REVIEW - CABIN IN THE HOOD

I'd like to begin with a Philms from Philly anecdote - living in North Philadelphia, an area where the majority population is of African American descent, my local cinema is one helluva hoot. Not just for the Boondocks Uncle Ruckus-esque ticket stub man, but also for the overall experience that you just can't get at home streaming off putlocker. If you've never watched a horror film before in the company of African Americans, then I plead you to add it to your bucket list. There's clapping, laughing, shouting, and at one point the guy in front of me genuinely proclaimed: "homeboy, why you be going up in there with no light on you dumb peckerwood?" I shit you not, it's worth the ticket price alone. 

scary movie gets it spot on

Onto the film. I've been looking forward to Cabin in the Woods since its inception - the brain child of Drew Goddard (Cloverfield, Lost) and Josh Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) had me at its first trailer. It sells itself as an neo-horror, utilising all the genre's tropes and conventions to toy with audience expectations in a manner that's simultaneously both hilarious and frightening. It's centered around a quintet of college kids, who fulfill the 5 most general stereotypes of late adolescence: the whore, the athlete, the virgin, the brains, and of course - the stoner. We've seen these character archetypes in horror films before, and this is the exact reason they have been "chosen" for this film.

white folks crazy

They believe they're headed out to the cabin to drink, smoke, play truth or dare and do other crazy white people stuff, when actually they are just pawns in a system much larger than themselves. Headed by Bradley Whitford (The West Wing!) and Richard Jenkins (every minor character ever), a super elite government task force in an underground bunker is actually preparing the chessboard for an all too real horror film; aimed to please their bosses, and entertain the filmic audience. Every move the 5 make, every decision, every aspect of the trip has been meticulously planned by Whitford and Jenkins with cunning guile. On arrival, they trigger a trap door to fling itself open (this is what prompted my fellow moviegoer to shout the above quote) and of course the famous 5 head downstairs quicker than you can say "Justin Bieber." 

terrifying

Whilst the younglings are Biebering about in the basement picking up artifacts and references from old horror films (which are also keys that will decide how they get killed), the film then cuts back to Whitford and Jenkins in their puppet master underground lab, where they are taking bets on which death machine the kids are going to unknowingly select. There's something slightly sadistic about this scene, but it's essentially what we are subconsciously doing each time we watch a horror film. We go into it with the expectation that there will be overkill, slaughter, and terror - knowing that the Virgin will probably survive due to her annoying shrieks, and that somehow all those years spent inside watching Gilmore Girls has probably just saved her life. Anyhow, without knowing it, the Virgin recites some bullshit Latin and awakes the Redneck Zombies - thus begins the show.

genuinely a film, too

The film's main narrative really picks up here, with a cat and mouse game between said Redneck Zombies and our protagonists, over watched by those back at the lab making sure everything goes smoothly. Unfortunately for them, through the everlasting power of marijuana, the stoner utilises his collapsable bong and uncovers their ruse. Then things start to take an interesting turn. About half way through the film the balance of power begins to shift, and all hell (LITERALLY) breaks loose with a barrage of horror characters unleashed into the filmic world - all your old favourites from the masked strangers to a mother-bloody Merman.

's a pretty good description..

The film is immensely entertaining, with decent quips that will make you laugh and moments that will make some jump. Its only weaknesses lie in its grand narrative - wont say anything other than Sigourney Weaver makes a questionable late entrance - and in its struggle to figure itself out. As in, it's essentially a semi-horror-comedy-thriller, without being one or the other. And the entire package wont be everyone's cup of tea, however I strongly recommend you get yourself down to your nearest African American movie theatre and treat yourself - you'll at least enjoy the Merman scene. I also really liked this film because it reminded me of how much I love Bradley Whitford and made me consider rewatching the West Wing...Janel Moloney - *sigh*

...better than IMDB anyhow

38/50 STATES

REVIEW - HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS

I would like to begin with a strong word of advice for everyone of y'all out there in the internet that found yourselves in the same position as me. If you have not read the books, watched the trailer, or heard much about THE HUNGRY GAME at all, then I urge you not to believe the folks that are going around spreading heinous lies that the film's anything like Battle Royale. The concept of a government forcing teenagers to fight to the death is where the similarities start and abruptly stop. I was expecting something completely different, but ultimately HG feels as if Battle Royale was rolled up into a PG rating, chewed by Tim Burton for a while, then spat out onto Stephenie Meyer's massive face.

it doesn't start like this either.

Admittedly, my expectations were probably a touch high. Credit where it's due, Hungry Games attempts to deal with the issue of voyeurism in reality TV (second episode of Black Mirror-esque). It sets up a pretty interesting dynamic - us as an audience spectating a nation, who in turn are watching a couple o' dozen teenagers attempt to kill each other. The culture of Panem, a fictional & futuristic USA, is incredibly reliant on this annual show of masochism - much like our nation of viewers enchanted by Jade Goody calling people Indian dishes. For almost 70 years the inhabitants in the 12 "districts" of Panem have tuned in and watched the bloodbath without having any complaints. Thankfully Big Brother wont last that long - touch wood.

day 9 of the big brother house

It sets up this dynamic, then shelves it in favour of a shitty love triangle that adolescent women are surely a little bit bored of by now? At the top point is one Katniss Everdeen, a young hunter from District 12 - an impoverished area of Panem - who is entered into the Hungry Games after she kindly and somewhat foolishly volunteers to replace her wee sister, whose name is drawn out of a hat as the "tribute" from their district. The other tribute, and second point of our triangle, comes in the form of Peeta, son of a baker whose only talent is throwing bread and doodling on himself. The final point is a young lad named Gale, who essentially has the same facial expression of disappointment throughout the entire ordeal. The whole trifecta is so similar to the Belwarcob - Bella, Edward, Jacob for all you nonbelievers - triangle I adored (see previous review) that it's frightening: you have the protective best friend and the dynamic vampire/baker both fighting for the affections of the super hot and very well acted female lead. 

a career man.

Triangle established, and interesting concept tossed aside, it's time to begin the Hungry Games. This is where the film should excel and really come into its own, but again it feels like it stops short of the mark. The tense thrill of battle, amazing action sequences and shocking death scenes never come to fruition. The opening of the Hungry Games sets the 24 participants around a mound of deadly weapons, and upon the first whistle the majority of our gladiators run to grab their favourites. Instead of a barrage of amazing Battle Royale-esque moments of overkill, the camera just shakes incessantly and cuts away from all the moments of impact. We are afforded some glimpses of what the film could, and should, have been. I'm thinking of the sequences toward the finale when the pace kicks up and Katniss actually uses her bow/trips balls after she gets stung by a wasp. 

she eventually learns how

For me, the best part was going to see the film in a North Philadelphia, African American dominated cinema. When a black character did something awesome with his axe, the majority of the audience started applauding and cheering - it was spectacular. Despite this, the action doesn't keep the viewer on the edge of their seat and there's not many surprises; the finale of the film is guessable from the beginning, as is the start to the sequel - the only real shocking moment is when Lenny Kravtiz appears as a camp fashion designer. Unexpected yet brilliant. Also Woody Harrelson plays a steaming drunk which is always fun to watch. Ultimately, however, Hungry Hungry Hippos would be a much better way to spend 2 hours and 22 minutes of your saturday afternoon.

white men can drink

18/50 STATES 

REVIEW - THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON POO

Fincher's up to it again. The seedy ol' bastard took a couple of films off his regular thriller-psychological filmography to make "Benjamin Button" and "Social Network", but now he's back in familiar waters with his take on adapting the first of Stieg Larsson's Millennium series. It's already been done once before in native tongue, but Fincher's imprint is much more than pure adaptation. He gave it a dash of the suspenseful threat of the serial killer from "Zodiac", a sprinkle of the darkness we all loved in "Seven", and blended this project into a film that stands alone in its own right. It's familiar but new.

the first rule of adaptations is..

The original Swedish title of the novel was "Män som hatar kvinnor," roughly translating as "Men Who Hate Women." This is a pretty darn good summary of the film - it focuses on themes of domestic abuse, rape and other such heinous crimes against the finer sex. The book opens with the statistic "18% of the women in Sweden have at one time been threatened by a man," roughly translating as "18% of women don't make a good cuppa." Laddish banter aside, the film does tackle a tough topic and skips nothing when showing the brutality that some sick bastards are capable of committing to women. The novel goes into more depth, whereas the film skirts over most of it (censorship laws and that); but what the film does show is incredibly difficult to keep your eyes on. Not "Irreversible" bad, but a touch more emotional than watching Brad Pitt (hey look, it's me!) struggle to find out what's in the box.

he'd be shite on Deal or No Deal

The film's narrative is basically a real life game of Cluedo/who shot J.R. mystery set in the town of Hedestad, an island just north of Stockholm. Ol' man Henrik Vagner enlists the help of Mikael Blomkvist (Danny Craggers) to find the killer of his niece Harriet Vagner. Sounds simple enough, only it's never Colonel Mustard in the lounge with the revolver. Unfortunately for Blomkvist the supposed murder happened about 40 years ago, the suspect is most likely a member of the Vagner clan, and there's less   motive than Fernando Torres has Chelsea goals :-( it's almost like reading a coffee stained instruction manual for an Ikea wardrobe, without the English translation.

GAH, 1/3!

Like any good detective, Blomkvist enlists the help of a sidekick before getting knee deep in the Vagner family affairs. In this case, his compadre comes in the form of a young Lisbeth Sandler - a silent but deadly "orphan with a vengeance" type, who resembles exactly what Posh Spice would look like if she had taken class A drugs and listened to Slipknot for the majority of her adulthood. She's got an attitude, and boy does she use it! 

Rad Spice

Lisbeth and James fuck Bond make one hell of a duo - with her supreme photographic memory and his analytical mind, the two instantly make headway into the case and begin to unravel the mystery of Harriet's disappearance and discover some haunting truths about Hedestad's occupiers. Unfortunately for them, someone on the island begins to take notice of their progress and doesn't take too kindly to it. The narrative then really picks up pace - think Kevin Spacey pistol whipping Pitt in Seven (I was actually his body double on that scene) - and the murder mystery transforms into a thriller with relative ease.

I don't want to go into too much of the plot twists and what not, the narrative of the film differs slightly from what happens in the book - bits are missed and some parts are changed but that's irrelevant. The film is Fincher as we know him best: dark, psychological and incredibly stylish. It's definitely no Fight Club/Seven but it's still well worth seeing. I will just add that I guessed who dunnit within the first 5 minutes of the film. That's what a childhood of board games through the summer gets yah (I was too pale to be allowed out in the sun) BOO-YAH.

41/50 STATES

REVIEW: SHERLOCK HOMIE: A GAME O' SHAD-HOES

The main reason I ventured to see Sherlock Holmes, and its sequel Game of Shadows, was due to Robert Downey Jr. A man who once described himself: "A lot of my peer group think I'm an eccentric bisexual, like I may even have an ammonia-filled tentacle or something somewhere on my body. That's okay." I would do anything to be sucked by that tentacle (it's not what you think). Watch any of RDJ's films, and even if they are a crock of shit, they're instantly inexcusable due to his presence and undoubted superb performance. He even got away with blacking up in Tropic Thunder, a feat that 99% of us would never have the balls to even attempt. My favourite work of his is definitely Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a hilariously scripted and unconventional neo-noir that really isn't talked about enough:

plus Val Kilmer plays a gay P.I.

Moving onto the film: Rob stars opposite Jude Law, whose role in the film is predominantly to make Sherlock look more ingenious, more handsome, and infinitely more suave. The complete opposite role that Stephen Fry (YEP STEPHEN FRY) portrays as Sherlock's older brother, Mycroft Holmes. From the moment Stephen walks in, he is a treat for the audience. He calls his younger sibling "Sherly" throughout, demeaning his intelligence at any chance he gets, and their relationship is probably the wittiest the public has seen this side of the millennia. As such, the film almost feels like a gentlemanly popularity contest between Fry and RDJ. It's an even battle, however Fry tips the odds in his favour with a full frontal a scene about halfway through the film.

mm quite..

The plot of this film is nothing special, "evil genius plans to take over the world through intelligent means whilst eliminating adversaries" sums it up in one awkward sentence. And it appears Holmes has finally met his match in Professor Moriarty, otherwise known as the "Napolean of Crime." A very fitting alias, as Moriarty hopes to become very rich from a World War he plans on starting vicariously. It's up to our dynamic trio to stop him, and Holmes must utilise all his wit (and-blending-into-furniture expertise) to conquer the professor.

no, not that guy.

 

I don't want to spoil any of the hilarity of the film, however sadly there is not much else to discuss - the plot follows similar a line to the prequel in terms of twists/climax. The most interesting aspect of Guy Ritchie's direction comes in the slow motion sections, during the sequences of high action. Bullets whizz by in real time and then suddenly the film slows down to about a tenth of its speed for a few seconds. A really impressive use of editing/camera that makes the action sequences feel different, and look fucking cool. Twinned with the sections of film that suppose the thought process of Holmes as he prepares to battle his adversaries, the camera zooms on objects as RDJ narrates how he will use them in the next scene. Overall, I think Ritchie should be praised for his work on an adaptation that doesn't allow too much flexibility of narrative.

Although Watson promises this will be his retirement case, the finale of the film suggests otherwise - I deduce that a witty conclusion to the trilogy will appear on screens sometime around the Summer of 2013.

hopefully with more hats

REVIEW - TWISHITE: BREAKING YAWN

Good morrow young sirs. I trust you all had a terrific festive period, filled with merriment and enough booze to fill George Best's sodden liver. AND that everyone watched Treasure Island. Eddie Izzard was fucking rad! Besides that, I have a lot of reviews to catch up on. Been busy since returning from the land of the free watching a film just about every Wednesday. So here goes the first installment of 2012's Philly Philms, may this year be a marked improvement from the last.

The first film I saw, on literally my second day back in the country, was (unfortunately) TWISHITE: BREAKING YAWN. There's a lot of stigma attached to these films; for obvious reasons the majority is negative. However, I felt that before I could give my two cents on the love story of the decade I should at least watch it. It's always annoying when a diehard fan's only defence is "WELL YOU HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT." So I travelled to the cinema, bought my bloody ticket, took out my notepad, and began writing as many jokes about the film I could in a runtime of 117 minutes.

they were pretty much all based around this concept.

This very special review features a guest columnist, who wishes to remain anonymous for tax purposes, and will therefore be referred to as "EdwardFan1990."

Lawrence: So, EdwardFan1990, you've seen this film twice now. What did you think of it? Was it everything you hoped for and more?

EdwardFan1990: Yea. Yea. Edward's hot. Really hot. Bella's a bitch for taking him.

Lawrence: I see. So is the prime reason you enjoy this series because of young Monsieur Pattinson?

EdwardFan1990: Yeah, I just like to perv over him. Despite having a boyfriend who is much hotter.

Lawrence: You really don't mind that there's a shitty narrative, barely any character development, and probably some of the worst acting since Troll 2?

..if not worse

EdwardFan1990: Well you're just a fuck. At least I don't cry at Wall-E. You cry at Wall-E.

Lawrence: That's because those robots actually have some chemistry you soppy woman, something that Bella and Edward have clearly never heard of. Their entire relationship can be boiled down into one look that is surmised by two pieces of punctuation ----> :|
But anyway, what was your favourite part of the film?

EdwardFan1990: My favourite part was probably when they went to that lovely little island. Or maybe the wedding. How about yours?

Lawrence: Granted, that place looked like it was borrowed from Richard Branson. I think the part I enjoyed the most, and the only redeeming section of the film, was the speeches the guests did at the wedding. That was moderately amusing, and probably the only time I smiled apart from when the lights went up at the end.

EdwardFan1990: You're just a *pause*, actually I better stop swearing. To be honest, if I remember correctly Lawrence you said you actually liked it. Every time I looked at you, you looked like you were enjoying it so you can shut up. You're just trying to look really hard on the internet and pretend to everyone that you don't like Twishite. But secretly, you do.

Lawrence: This is a downright lie LAURA BRAGG. AND YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED, WENCH.

EdwardFan1990: Fuck you.

This is basically the trouble with twilight. There's people that will probably go through the whole series enjoying every little kiss, every awkward moment when the in-laws try and eat Bella's newborn child, however it's not really my cup of placenta. I found the film extremely predictable, simple, and thoroughly devoid of any enjoyment. This BREAKING YAWN film is easily broken down into three segments: the wedding, the honeymoon, the birth. And there's no real high point or climax in there at all. Oh how I tried to give the whole teenage romance/sexuality/abstinence angle a shot, but I'm afraid I was well wide of the target.

Twilight is the 2000's answer to John Hughes and the Breakfast Club for fuck's sake, and he would be rolling in his grave right now if he saw what some of the young uns were going to see. Miss you John!

Fuck Twishite.

REVIEW - INNI

You'll have to excuse the 2 month radio silence; been chillin' out maxin', relaxin', and all the other shit that you do when you're Philadelphia born and raised. Thankfully "COLLEGE" has cooled down a touch this past weekend and I was able to scrape the nickels and dimes (still unsure of the monetary value of either) together and make the trip to support my local cinema, and one of my favourite bands, and see Inni - the brand spanking new Sigur Rós film.

worth the two year wait

The film opens in media res with Jonsí and co. doing a live interview for NPR. The interviewer asks: "Did you always make this experimental music? Or did you start off by making sort of normal music?" Questionable looks and laughter exchanged, the film launches into a stunning rendition of Ný batterí. The set list of the film might disappoint some (no Glósóli for example), but the songs they have included gel with incredible power to set the haunting, sombre and emotionally draining tone of the film. The bassist, in a short cut scene, is asked about how he would define the band. To which he replies "We write heavy metal. We worship the devil and then we make music for him". That's hard to argue against after watching Inni.


The most impressive part of Inni is how much of a film it actually is. By that I mean that most band released projects are documentary based, with spots of old footage and interviews interspersed with a few live recordings. Inni, however, is nothing like this. There's a couple of quick quips, and nothing more. The impetus of the film is the intensely personal and engulfing live experience that Sigur Rós offers their fans. Inni makes you completely forget your surroundings, almost entirely removing the audience, and any sense of place.

yep, still personal.

The aesthetics of the film really drive this home. Vincent Morisset, the director of the film (who has worked on projects with Arcade Fire before), gives the viewer an amazing visual experience through his unique shooting technique. Originally shot on HD Digital, he then transfered it to 16mm film and afterwards projected this print and re-filmed. Whilst re-filming, he passed various objects in front of the projector - pieces of glass, etc. - to give the film a stunning impressionist look. How he got the idea I don't have a clue, whether divine intervention or a drunken bet, i'm fucking glad he did it. Inni's visuals easily match, if not surpass, the soundtrack of the film; the two in tandem work, literally, like a dream.

dude..

Obviously the lack of narrative shortens its talkability, however hopefully I've implanted the seed of going. I urge each and every one of you to go see this film, I think there's one more showing in London on the 20th of this month for y'all home bros. If you don't like Sigur Rós then you'll fall for the visuals. If you don't like the visuals then you'll love the music. If you don't enjoy either then you're not my friend. 

if this doesn't tempt you, nothing will.

REVIEW - RED STATE

It's difficult to name a contemporary filmmaker with more talent than Kevin Smith. He writes, draws, edits, stars in and directs all his projects - all while being incredibly stoned. When I was first introduced to his work I was warned of its brilliance; I chose, perhaps naively, to ignore the cautioning tales and watch Clerks - a film that immediately shot into my top 10 of all time. Since that fateful night I have been swooned by Kevin's filmography and his loving face.

I think the term is "man crush"

The buzz around his latest project, Red State, has been tempered with controversy. First he stated he was going to auction the rights to distributors after Sundance, only to keep the film himself. As such the film has limited theatrical release (it's readily available online though). Then there were various protests by the crazy fuckers over at Westboro Baptist Church. Red State is also Smith's penultimate film, he has vowed to stop directing after one last huzzah - the film was shrouded in importance before it was even released.

The opening 10 minutes or so really don't feel like a Kevin Smith film, visually at least. The camera isn't stagnant and the atmosphere is different to any of his other works, which may lead to fans questioning whether it really is the bearded maestro behind the camera. However, Smith quickly immerses the viewer in his film world through his usual trusty tool: dialogue. Some critics attribute overwriting as one of Smith's weaknesses as a filmmaker. They couldn't be more wrong. The constant conversation is what hooks audiences, gets their attention, and is really where Smith thrives. Red State is packed with more quotable quips than an episode of South Park, and better speeches than a Coen Brothers film. My favourite is when an FBI agent asks John Goodman's character "how much do you think an iron cross like that costs?" to which Goodman replies "You mean in dollars or common sense?"

ZING.

Red State is also different from any other Smith film in terms of its ideology and message. The film feels like a black coffee served straight to the Tea Party. It focuses on the backwards religious fundamentalists of small town America, the kind of people that hate just about everyone that isn't in their own insular community. The film's narrative is driven by the religious folk and their belief that "God hates Fags!" and all that bull honkey. This sets up the rest of the film and eventually escalates to all out warfare between these crackpots and John fuckin' Goodman, who has direct orders to exterminate every last person inside the premises. The naivety and foolishness of the fundamentalists is openly condemned, and the far right of American culture is criticised in an ironic and Smith-esque finale.

He has a good point.

The only down beat is that the film doesn't function as the horror film it's billed as. The only frightening thing in the film is the ignorance of the religious fundamentalists, and that they could be in any small town from East to West coast. There's no edge of your seat moments, or any real suspense building so the film is better viewed as a satirical commentary so people watching it as a horror aren't disappointed. 

Overall, the film isn't the best Smith has made (Clerks set the bar pretty high). It is, however, probably the best film i've seen this year and y'all should definitely give it a chance. Plus, if you don't know Kevin Smith then you should REALLY give him a shout, you definitely wont be disappointed.

Just a little taster.