REVIEW - THE GREAT LEO DI CAP-SBY

"F to the Fizzay"

Baz Luhrmann has a taste for adapting classics. Romeo and Juliet was a brave attempt at modernising the most famous love story in history, and he returns to adaptation with another incredibly brave jaunt at putting the Great Gatsby on to screen. It has been done before - 5 times, in fact, if you include TV films - however, with Baz it was never going to be straight adaptation. His own personal seal was waxed onto every filmic strip of Gatsby.

Such elegant prose

The Great Gatsby is a tale of the roaring twenties. F Scott. presents the reader with a somewhat flawed narrator in the form of Nick Carraway - our humble eyes into the ongoings in West Egg, a prosperous corner of Long Island. Baz Luhrmann, however, decides to alter the perspective of the narrator by making him, literally, insane. In what seems an odd opening - and will have readers of the book immediately reeling - Luhrmann sloppily introduces Nick as a recovering alcoholic in an insane asylum. The entire story is then told in flashback, interrupted by odd scenes of Nick shaking and spluttering over his sparknotes.

I haven't been this drunk since the 20s

The overall aura of the film, should be, one of excess and capitulation - and at points it is. The gloss of the film feels deliberately fake, which is a good thing for the themes of the film (but takes a while to get used to). There is, however, an odd blend matching of music and picture. Hearing a mix of Jay Z, Florence and the Machine and Lana Del Ray over a swinging twenties party just does not fit and I have no idea how Baz thought it would. Although it was probably influenced by the exec. producer pressure of Mr. Carter himself.

Condensed review

Overall the film doesn't hit enough of a high to be truly well received. It's a strange, but not great, adaptation. Eckleberg's eyes, throwing shirts, and the "today is my birthday" line just completely miss the mark and don't have the same weight as in the book. Baz prefers the visual splendour, to the detriment of the driving essence of the novel. Leonardo Da Vinci also saves the film at points with an honest and brilliant performance as Gatsby. The film is centred around him, and Leo pulls one out the proverbial bag. 

26/50 States

Auto Orientalism and Farewell, My Concubine -

Dai Jinhua, in her analysis of Farewell, My Concubine (Kaige, 1993), laments its ‘dissolution of history into an oriental landscape, into a necessary ingredient in the Cannes Film Festival recipe of Chen Kaige’s fantasy.’ Subscribing to Jinhua’s argument, Farewell, My Concubine can be read as an auto-oriental film.

Figure 1: Young Orientalism 

The oriental landscape is primarily displayed to the viewer through the medium of Beijing Opera. The film’s focus on the traditional artistic movement is no mistake; director Chen Kaige framed the film within this context to add to the oriental nature of the film. Although the subtext attempts to force importance on the changing cultural and political spectrum of China over half a century, Farewell, My Concubine makes no attempt to become a historical epic. Rather, the revolution and uprisings are centered on their lasting effect on the opera industry, framed through the experience of Douzi (see figure 1). There is little proletariat influence; which one might expect to find in a film about a cultural revolution. Indeed, the only appearance of the Chinese working class is to display their obsession with the opera stars. Much like the working class, the Western viewer is placed a similar position of obsession. ‘Which Rey chow defines as an oriental's orientalism exhibits a self display for the voyeuristic gaze.’

Through this gaze, the audience becomes entranced with the brightly coloured costumes, the plot of the opera, and the grueling performance of the Beijing Opera troupe. Moreover, Douzi and Shitou frequently look directly into the camera, breaking the fourth wall (see figure 2) and adhering to the voyeuristic gaze. They are putting themselves on stage for both audiences, the filmic world and real world, to view. 

Figure 2: 4th Wall Orientalism

The blurring of reality and fantasy is foregrounded through Douzi. Notably, Douzi is picked to play the female lead in the Opera - and throughout becomes increasingly obsessed with his own stardom and as Shitou, claims: “becomes Consort Yu.” Douzi’s own preoccupation, and blurring of gender roles, with his character leads to a further level of Orientalism. He has become so entrenched in the orientalism of his persona that he feels now fully attached to his character. For him, the fantasy of orientalism has become a reality.

Figure 3: Auto-Orientalism At Work In Farewell, My Concubine

Whilst Shuqin Cui claims: ‘the orient is made oriental by the occident.’ It is increasingly apparent that Asian filmmakers are utilising the Western Gaze, a technique which is particularly prevalent in Farewell, My Concubine. The film, therefore, pleases not only an East Asian audience, but a global market. Regardless of whether one agrees with Kaige’s technique of auto-orientalism (see figure 3), it has been successful - as of today the film is the only foreign Chinese language film to win the Palme d’or at Cannes film festival.

42/50 STATES

REVIEW - DJANGO UNCHAINED

I think Westerns are great. & the journey of the Western has been long and interesting. Arguably its birth was with the 1903 film The Great Train Robbery, it then passed John Ford's phenomenal Stagecoach in 1939, went through Leone's magnificent Spaghetti Westerns of the 1960s, and landed in contemporary cinema with films like Cowboys and Aliens. Yep, gone are the days when the Western was a great genre, and Clint Eastwood was less racist. One man, though, has always kept the genre close, shielded it from the apparent Alien attack: Quentin Tarantino. Growing up infatuated with Leone's framing and storytelling, QT learnt his trade in the back catalogues of a video store. Graduating through his filmography, it was clear to see his influences - you might even argue Kill Bill is his blending of Kurosawa and Leone (I'll save that one for another time). Still, it feels his entire body of work has been building to this film. If he can pull of this Western, he will have made it in his own eyes, as much as ours. Which is probably why the script took ~3 years to write.

*by a 3 year old

The story of Django Unchained is inspired by his chained predecessor: Django, made in 1966 and starring Franco Nero - who makes a brief cameo discussing the silent "D." Other than the appearance of Nero, there's little repetition from previous films of the genre. There's only 1 Johnny Cash song, for christ's sake! The film is undeniably Tarantino's. We open in the Antebellum South, following a posse of recently purchased slaves on route to their new plantation when up rolls Dr. Schultz (Chris Waltz), a German "dentist" who is looking to acquire Django's (Jamie Foxy) services. Dispatching the two white escorts with his wit, dialogue and fast draw, the two ride off together to the nearest watering hole for a pint and a business discussion.

"shooting from the hip"

Django's cunning eye reveals that Schultz is, in fact, a bounty hunter and not a travelling dentist. He offers Django his freedom and $75 for that same cunning eye to identify the Brittle Brothers, who Schultz will then shoot. "Kill white people and they pay you for it" quips Django, "What's not to like?" The two enter into an agreement and begin what feels like the trimmings of a buddy movie. Cowboys are lone rangers, these bounty hunters are more like BFFs & here QT's writing really comes to the forefront. So much so that you begin to ignore the stunning scenery they ride through, in favour of the snappy dialogue performed admirably by both actors. There are even some particularly well framed shots, that cut from wide angle to close up and vice versa (CRASH ZOOMS), that simply pass over the viewer because the film is so well balanced between the audio and visual. Speaking of which - the soundtrack is typically blazé and pop-ish (John Legend's contribution is excellent). QT even manages to slip a Rick Ross number in there, but does it look out of place? Hell no. Not in this Western.

you can't jus' WALTZ ina town an' shoot somebuddy

Django's super cool nature comes unravelled when he sees those who have wronged him in the past. For you see, even ex-slaves have subtext in Tarantino's Western. Django's real desire is to be reunited from his estranged wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington DC) - and Schultz, as a responsible whitey, agrees to help his free negro pal find her after a winter's worth of hunting; as this Django fella is proving himself quite the natural. The two grow close and soon Schultz paternal relation to Django wears thin, as the freed man becomes something of a revelation in his newfound liberty. The search for Broomhilda leads them to one name: Calvin Candy (Leonardo Da Vinci). Monsieur Candy is a particularly suave and ruthless plantation owner, the owner of young Broomhilda and a big name in the "Mandingo" business: also known as Nigger fighting. The two hatch a plan and make their way to Candyland. If the first half of the film had your curiosity, the second will grab your attention.

Sandy Joyner

The majority of the white folk are presented in a hilariously caricatured Blazing Saddles-esque fashion: "WHAT'S A NIGGER DOING ON A HORSE?" is a frequent line. Samuel L. Jackson also gives one of the best performances of his career as Steven, the head slave of Monsieur Candy. Deep-seated race relations are treated in Django Unchained like never before. It's OK to laugh as Steven suggests burning the pillow cases after Django has slept on them. But with the comedy, comes the brutality. Whips and early forms of KKK militarism are also shown in garish honesty. Although again, not without their hint of "Tarantino." In one of the best sequences of the film, members of a hate mob discuss the negative aspects of wearing white hoods with eye holes - none of them can see! The ironic hint to their reduced awareness, or blindness, is clear - Tarantino is criticising racial hatred in his own way. And it works.

and then they kissed?

Spike Lee recently hit out at Django Unchained: "American slavery was not a Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It was a holocaust. My ancestors are slaves. Stolen from Africa. I will honor them." He couldn't be more wrong (in fact, Spike Lee has been a bit of a dick recently). In the same month Lincoln is released, the subject matter is being presented in two very different ways - but I know which one I'd rather watch. Tarantino isn't dishonouring the history of African Americans, hell no. He's celebrating the liberation of black people in his own unique, gory, hilarious, fan-boy way. In a running joke across the film - the "D" in "Django" is silent; the rest of the film is anything but.

45/50 STATES

p.s. QT's cameos are phenomenal

REVIEW - THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

Happy 2013, crew! Which of yous have already broken your resolutions, ya naughty good-for-nothings? Hope everyone had good tidings and enough drink to put down a donkey. This is a little belated and my memory has been somewhat zapped by festive whiskey drinking, but here goes a few thoughts on the recent release of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit. A film that most, especially Tolkien fans, had been wishing for since Frodo sailed to the Undying lands of the Elves (oops, spoiler). Our tale surrounds Mr. Frodo's infamous Uncle Bilbo and his unexpected journey "there and back again" - or at least, the first 6 chapters of it.

13 Dwarves, 1 Hobbit. (not a porno)

The immediate talking point of the film surrounded the formation of a trilogy. Lord of the Rings worked perfectly in this format as 3 different parts; indeed, some was even left out - Tom Bombadil, notably. However, to split a novel that barely covers 300 pages into 3 separate films seems foolish and money grabbing. Particularly when the bulk of screen time in LOTR was dedicated to grandiose battle sequences, of which there is little in The Hobbit (at least, in this film). Ultimately it would have been wiser to trim into one film, or even just a pair of flicks - the storyline drags and some less interested in young Bilbo would easily lose interest after the first hour, let alone the first film.

translated directions: "fly, you fools"

The "unexpected" nature of this journey comes one evening when Gandalf secretly scratches an invitation onto Bilbo's door for Thorin Oakenshield (who has more than a hint of Vigo Mortensen about him) and his merry band of 12 Dwarves (including James bloody Nesbitt) to have a shindig. The young Hobbit is soon overrun with company and invited to be the burglar on a quest to retrieve treasure stolen from Erebor by Smaug the Dragon - now located on top of the Lonely Mountain (see above). Soon the Took within the Baggins takes over and Bilbo finds himself out the door, on a pony, and without his handkerchief. The company are off towards Mirkwood and stumbling upon all sorts of Middle Earth life: outwitting trolls, being captured by Goblins and trapped by Wargs.

oh dear

This is where the film departs from Tolkien's work. In the novel there is no mention of a dangerous "Necromancer" conjuring dark spells, or of "Radagast the Stoned/Brown/Definitely Stoned," or even of a meeting in Rivendell between Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond. Nor is Thorin's one armed, allbeit bad ass looking, nemesis talked of at all in the book. Jackson clearly didn't feel there was enough entertainment in the first section of the book, and so placed a few more threats to keep audiences awake (again - why not just trim?). Still - the Dwarven company are infinitely likeable and Freeman's portrayal of an unassuming Bilbo, who flounders over the simplest of tasks yet excels where isn't expected to, is commendable and he carries it well (even has a slight "Tim" feel to the character).

HD 3D and Gandalf just don't mix

The film opens in HD 3D and unfortunately finishes in it, too. Jackson's decision to double the FPS (Frames Per Second) of the film from 24 FPS to 48 FPS always seemed a strange choice, and it seems absolutely ridiculous after watching The Hobbit. There's an argument for the natural technological advancement of cinematography, but those that make it should be strangled by 35mm film. The entire film looks almost CGI - but not in a good way; more in a video game cut sequence kind of way, particularly whenever long shots are used (which is often). It just doesn't feel cinematic. Plus making me put glasses over glasses always ruins my movie watching experience - it's genuinely one of the most annoying things imaginable. So fuck you, Jackson.

Bilbo's crack addiction will be interesting to watch

Sadly The Hobbit does not compare to LOTR: it's nowhere near in the same league of filmmaking or storytelling. In its own right, it's still a thoroughly enjoyable tale about maturation, adventure and friendship; and it will be interesting to see where the next two films take us. However The Hobbit feels as tall as its protagonist, in that it barely gets off the ground. Sadly, most fans of the book will lament it, and most newcomers get bored of it. Jackson's gone off the radar with this one, and we don't quite feel like we're in Middle Earth anymore. 

32/50 STATES

REVIEW - TWISHITE BREAKING YAWN PT. POO

At the premier, R-PATZ reportedly joked around with some Twi-hards outside by saying: "I don't understand what mental condition you have." First off, I'm not sure he was joking. And second - this is one of the problems with the Twilight saga. A lot of Twi-hards are dicks. There, I said it. They make hating the films easy for onlookers with their ridiculous obsessiveness and TEAM EDWARD t-shirts (+ I don't think i'm being at all pretentious or unfair). It's important, therefore, to remove any preconceptions you might have about the film/its fans before viewing the latest installment. I have, unashamedly, seen all the Twilight films and was one of the millions that went to see it on opening weekend. TEAM JACOB tank top and all.

I had a similar reaction

The release of the film was shrouded in controversy after K-STEW apparently went rogue and cheated on our beloved R-PATZ. Without slipping into a Perez Hilton blog post; HOW DARE SHE, R-PATZ IS A FUCKING SAINT! However in the filmic world, all is happy in the Cullen household. Bella is now a fully fledged Trampire after she was turned in the most despicable C-section in the finale of part 1. She's now got horrendous pink eye, and some newfound abilities to boot! No longer a mismatch in the bedroom, the opening 20 minutes or so are filled with Bella's newfound lust for blood and/or R-PATZ' genitalia. Indeed, the opening line of the film is Edward telling the mother of his new child "You're so beautiful." Probably the most frequent line of the film, despite K-STEW's ever present omni-frown. Despite all this, they have so little chemistry on screen that it's no surprise she sought greener pastures off screen.

again, all too familiar...

Most criticism of Twilight is levelled at its poor writing, cardboard characters and incredibly clichéd dialogue. Unfortunately none of these judgements are dispelled by the latest film. With all quiet on the home front, (the Wolves and Vamps are now getting along just fine, in case you were worried) the imminent threat of the film comes in the form of the VOLTURI. An ancient coven of Vamps that seek to destroy Bella's young one, horrifically named Renesmee, because they believe her to be some sort of demon child who will kill endless amounts of humans. Too strong for the Cullen's alone, they draft in their Vamp mates to stand against the innocent killing of Renesmee. There's little offered up in terms of character development - despite the influx of new vampires with unique abilities of their own. Element control/mind control/electric shocks don't add much to the already tiring abilities of the stock characters.

mighty morphin' shitty vampires

There is also yet more incredibly contrived one liners that tend to follow the lines of: "I love you 4eva nd eva bby" *BLEUGH* Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 at points feels more like an MSN conversation than a hollywood blockbuster. Although the film is arguably the least clichéd and OTT of the entire series, it still falls back to this weakness on a far too regular basis. Old habits clearly die hard. I understand the film/books are made for teenagers struggling with their soppy pre-adolescent relations, however there are far more suitable techniques than awful dialogue. Whatever message Twilight is trying to get across (sexual liberation of the female teen???????) it's often lost in its median.

honestly THIS is better writing

Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 looks a lot better than its predecessors, its budget has been vamped up and the CGI looks markedly crisper. However there is the questionable addition of a CGI baby Renesmee that looks about as real as Jordan's buzzers. Still, this film is arguably the best Twilight of the saga. The final battle is interesting enough, and the film actually caught me off guard with a twist I honestly did not see coming. See if you can catch it. Sadly though, Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 really is a shiny vampire in a clan of Cullens. I'm not in the franchise's target audience, and boy does it show. I think Twi-hards will love it, and the rest of us will be loving that it's finally over. Hopefully 5eva.

*SPOILER ALERT*

16/50 states

ALSO, BUNK FROM "THE WIRE" CAMEOS IN THIS FILM. THAT EARNT IT 15 STATES.

REVIEW - SKYFALL

Britain is a largely expectant country; whether it's football, tea strength, a Paul McCartney show, or other over stereotyped British activities, we demand the best. The same applies to our Bond films. Ever since Dr. No and (Sir.) Connery hit the big screens, there has been an air of "Britain Expects" about the series. And it's no real surprise, as Bond has become one of the most widely known exports of GB in recent history; just look at how excited everyone was when he jumped out a helicopter with HRH in July. MADNESS! But it's more than that. Watching in the cinema, before the film even begins there are half a dozen Bond related adverts each proclaiming their product will turn Jon Doe into James Bond. Bond is bankable. The franchise has the weight of a nation on its shoulders, and the pressure of the fat cat producers prodding it forwards. Does Skyfall deliver for both? In short: yes. And then some. 

watch Outland. Connery as a Space cop - Golden.

In the early millennia Bond was looking tired and worn, hence the 4 year break after Brosnan and the complete refresh to Flemming's first novel for Casino Royale. Directors were struggling to keep people interested in tired gags and repetitive fantasy story lines; there's only so many times the Russians can threaten to end the world after all (...or is there?). But with Danny Craggers the series looks to have found itself a lead to propel the franchise back into the right direction: tougher, darker and more attune to Flemming's series. And it has come to fruition with Skyfall. Third time lucky, ey?

old meets new

The film throws its audience straight into a mission in Istanbul; JB is in the process of recovering a hard drive with names of undercover MI6 agents. No easy feat, and after some rooftop motorcross he finds himself on the top of a moving train mano-on-mano with his adversary. With time running out, M (still Judy Dench) orders JB's female assistant operative to take "the shot". But of course she hits Bond, plunging him 200 odd feet off the train and down into the watery depths of a raging river. Apparently women can't shoot. Add that to the list ay? I jest! As a side note, I read an article suggesting Skyfall was the least misogynistic Bond yet; I'd have to strongly disagree. For reasons i'll get onto soon. 

JB > JC

Soon after JB disappears, he is pronounced K.I.A. and M writes a less than heart felt obituary. Yet in the very next scene we see him on a sunny beach, knee deep in a foreign looking lady (stage one of Skyfall not being the least misogynistic Bond film) drinking a Heineken. Cut back to London and the MI6 building is in pieces, the files are being leaked, and M is having a moment. Bond acknowledges this and makes his way back to the new HQ, beginning his vendetta to get all British on those responsible. He soon discovers the face behind the treachery: Javier Bardem. His outstanding portrayal of camp fashion designer-esque villain Raoal Silva, brings a much needed kick of chaos to the film. He is hell bent on dealing revenge on M (stage 2 of Skyfall not being the least misogynistic Bond film) and taking down the "establishment" of MI6 and Gran Britannia; he represents a threat to the old guard.

being typecast as the villain is working for Mr. Bardem

Meanwhile the war at home is raging, as the supposed incompetence of MI6 is called into question by top brass of Number 10: is there a need for 00 agents in this modern world? The analogy works to directly question the audience: is there a place for Bond in 2012? The rest of the film provides a succinct and booming "YES MUM." Skyfall is a stunning mix of action, witty dialogue, and a few gadgets (the ejector seat is mocked, as well as the exploding pen) that perfectly blends old with new; highlighting the need for balance. It should be considered the archetype for future Bonds, and the benchmark for the past. It is, indeed, a resurrection.  

not a half-bad Bond girl, either

47/50 STATES

REVIEW - LOOPER

Time travel films are always hotly anticipated. Something all of us wish was invented, it's usually a joy to see our childish hopes and dreams played out infront of us on the big screen. Personally I'd go back to May 19th and re-watch the Drogba penalty with less nerves, make a lot of money on accumulators and go into business with Roman Abramovic. However, in Looper  we see time travel being used for slightly more dangerous means: assassinations. It's 2044 in the grand ol' USA (more specifically, Kansas) and we're promptly told by Joseph Gordon-Levitt that time travel has not been invented yet, but in 30 years it will be...

UNBELIEVABLE, JEFF

JEFF DANIELS has been sent back from 2074 to run things - establishing a criminal network that runs the city. He employs JGL's character, young Joe, as a LOOPER. His job is to be in a certain place at a certain time, and kill whoever has been sent back from the future for a hell of a lot of silver. Trick is though, one day you will come face to face with yourself in the field - a mind fuck to say the least, and then you're supposed to kill your old self, termed: "closing the loop". For some reason, loops are being closed on a much more frequent basis. And surprise, surprise, it's not long before JGL comes face to face with Bruce Willis kneeling in front of him. A questionable casting perhaps, and in the moment that JGL is pondering how he became John McClane, the old Joe springs into action and escapes. Failing to close a loop is punishable by death, and so now there's Jeff Daniels chasing young Joe, chasing old Joe.

my god I want this poster

The greatest part about Looper is that it's incredibly simple in its explanation of how things in the present affect the future. Young Joe, for example, scars his arm to write "Beatrix" in order to get old Joe's attention for a meet at their favourite restaurant. The latter then informs young Joe that there's another waitress who works on weekends called "Jen" that would have been a better choice; but with age comes wisdom, aye? They talk. And young Joe learns that someone called the "Rainmaker" is closing all the loops whilst tearing shit up in a police state America 30 years later - it is, according to old Joe, therefore crucial they find and kill all of the three possible "Rainmakers"; who are nowt but a toddler in 2044. 

some questionable face SFX

All of this polarises the two Joes, who have differing opinions on child murder. The old Joe buggers off to make some regrettable decisions, whilst the young 'un uncovers the location of one of the possible "Rainmaker" children: a farm where Sara (Emily Blunt) is a badass mother/farmer/shotgun wielder who lets Joe help protect her child, Cid. As young Joe and Sara become close, he learns she is telekinetic - a genetic mutation that 10% of the population have, however most are unable to do much more than lift coins. Sara is slightly more proficient, as is her son. Meanwhile, old Joe is on a war path. Having lost his dear wife in the future, he is determined to do anything in his power to find the "Rainmaker" and stop his life from unravelling. Even going on one of the best-action directed rampages at Jeff Daniels' head quarters that you'll see this year.

think Kevin Smith would like to go back and un-direct that one, too

The director, Rian Johnson, really surprises in Looper  with some excellent cinematography and action editing, and at points feels more like a neo-noir than a time travel fiction. And a neo-noir/time travel film is a hard thing to do, least of all do well. But Johnson really excels in his first real shot at the big time. It's as if he's come back from the future as a master writer/director. Sure he's helped by a stellar cast, and one of the best JGL performances of his career, but the film is genius from start to finish. The dialogue is witty, the idea well executed, and the finale outstanding. We'll be watching Looper again, and again, and again, and again...

not quite as good as Groundhog Day, however.

43/50 STATES