blown away. This is Ti West' s follow-up to the equally amazing House of The Devil, and it proves that movie was no fluke. It's funny, touching, and legitimately frightening (which is hard to achieve with me). It's currently only available to watch on Video On Demand.

6. Melancholia

Damn you Lars von Trier, damn you. This movie is beautiful and extremely devastating. If you know Lars von Trier's work you'll know what to expect. If not... Be careful. Watch this movie then go be with someone you love, or you just might want to kill yourself.

5. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

This movie won a certain big award last year and it was very well deserved. A strange and haunting meditation on life, death, and things beyond. Just promise me you won't try to "understand" everything. You won't and I'm not sure you're meant to. How do you explain a sex scene with a giant cat-fish spirit? Well... You don't.

4. 13 Assassins

Micheal Bay take note. This is how you direct an action film.

3. Hanna

An amazingly crafted action/thriller that doesn't sacrifice thrills for smarts. For some reason I was reminded of Leon The Professional while watching this. There really aren't that many similarities, but both provide an extremely human look at people who are trained to kill without thought or emotion. And they are both great films.

2. Midnight In Paris

I enjoy just about any Woody Allen film, but his last few have not achieved the sort of greatness he is known for. This is different. Classic Allen that holds up to some of his best work. This is pure movie magic and I have a hard time imagining anyone not finding complete joy in this film.

1. Drive

This is close to perfection. Holy crap. If you missed this in the theaters then I feel sorry for you. Nicolas Winding Refn has officially entered into my list of favorite directors. His sense of style is spot on with what I love. I really don't want to say anything more about this movie. Just trust me. When I saw this for the first time there was a gentleman sitting next to me that looked like the opposite of this movie's target audience. I was a little worried he might get agitated that this wasn't a Fast and The Furious rip-off, and that he was tricked by the preview into seeing an "art" film. Nope. He loved it. And by his vocal appreciation of what was going on on-screen, he maybe loved it more then I did. Go watch this. It's out on DVD on Janurary 31, and I will beat your children if you don't give it a chance. And if you hate it... Well... Your taste in movies must really suck.

Thats it.

I'm certain this list could change in the next few months as I catch up on the films I really wish I could have seen (The Skin I Live In, Martha Marcy May Marlene, We Need To Talk About Kevin, and many others), but I'm going to try not to think about it.

I'm going to try (again) to be a little more regular with my posts here. Possibly in a different format then before, but I'm still working that out.

Word.

Somewhere (2010)

Somewhere

Directed by: Sofia Coppola

Starring: Stephen Dorff & Elle Fanning

Released: 2010

Country of Origin: USA

Runtime: 97 min.

I absolutely adore Sofia Coppola. She's a magical and wonderful human being. I get as giddy as a 14-year old Japanese school girl every time she releases a movie, and every time she does I'm consistently amazed. At the moment, I don't believe she can do anything wrong. Of coarse, with my luck that will probably mean the next feature she directs is going to suck. That tends to happen when I put this much faith in a director (I'm looking at you David Gordon Green, you bastard), but something tells me she's way to cool for that; I hope. For the time being my opinion of her is safe, because her newest feature (which of course never came to a theater near me) is just as awesome as the rest of her wonderful filmography.

Somewhere stars Stephan Dorff as Johnny, a movie star who seems to have little or no pleasure in his life. He's got plenty of stimuli, but nothing that gives him any feeling. Near the beginning of the film, two blonde girls perform a pole dance to "My Hero" by the Foo Fighters, which causes him to fall asleep. This is a man who has completely disconnected from life. The only real "light" in his life seems to be Cleo, his eleven year old daughter. While it's clear that Johnny has been a little absent in Cloe's life, he is by no means the typical absent father archetype. He may live a meaningless and irresponsible life on his own, but when his daughter is with him he tries his best to be a good father. Cloe is eventually left by her mother for an unspecified amount of time, and Johnny is forced to include her into his daily life.

This premise is bait for a completely generic and awful movie. We have all seen this done before. Reckless and emotionally ill-equipped father/mother is magically reunited with their long lost child, and are forced to re-examine their lives to learn a valuable lesson. And I'll admit, from the way the movie was presented in the trailer, I was a little worried. Still, there was a little voice in the back of my head that whispered: "No, Jordan, Sofia is one of the few non-related females that haven't ever let you down or hurt you. Trust her." For once, my brain was totally right, and Coppola turned an extremely lame plot into something very great. The biggest thing I appreciated about this was the treatment of Johnny. It'd be very easy to present him in a light that shines too much on his short comings as a father. He's not a great father, but he's not horrible. It's clear he loves his daughter, and you never feel he regrets or feels uncomfortable being around her. She also seems happy to spend time with him. Also, the "drama" is very subdued. I find it a little insulting and ineffective when movies try to force an emotional reaction from the audience. In Somewhere things just happen. It's more of a slice-of-life film then a plot driven one. This is their life; take it or leave it. Because of this restraint, when the emotional parts arrive, they are much more effective and heart-breaking. I've also got to mention how great Stephan Dorff and Elle Fanning are. Stephan Dorff has never really impressed me, and in fact the only role I can recall off the top of my head is from Blade. That's not a good sign. In this movie, however, he fits the role perfectly. Apparently those Fanning sister come from a very good well-spring of talent. I've always thought Dakota Fanning has it in her to be something great (she was the only redeeming part of that movie Push, which I'm sure none of you even remember), but Elle is definitely going to give her a run for her money. Also watch out for the surprisingly awesome appearance by Chris Pontius (ya know, from Jackass), and yes I did say awesome.

FINAL VERDICT: Go watch now! I'll admit the movie is slow, but it is never boring. In fact, it's extremely captivating. Yes, I am in love with Sofia Coppola, but I feel I'm still objective enough that if she ever made a stinker of a movie; I'd admit it. Luckily, I don't have to (yet). Another thing: pay close attention to the scene in which Johnny has a cast made of his face. I feel it perfectly captures several aspects of his life, and is oddly mesmerizing and suffocating.

Apologies To My Fans (AKA My Mom)

Well... I'll just say it: I'm a bit lazy. I could provide a whole list of excuses (and I will soon) on why I've left this blog stagnate for the last five months, but it comes down to a bout of lazy. Sure, when I started this up I was unemployed, living in my parents living room, and really had nothing better to do, but let's look at what has changed now. I do have a job (which is only part-time). I live on my own now (really that should give me more time). I don't have access to the internet at my apartment (not a real excuse. I'm at Off The Leaf all the damn time).

Yep.

No Excuse.

And for that loyal fans(Mom), I deeply apologize.

Since that's out of the way, I'm happy to say I'm going to start keeping up with this blog. Originally I had taken a month off to take my self-prescribed, self-taught crash course in writing and grammar, then just never started back up again (kinda defeats the point, huh?). Now when you read this (Mom), there will hopefully be fewer grammatical errors that no one probably noticed in the first place (don't hold your breath. My comma usage may still be out of control). I may not be writing approx. 1,000 words every other day like I did when this started, but I'll try to at least post something about whatever interesting movies I've been watching recently. Because all these "words" are going to eventually come to a boiling point, and I'm going to freak out and verbally accost someone with a torrential outburst of film talk (most likely just yelling out names of directors and movies and swearing a whole lot, which will just make me sound like a super nerdy kid with Tourette's.) No one wants that. Or deserves it.

Since I'm sure you're all wondering what I've been watching this past near-half year, I will tell you. It's not much, but I'll still fill ya in. Get ready for some awesome (or not).

12/20/11 - Welcome To The Dollhouse (1995)

I've seen this a lot. It's awesome. And you should watch it.

12/22/11 - Black Swan (2010)

Amazing film. Miss Portman was amazing, and very deserving of that lil' gold statue she received. Also, Vincent Cassel was top-notch as always.

12/25/11 - The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader (2010)

By far the best film in the Narnia series, but that's really not saying much. I hear it will be the last one in the series that will be made. We can only hope.

12/25/11 - True Grit (2010)

Yep, Cohen Bros. Yep, It was awesome. I'm sure you've all heard a ton about it. So, I won't bore you.

1/2/11 - Devil (2010)

Ehhh... I'm not sure I expected this to be any good. Cause it wasn't. It was just kinda nothing. I sat and I watched it, but I was completely detached from anything that was going on. I'm sure in a couple years I'll forget it even existed.

1/15/11 - The Social Network (2010)

I already wrote about this one. This was just a re-watch with my sister. Go Here.

1/15/11 - The King's Speech (2010)

Easily one of the best films of the year. Once I buy this I'm sure I'll revisit it and share a bit. Just please, please, please watch the R-rated version. Don't support the silly commercial ploy to get more people in the theater by trimming one tiny bit of swearing to get a PG-13 rating. You'd be robbing yourself of a very great scene. All because you're afraid of the "fuck" word (sorry, Mom). Which is a dumb reason.

1/22/11 - The Shortcut (2009)

Uh, I'm not sure I remember this. I think it has a chick from 30 Rock in it. Something about a path in the woods, old guys chained in a basement, and well... who cares. It obviously didn't make an impression.

1/29/11 - House (1977)

Ever wonder how Japanese cinema went from classics of film (Seven Samurai, Late Spring, Ugetsu) to batshit crazy weirdness (Tokyo Gore Police, Ichi The Killer, Meatball Machine)? It was this movie. It all changed with House. This movie rules in a very bad-awesome kind of way. But be vary wary of anything it influenced. Crazy Asians.

2/4/11 - 127 Hours (2010)

Apparently this was the only movie I watched the entire month of February. What was I doing? Hmmmm..... Really can't remember why the hell I couldn't find a couple hours to watch a movie. I was probably just being awesome (as usual). At least I picked a very bad-ass movie for my one viewing. James Franco is a very sexy man.

3/11/11 - Blue Valentine (2010)

Simply beautiful. I cannot say how much I loved this movie. Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling were absolutely perfect. Some of the scenes in this movie are among the most wonderful and heart-breaking I can recall in recent memory. Ignore the whole drama of the initial NC-17 rating. It wasn't deserved, and I'm very glad they got the morons at the MPAA to change it.

On a side note: I met three wonderful "older" gals at the screening I went to. We hung out for like half an hour talking about film. They made my night. If only I was that smooth with girls that are 40 years younger.

3/29/11 - Pickpocket (1959)

I wrote about this in Grindstone Magazine this month. Go check it out. It should be available wherever cool people go (not sure where those places are) for at least a few more days.

4/8/11 - Your Highness (2011)

Hey! Do you like really shitty movies? If so, you'll probably love this one. Puke.

4/13/11 - Sucker Punch (2011)

Hot girls in a mental institute fighting dragons, robot samurai, and steam-punk zombie nazis? Yes, please. Oh... wait... this a film about rape cheaply disguised as nerd-porn? Thanks alot, Zack Snyder. You suck.

4/15/11 - Hanna (2011)

Awesome. Awesome. Awesome.

4/16/11 - Rango (2011)

By far the best looking animated film I've ever seen. Seriously. By the way, this is not a "kids film." So, don't take your kids to it. Unless your kids are bad-asses.

4/20/11 - Source Code (2011)

I'm going to need to see this again before I make a firm judgement. I want to say it's good. But I feel like my expectations and what I watched were clashing a bit during my viewing. It's directed by David Bowie's son, which is awesome. Also, Duncan Jones's last film Moon was great. Go watch that.

4/26/11 - The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

I watched this last week for my article in Grindstone. Please pick up a copy when it hits the streets later this week.

There it is. I feel a lot better getting it all out. Expect more soon-ish.

Play Dirty (1969)

Play Dirty

Directed by: Andre De Toth

Starring: Michael Cane, Nigel Davenport, Nigel Green, & Harry Andrews

Released: 1969

Country of Origin: UK

Runtime: 118 min.

It's always struck me as slightly odd when very pro-military/pro-war people are into films with very strong anti-war sentiments. I'm not sure if they just like watching things blow up, if they can ignore the clashing ideals, or they're just too dim-witted to understand the underlying message the film carries. When my sister joined the Marines, right before she shipped off to boot camp, they all got together to watch Full Metal Jacket. I view that movie as a pinnacle in anti-war filmmaking, one that is near impossible to watch and not understand it's message. Yes, that film is about a completely different war than the supposed one we are currently involved with, but it still strikes me as kinda of ironic. I asked her why in the world they would choose to watch Full Metal Jacket, when it's clearly against the things she may have to do? I didn't really get a clear answer, but at least she understood that it was indeed anti-war. The 1969 film, Play Dirty is definitely an anti-war picture. It's sarcastic, cynical, and far more nihilistic than what most war film fans are used to. It's also pretty darn good.

The film stars the always awesome, Michael Cane as Capt. Douglas, a British solider in North Africa, who is put in charge of a misfit band of psychopaths on a mission to blow up German fuel supplies 400 miles behind enemy lines. He may be technically in charge, but it's clear this unit only takes its orders from a very disagreeable captain, Cyril Leech. Leech is brash, insubordinate, and nihilistic to the core. He doesn't care who he kills, by his own hands or by his inaction, as long as he survives and gets paid. The rest of the group is made up of ex-convicts including a narcotics smuggler, a terrorist, a rapist, and two homosexual Senussi guides. Unknown to the soldiers, the military has no intentions of them actually succeeding in their mission. They're being used as decoys, with a second, better equipped group heading for the same target. Eventually, the deception is found out when they witness the second unit's destruction at the hands of the Germans, but Capt. Douglas is hell-bent on succeeding and finishing their mission.

Does this all sound a little familiar? The plot bears striking similarities to the well known film The Dirty Dozen, which was released only a year before this one. I haven't had the chance to see The Dirty Dozen, so I'll be pretty useless in terms of comparison. I'm actually glad I saw this film first. The Dirty Dozen is such a highly revered film, and I'm sure I would have been quick to point out the copy-cat nature of this plot. I'd be placing too much emphasis on why one was better than the other, as opposed to judging Play Dirty by its own merits. Instead, I'm getting a clear view of this surprising little gem. This is far from a perfect film, but it's a unique and interesting take on the typical war film. At times it drags a little and would have benefited from a bit more conservative editing. Those looking for war action are not going to find much here, instead the focus is on the group and how morally ambiguous it's member have become. Countless times Capt. Douglas is shocked by how disrespectful the unit is to him, the dead, and just about everything. These are people who rape, steal from corpses, and are only loyal to each other and Capt. Leech. The greatest moments in the film use little or no dialogue, often in moments of extreme tension, which make these events exponentially more captivating and exciting. The best example is a scene in which the unit is trying to hoist their vehicles up an impossibly steep cliff. The lack of speech and sound adds tremendous amount of tension and keeps your eyes completely glued to the action. The tone of Play Dirty is bleak and extremely cynical, which for some will be an extreme turn-off. Much of the payoff in the film is in it's explosive ending, the details of which you will have see for yourself. But I will say this: The last seconds of the film pounds the last sarcastic nail in the movie's coffin and is pretty much a giant middle finger to the audience, the nature of war, and maybe even war films in general.

FINAL VERDICT: I enjoyed this movie for it's oddities more than it's cinematic merits. Michael Cane and Nigel Davenport are great, but it's slow pace and lack of action will prove to be a tough sell for many people. I have a tendency to forgive a flawed film for an exceptional ending. If the ending leaves me either saying WTF, or reeling in it's brilliance, it makes the moments that came before that maybe didn't thrill me as much, far less important. The ending for this isn't necessarily a new concept, but at the time it was far less common and accepted. I appreciate that. It's not a film I'm going to rush out and watch again, but I can definitely see myself returning to it again someday.

Centurion (2010)

Centurion

Directed by: Neil Marshall

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Olga Kurylenko, Dominic West

Released: 2010

Country of Origin: UK

Runtime: 97 min.

It's rare when an epic, historical film impresses me. I've noticed a couple things that are common in these films which prevent them from shifting past marginally good into the realm of great film-making. The first is dialogue: For some reason every actor feels the need to deliver each line like it's the most important thing they have ever said. It's an unnecessary form of over-the-top speech that feels unnatural and often crosses over to just sounding cheesy. The best thing you can do with dialogue is to craft it so the audience isn't aware that someone actually sat down and wrote the lines. I don't have a problem with over-the-top acting, in fact some of my favorite performances are extremely over-the-top (for example: Jack Nicholson in The Shinning). But it only works when the performance is coupled with an equally over-the-top character. The other major problem is using action and violence to make up for a lack-luster story or script. I understand that most people going to these films are mainly there to see a film full of action, it's something that comes with the territory. Most audiences are able to forgive missteps in a movie as long as the action is exciting and limbs are flying. I love seeing copious amounts of blood, gore, and severed heads as much, if not more, than the average person, but it doesn't make substituting violence for story any better. I would really love to see a historical epic that swerves away from these cinematic pot-holes, and based on the strength of Neil Marshall's previous efforts, I had a small hope that Centurion might be that film.

Centurion stars Michael Fassbender as Quintus Dias, a Roman centurion who is having what might be the worst week of his life. After a vicious band of Pict warriors slaughters his entire company, he is captured, tortured, and dunked in piss-water. Somehow, he is able to escape and make a run for it across a whole lot of snowy mountains. When a legion of Roman soldiers, lead by Dominic West, finally crosses paths with him, he is forced to join up and head right back to the place he escaped from. On the way to kill those nasty Picts, the legion's guide Etain, a mute Pict warrior played by former Bond-girl Olga Kurylenko, betrays the group and leads them straight into a trap. After most of the legion is killed off by giant fireballs, a small band of survivors, lead by Quintus Dias, heads to the Pict camp to save their captured general. During the rescue attempt, one of the soldiers decides to make things worse by killing the Pict general's son. This really pisses off the Picts, who leave in pursuit and take a blood oath to kill every last one of the Roman soldiers. The rest of film includes a lot of running, hiding, running some more, hiding, eating half digested mush from an animal's stomach, more running, and a whole lot of dying.

After watching him in Inglorious Bastards and Hunger, I was starting to think Michael Fassbender could do no wrong. He is one of more impressive actors working today, and I fully expect many great performances from him in the future. But his role in Centurion is definitely not one of them. I'm not saying he's horrible, he does the best he can with what he's been given, but what he's given isn't much. The script is awful, and feels like if you copied and pasted lines from just about any epic war film, you could come up with the same script used in Centurion. There is absolutely nothing in this movie you haven't seen before. It's formulaic film-making through and through, which is an awful disappointment from Neil Marshall. Marshall's previous films, The Decent and Doomsday, took generic genre conventions and created films that were uncharacteristically well done. The Decent was one of the best horror films of the last decade, and one of the few that actually scared me. Marshall's characters were uncommonly real, and more authentic than what we are used to in horror films. He spent a large amount of time with character development, so that once the horror started, you actually cared about what was happening to the people in the film. Doomsday was arguably far less of a film than The Decent, but the wild glee and craziness of the film made it a complete joy to watch. It was definitely not made on auto-pilot, which is exactly how Centurion feels. The joy and excitement of film-making that flowed out of Doomsday is nowhere to be found, like Marshall just didn't care about what he was doing. Which makes sense, Doomsday was a box-office failure, it's only logical that he may not have had the freedom and budget to do what he wanted to this time around. But that sense of a lack of passion for this project shows through the screen, making it near impossible to enjoy beyond seeing a couple heads fly through the air.

FINAL VERDICT: This is something I will probably never watch again. It's mediocre at best, but honestly, you could do a lot worse. I stopped caring about halfway through, which at a little over 90 minutes, is pretty bad. Trying to tell a compelling, epic story in that little time is a hard thing to accomplish. Not impossible, but with most of the screen time devoted to running away and hiding, it leaves little room for things like character development and plot. Neil Marshall has a background in horror films, and his use and style of gore represents that. The gore may be the only thing that sets this apart from any other film in the genre, but that splatter-fest sensibility is dulled by awful CGI blood. I miss the old days of gore. When blood was corn-syrup and red food-coloring, and staging a messy kill took ingenuity and skill. Unfortunately, it's now a lot cheaper to just add the blood splatters in post. Lame.

Valhalla Rising (2009)

Valhalla Rising

Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn

Starring: Mads Mikkelsen

Released: 2009

Country of Origin: UK

Runtime: 93 min.

Never trust movie trailers. I find it preferable to enter into a film with as few expectations as possible. I understand this can be a hard things to do, trailers are often the only way people are aware that movies actually exist. It's also something we expect to see before we decided a certain film is the right choice. However, these previews can greatly distort the artistic nature of a film in an effort to appeal to the widest possible audience. I used to work at Hastings, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen people rent a film only to return it the next day, complaining that it wasn't at all what they expected and they hated it. These unrealistic expectations often prevent people from objectively viewing a movie for what it is, as opposed to what they think they should see. A repeat viewing of the film often solves that issue, but most will never give it a second try. After watching Valhalla Rising, I can see that it's going to suffer tremendously from it's inaccurate marketing campaign. From the box art, synopsis, and trailers, people are going to go into this expecting a viking action film. The film has vikings in it, and there is some action present, but this is very far removed from what the words "viking action film" imply.

Directed by one of my new favorite directors, Nicolas Winding Refn, Valhalla Rising stars Mads Mikkelsen as One-Eye, a Nordic warrior who possess superhuman strength and a knack for killing just about anything. For years he has been held prisoner and forced to fight to the death for the pleasure of his Viking captors. Seeming to be plagued with prophetic dreams, One-Eye is able to escape and kill his masters, and embarks into the unknown followed by a young boy who attended to him in his prison. The two eventually join up with a band of Christian crusaders in search of the Holy Land, promising One-Eye redemption from his pagan ways in return for his aide. After a misguided and very foggy boat ride, the group arrives in what appears to be North America. Upon learning that they're definitely not in Jerusalem, they proceed to get attacked by unseen natives, trip out on hallucinogenics, build pointless piles of rocks, and claim the land in the name of the Lord. Explaining the plot really does nothing to prepare you for what you will see and experience in this film. Telling someone that this is a viking film is technically correct, but it's also one hell of a trippy, artsy ride into the depths of religious fervor and nihilistic brutality.

Refn directed one of my favorite films of last year, Bronson. Which took elements of A Clockwork Orange and spiced them with slight nods at David Lynch to tell the insane story of Britain's most violent prisoner. Upon seeing trailers for Valhalla Rising, I expected an epic, violent viking tale in the style of Refn's previous film. Instead I got an atmospheric mind-trip that owes more to El Topo, Aguirre, The Wrath Of God, and the films of Kenneth Anger than is does The 13th Warrior, or just about any viking film I've ever seen. It's deliberately paced (which is basically how we film snobs say: "It's slow as hell!"), with very little dialogue to drive the plot, but I found the whole experience memorizing and completely captivating. Mads Mikkelsen never utters single word in the film's 93 minute runtime, yet his presence and power leaves the strongest impression after the credits roll. It's the mark of a true actor, when a performance is this memorable despite never saying anything. The score is also perfectly matched to Valhalla Rising's apocalyptic overtones of dread, menace, and death. Originally, Refn wanted Mogwai to provide the film's score, but schedule conflicts made it impossible. I love Mogwai, and while I'm sure they would have done an excellent job, I'm rather glad the film has the score it does. The music is minimalistic, dark, and relies heavily on electronics, often reminding me of a more cinematic version of dark-ambient mastermind, Lustmord.

FINAL VERDICT: This film is going to split most audiences right down the middle. People who just want a popcorn film are going to absolutely hate it, while I expect people with a taste for the more abstract and experimental realms of cinema will find a lot to rejoice about with Valhalla Rising. Personally, I loved it and it reminded me of just why I'm so obsessed with film. I had an misguided perception of what this film was going to be like, but I'm far happier with what I got. If you see this on the rental shelves and think you've just found sweetass, violent film about vikings, stop right there and leave this one alone. If you're aware of what you're getting into, your experience with it might be a little better. However, I still feel this film will only to appeal to a select crowd of people. People like me. And let's be honest, I'm a little off.

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (2010)

Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows: Part 1

Directed by: David Yates

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint

Released: 2010

Country of Origin: UK/USA

Runtime: 146 min.

I've instated an unwritten rule in the last couple years regarding how I approach film adaptations of books: if an adaption is on the horizon, and I intend to see it, most of the time I will hold off on reading the book. A film should be judged on its own merits, without preconceived notions of how events should play out on screen. I find it completely impossible to do this if I've read the source material, and it's particularly hard if I loved the book (or comic). Granted, I will inevitably miss out on some very enjoyable reads, but I'm far more loyal to celluloid than I am to the written word. Personally, I'd rather see more movies based on original material than adaptations or the multitude of re-makes, re-boots, and re-imaginings that are overflowing at the box-office, but I don't see this trend changing anytime soon. I'm not saying they shouldn't happen, or that you can't make something brilliant based on someone else's ideas, there are many examples of this done right and some are even better than what came before. For example: I view Christopher Nolan's vision of The Dark Knight as better than anything else in the Batman universe. But it's sad that filmmakers don't strive to create their own unique universes more often.

I am by no means a hardcore Potter fan. I've read the first three books in the Harry Potter franchise, and I may read the rest, but as I've already said, I'd rather wait until the film series comes to a close. I've enjoyed most of the films so far, with the exception of the first two, which were terrible. I feel the series has suffered a bit as a whole by the near-constant changing of directors, having one director would have provided some cohesion and a singular vision which I think would have benefited the series greatly. I completely understand how nearly impossible that would have been, I can't imagine anyone willing to dedicate over ten years to a single project. David Yates has been the sole director since The Order of The Phoenix, and his films have been the best entries thus far. He seems to have a better handle on the darker aspects of the story, while still making them enjoyable and exciting to the passionate flocks of younger fans. Since most people are already aware of the ongoing sage of Harry Potter, I'm going to skip any talk of the details. Either you know whats going on and what's come before, or this is a story you just don't care about.

I went into The Deathly Hallows with some serious worries, mostly due to the studio's decision to split the last book into two films. The strategy makes logical and economic sense, few people are willing to sit through a five-hour film, and why limit your profits to one film when you can split it up and make audiences pay twice? However the split makes the film a completely unsatisfying experience. This doesn't mean it's not a great film, it might be. But without seeing the second half it's impossible to tell. The added knowledge that I won't see the conclusion for another eight months makes it even harder to appreciate Part 1. The first half is not able to stand on its own, it's clear that it needs the rest of the story to work. The biggest problem is the "end": while there was a big emotional climax that was used to close out this half, it was not enough to provide an acceptable finale to a 2 1/2 hour film. I felt extremely cheated when the credits began to roll. As unhappy as I was, I understand it's impossible to judge The Deathly Hallows based on what I saw. That would be like putting a book down half-way and then proclaiming that it was a horrible novel.

Despite everything I just said, I think this might end up being one of the best films in the series. Every aspect is handled with a high standard of quality. It's clear David Yates has become more comfortable and skilled with each film he has worked on. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint have all grown up to be excellent actors and truly embody their characters. I feel their casting ten years ago was one of the single smartest choices that the folks behind the films have made. The rest of the cast is filled out with what seems to be a greatest hits collection of the best British actors working today. There is also an extremely awesome animated sequence that tells the story behind The Deathly Hallows.

It's clear that the books have much more going on than what is shown on screen. I don't know exactly what I'm missing, but often these films feel extremely gutted. Some events seem glossed over, and leaves those who haven't read the books a little lost. Most of the time, this isn't something that causes much trouble, but it's still evident that we aren't getting all the details.

FINAL VERDICT: You probably already know if this is something you're going to see. I can't really say what my verdict is with this movie, it's not a complete film. It's got a rather long run-time, but I was never aware of that fact. When the film ended, it seemed too short. I was ready for more, and would've been completely fine with staying another 2 1/2 hours to see it through to the end. I guess that's the best and only accurate factor on which I can judge this. I was pissed when it was over, and felt like someone shut the movie off just as it was getting good. It had me and I didn't want it to let go. I can't completely judge it now, but it has the makings of a truly exciting film, once it's paired with the end. I just wish that there wasn't an eight month wait until Part 2 arrives.

In The Mood For Love (2000)

In The Mood For Love

Directed by: Wong Kar-wai

Starring: Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung

Released: 2000

Country of Origin: Hong Kong

Runtime: 98 min.

I have never been in love. It might sound sad to some, but it's just not something I've had happen. For the most part, I'm OK with this. With that lack of romantic experience, I sometimes wonder how much I really understand films that deal with those emotions. Can you really understand a cinematic depiction of romantic love, if you've never felt that? I'd argue, that yes you can. If you were to follow that logic, nearly every film that deals with something unknown to you would be impenetrable. Take holocaust films: very few people have experienced the horrors of that era, yet millions are impacted by their depictions on-screen. Any filmmaker worth his salt can take a subject and create something anyone can connect with. So when approaching Wong Kar-wai's In The Mood For Love, it's completely unnecessary to have been in love to appreciate the passion and heartbreak you see in the film.

In The Mood For Love begins in 1962, when two couples move in next door to each other in a Hong Kong apartment building. The story centers on Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan, who both have rather absent marriage partners. Their other-halves always seem to be working late or away on business, leaving their spouses to spend most of their time at home, alone. Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan, slowly build a casual acquaintanceship via various chance meetings in the building or outside on the streets. They begin to notice odd coincidences that lead to a realization that their spouses are having an affair with each other. As a coping mechanism, they begin spending their spare time together, swearing to never be like their adulterous partners, and play-acting how their spouses met and what it would be like to confront them about it.

The master stroke that sets this apart, is the absence of a physical aspect to Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan's relationship, it shows an amazing amount of restraint on Wong Kar-wai's end. If this was handled by a lesser artist, the relationship would have a logical physical consummation, which would have cheapened the experience. The deep emotional core is kept intact with this strategy, much to same effect as in Lost In Translation. In both films, had the central characters slept with each other, they would have fallen into a plot device that is all too typical and thoughtless. Mr. Chow and Mrs. Chan do fall in love, but it's a love of missed opportunities and a deep desire to not lower themselves to the level of their spouses. It's heart breaking to watch as these two form a deep bond but are unable to morally act upon it at the time.

The film has the feel of a classic noir without the mystery, the colors are dark and moody, with scenes mostly taking place at night or as rain is falling. Wong Kar-wai has a certain style with his films, one that has a close comparison to that of Jean-Luc Godard. It's hip and oozes with that sixties French coolness while still being completely grounded in its Hong Kong setting. Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung are both common actors in Wong Kar-wai's films, and both churn out what might be their best performance in their already impressive careers. They both have a subtle charm, while avoiding the dramatic pitfalls of a story about lost love and heartbreak. Never do either display an emotional outburst, even in the scene where they realized their partners deceit, instead it become a slow revelation of something they both may have known but where unwilling to let themselves admit. These all add to what makes this film so special and refreshing.

FINAL VERDICT: If you like romantic movies that aren't your typical Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan feature, than this one is for you. Guys, this would make a great date movie and save you from possibly having to watch a film that just might make your IQ drop. Many years ago, I saw Wong Kar-wai's 2046. I didn't really connect with it, but I just found out that it's a loose sequel to In The Mood For Love. Based on how much I loved this movie, I'm going to have to re-watch that film, as I may have a better appreciation for it, now that I have the correct context.

Hunger (2008)

Hunger

Directed by: Steve McQueen

Starring: Michael Fassbender, Brian Milligan, Liam Mahon, and Stuart Graham

Released: 2008

Country of Origin: UK/Ireland

Runtime: 96 min.

I have some problems with overtly political films, most of the time I just don't care. I know I sound like a jerk, or just purposefully ignorant, but most of the time I feel far too preached at. It's a little annoying, and often the political message will take precedence over the film itself. This year's Machete is a prime example, it tried so hard to shove it's opinion on immigration down your throat, that I got irritated and my enjoyment of the film was diminished. It's too bad, because if you were to strip away that agenda, it would've been one hell of a fun ride. This does not have anything to do with my own personal beliefs, I am equally pissed off at films that try to bash me over the head with beliefs and viewpoints I already have. I also don't have a problem with someone making a film that communicates something they are passionate about, but there is a way you can do that without bashing your audience over the head with your doctrine. So, many kudos to British filmmaker Steve McQueen, for providing the perfect example of how to make a film about a very political situation and create a work that is artistically beautiful, crushingly brutal and completely accessible and impactful to a very uninformed viewer.

Centering around the 1981 Irish hunger strike that took the lives of ten IRA prisoners, Steve McQueen takes a politically explosive event and crafts a film that is less about the reasons and more about the determination and endurance of the human spirit. Minimal information is given on what led to these protests, a few radio broadcasts are heard which have Margaret Thatcher denouncing the political status of prisoners in Northern Ireland's Maze Prison but that's about it. Extensive knowledge isn't all that necessary however, I went into this film knowing only that this was a prison movie about a hunger strike. I know only a slight fraction of what went on during that time in Ireland, but the film lost none of it's unsettling power and I found myself emotionally moved without knowing which side of this conflict was more "right" than the other. McQueen took great care to make this film as non-political as he possibly could. It's quite clear whose side McQueen is on, yet he strives to neither idolize nor denounce either party.

Hunger has three clear narrative threads, acting to round out the whole picture rather then focusing on the obvious center of this protest. The first follows a guard who is clearly conflicted yet bound by duty, it's a bleak, sympathetic look at the other side of the fence. The second act follows two inmates during the "blanket" and "no wash" portion of the protest. The film than slowly shifts it's focus to the final sequence which involves Bobby Sands, as he enacts the hunger strike and slowly starves to death. I don't mean to give away the ending, but it's not a surprise and every plot synopsis fully discloses this detail.

McQueen cut his teeth as a visual artist before working on his motion picture debut, which is evident in just about every aspect of this film. During the "blanket" and "no wash" protest, the prisoners have "decorated" the walls of their cells with fecal graffiti, and channel all their urine under their doors and out into the prison's halls. Oddly enough, the poop covered walls take on an element of abstract beauty, if you didn't know it was poop you could easily see certain portions of the walls hanging in an art gallery. One shot in particular stood out, where a guard, dressed up in a hazard suit, is spraying down the walls and comes across a cell where the inmate has made a giant circular patten in his own waste. It's strange, disgusting and weirdly elegant. The sparse dialogue throughout the film creates a hypnotizing ambiance that makes the endless brutality and mistreatment of the prisoners, a very hard to watch and emotional experience. The only real conversation is found halfway through the film, a 26 minute talk, mostly shot in one take, between Bobby Sands and a priest. It's the centerpiece for the film, debating at length the realistic and practical ramifications of a hunger strike. It perfectly captures the unflinching determination of political loyalists without once mentioning the reasons for their actions. It's also one of the most amazing scenes I've seen all year.

FINAL VERDICT: I consider this a definite must see. It's deeply unsettling but an ultimately rich and rewarding film. It's far less something you watch, as it is something you experience. So, be warned this is not for the faint of heart, but it's still a film I think needs be seen. I'm very interested to see what Steve McQueen has in store for the future, as Hunger makes him a directorial force to be reckoned with.