Movie Review Time: Tower Block (2012)

 

The writer of this film also wrote a couple of other cult british horror comedies, Cockneys Vs Zombies and Severance. His name is James Moran, that's all I really know. His name and two films he's also written the screenplay to.

 

I liked Severance I guess, though I can't really enjoy Danny Dyer in any way whatsoever, but he is ignorable if you try hard enough. Tower Block was released in 2012 and got a decent enough nation wide cinema release, though it was only on for a couple of weeks. It looked decent enough but there was too much to see at that point so I waited for the DVD release instead. Well, months on and one BluRay purchase later and I sat down on my couch, coffee in hand, to watch this small budgeted British thriller. Here are my modest thoughts.

 

The movie begins with a look at the various characters that exist in a pending-destruction tower block in East London. It also shows a young man being beaten to death by two masked thugs. The police try to get some information from the people in the tower block about the attack that happened in the halls of their residence. None of them would speak. None of them had any information, and so the thugs went free and the residents carried on with their lives, in a run-down block of flats where only the top floor is lived in. The remainder of the block has been emptied and re-homed. So, thats where the tale begins.

 

Sheridan Smith is the headliner in the movie. Fans of UK sitcoms like The Royle Family, Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps and Gavin & Stacey will know her well. She plays a character called Becky who saw the attack on the boy happen and attempted to save him, but she was beaten up too and didnt have an information for the police. She is the "good" person in the mix, and the film tends to focus on here mostly, which is a good idea because she is likeable and familiar with no real reason to dislike her.

 

I dont know any of the other performers in the film, except for a guy from Gavin & Stacey who plays an alcoholic loner named Paul. The other main character is called Kurtis, a thug-wannabe Derby-voiced drug dealer who has spent years theratening the people of the block and making them pay him money with a promise that if they do he wont attack them and wreck their homes. Nice. So we are introduced to this extremely annoying chap early on. His performance as the skinny little prick chav is well done but the type is done so often in british films that it's getting old and annoying now. I understand that people like this exist, sadly, but it seems that alot of urban films based in Britain have this chracter in them. I know people like this exist, especially in the more downtrodden areas of the country, but it is so typical and over-the-top that it seems too obvious now. Am I supposed to eventually like these one-dimensional nasty characters? Really? I don't.

 

So, months later and the residents of the top floor of the block are going about their lives as usual. An older couple living normally, a couple of little thuggy lads pretending to be "gangsta", a single mother who yells at her kids constantly, a family with a son who plays Battlefield 3, alot. And so on.

 

Suddenly, as the people are in their flats going about their lives, bullets fly through their windows and kill certain people. We see a sniper rifle reloading and aimed at the tower block. The residents all run into the halls, freaking out. They're being picked off and they don't know why.

 

I'll stop there. Thats where the story begins and I wont spoil it. It tells the story of a group of people trying to escape from a sniper aimed at their tower block who has set traps around the building. It's about the way the characters interact as well as why they are being terrorised in such a manner.

 

It's a fun premise and the performances are mostly good. Some are passable but none are actually bad, which I didn't expect. I found the character of Kurtis to be too irritating and obnoxious to tolerate and at times it made me grit my teeth. It was a little too much at times. I enjoyed the film, basically and honestly, it was fun and didn't drag during it's 90+ minutes. My main issue is that there are gaping inconsistancies and plot holes the size of a stella artois factory. It is in these issues that the film let me down. They were obvious plot holes that I cannot fathom how someone could miss. I wonder if the director was even that bothered towards the end. It is one of those films that gives too much away too soon and ends in a very unsatisfying way. Still, the actors did a good job with the mediocre script, the story, or 50% of it, was interesting and at times tense and it was a decent urban brit-thriller of which the country doesn't produce many.

 

I would recommend it to anyone who might like the idea of survival thrillers but the chracter models are dated and the story falls short on many occassions. Still, not all bad and worth a watch.

 

SCORE - 5 pints of cider out of 10.



Review Of Ruby Sparks

 

Zoe Kazan wrote Ruby Sparks and she plays Ruby in the film itself. Her co-star in the movie is Paul Dano who you might know from the cult indie comedy "Little Miss Sunshine". As a real life couple, the two of them present an on screen chemistry that is so strong it carries the movie from being a decent fantasy-rom-com into being a truly special motion picture that has gone under the radar for reasons I can't pinpoint or understand.

 

The story is one of hope, one of social anxiety leading to ideals that are pretty impossible to ever find, to ever meet. It is in this that we meet the main character in the story of "Ruby Sparks", Calvin. Calvin is a young man with social anxiety who wrote a book and it became an american literarature classic and due to that he had been unable to think of the tale in which to follow it up. He was in councelling since he was a child and lived alone in an apartment that appears to be designed for solitude in order to help him to find whatever his second novel would be. One day Calvin begins to have dreams about a girl and in this he begins to fantasise about her. His councellor, played in a loving and knowing way by Elliot Gould, tells him to write about this girl and see where it takes him.

 

Calvin writes about the girl, how she looks, what she smiles like, how her voice sounds to his ears and that her name is Ruby Sparks. He is rejuvinated by his writing and begins to write more and more, loving his time with the girl he is creating on his typewriter. The typewriter becomes a symbol of Calvins' reluctancy to accept his success and attempt to move forward.

 

To cut bits and pieces from the whole story, Calvin eventually wakes up, goes downstairs and sees the girl of his dreams, literally, cooking eggs in his kitchen with a smile on her face and a song in her heart. He immediately thinks he is going mad and hallucinating until eventually realising that other people can also see, hear and touch Ruby. The girl of his dreams had come to life and was in love with him as much as he was with her.

 

The story takes many turns from here, and this is where I'll leave it to you to see where it goes. I wouldn't want to spoil it. It does, however, involve the ability of Calvin to write more detail about Ruby and immediately effect her with the use of his keyboard and his ideas.

 

The mixture of fantasy, romance, drama and comedy is wonderful and makes for a fresh and interesting take on a romantic tale of finding love and coping with all it has to offer, both good and bad, not forgetting the in-betweeny parts.

 

Paul Dano is great in his role, conflicted, messy and troubled by his own mind and the pressure he places on his own shoulders regardless of his loving family. Zoe Kazan adds a childlike innocence and a sparky honesty to the character of Ruby.

 

The supporting cast of Annette Bening and Antonio Bandaras as Calvin's Mom and Step-Dad, Elliot Gould as Calvins therapist and Chris Messina as his brother are top notch and add a variety of interesting dynamics to the story as it goes on.

 

I loved this movie, it was truly entertaining and heartwarming whilst hovering over sinister and dark at times in a way that all great tales of love should do. There is darkness in life and in love and to leave it out is to ignore human emotion at it's truist. This doesn't ignore, it explores and it makes for a wonderful independant dark comedy with fantastical elements seeping through it's edges.

 

Lovingly crafted and beautifully acted, this was one of my favourite films of last year and since it's DVD and BluRay release I've seen it plenty more times and enjoyed it more and more with each viewing.

 

There have been people in other reviews I've read saying that it could have been much more sinister and thus more interesting but I disagree, taking too many dark steps in a film like this would be completely bizarre and wouldn't really make sense.

 

9/10



Review - Bad Boy Bubby (1993)

Netherlands born director Rolf de Heer had been working as a director for nine years before he got behind the camera and made this little known bizzaro-flick entitled "Bad Boy Bubby" though to say I know of his previous works would be a lie, so I won't go there.

 

An Australian film, "Bad Boy Bubby" tells the story of Bubby, a boy, or man if you prefer as seen as he is thirty, kept locked inside a dirty flat by his mother who has convinced him that the air outside it poisonous. Certain circumstances force Bubby out into the world and he discovers things for the first time. He is an unusual cat, so the world reacts to him as such and in turn he sees the world as just as unusual.

 

It's a weird film, but engaging and thought provoking at the same time. It has its moments of disturbing the viewer and it has its moments of warming the viewers heart a little too. Nick Hope plays Bubby perfectly, an English actor from Manchester, he has worked on so many things yet any time I see him I remember him as "Bubby". This performance carries the film which at times borders on being so low budget you wonder if any of the other actors had ever worked in film or television prior to it. There are some bad things about it, with some shock moments seemingly only there for the value of making the viewer uncomfortable rather than progressing the story and the performances of some of the fringe characters are bordering on unwatchable. That shows how strong the lead performance and direction of this movie is, that a viewer can look past the bad things and still thoroughly enjoy the end product.

 

Bizarre, raw, gritty and sometimes utterly disgusting, "Bad Boy Bubby" is a little gem from the land of Aus that doesn't really get a mention. If you happen across it at some point, give it a try, it's worth a watch for sure.

 

Seven and a half cockroaches out of ten.



2012: A Movie Year In Review

 

2012 - A Year In Review : Movie Edition!

 

2012 has been a strong year for cinema and it isn't even over yet. As I write this in early December there are still some movies yet to hit screens and one big epic called "The Hobbit" on its way. Earlier this  year, I think around June, we signed up for Cineworld's "Unlimited" program, which entitles us to see as many flicks as we like while paying about fifteen quid a month. Amazing deal considering the amount of going to see just one movie on regular tickets, we've saved hundreds of pounds already as customers to this program and cannot hype it enough. Early 2012, before getting these tickets, we saw "The Hunger Games" and it cost over twenty pounds, we pay thirty pounds a month for two tickets and we can see whatever we want, whenever we want and as many times as we like. Excellent. Okay...I'll stop fanboying over Cineworld now, I promise.

 

2012 has been a great year for fans of film, lots of great pictures have hit the screens and entertained us. There's been some terrible shit too, but I suppose it's to be expected in a World where Keith Lemon is a popular television character who is given the green light to extend his miserable tripe onto cinema screens. Still, in-between the occasional dud there have been some tremendous flicks that have only gone to morph me into an even bigger nerd than I was 12 months ago. (and so it continues).

 

I've read reviews in magazines like Total Film and Empire throughout the year of movies we've seen in theatres and at times I disagree on so many levels with what the reviews say, one flick that comes to mind regarding this is actually one of the first movies we saw in theatres this year. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

 

The reviews for this film were unusual. I read a variety of reviewers label it as "taking itself too seriously" and "lacking in the depth of the novel". Okay, I admit, I haven't read the book in which the film is based. I love to read, I just don't happen to have read this films source material. I don't know if that helped in my enjoyment of the film, but if it did then I am surely blessed in that aspect. I thought there was plenty of dark humour in this movie, and lots of scenes were so well shot and acted that I could hardly find anything to feel angry about as a viewer, yet to my surprise after seeing it and feeling I got my moneys worth out of a thoroughly enjoyable action-gore-fest, I heard so many people say how it bastardised the novel and was acted badly. I disagree. I doubt it bastardised a novel that at its heart is almost a bastardisation of history itself. It might not have gone into the civil rights aspect as deeply as the book but then maybe it wouldn't have been as fun if it had. As a person simply viewing the film as a fun action movie for a rainy day I thought it ticked the boxes. Not every film has to be perfect, or deep, or word for word copies on the book on which it's based. I might be in the minority, but I'm fine with that. I even liked the train scene. There, I said it.

 

2012 also welcomed the first time I've seen a documentary film on the big screen. In the past, and in all honesty, it's been too expensive to see every single film that sounds interesting, so some slip through the cracks and have to wait until they hit DVD and Blu-Ray. Now this isn't the case we saw "The Impostor" for which there is a full review further back on this blog, and "Samsara" which was a mind blasting visual orgasm of a film that I truly loved and cannot wait to see again when it hits BR in early 2013. "Samsara" has no dialogue and plays alongside a vibrant score that makes the whole thing seem like a dreamscape at times. It's beautiful shots of people and places around the world are stunning and the depth of each shot makes the film extremely re-watchable. I felt myself wanting to rewind the film and see things for longer on so many occasions. I cannot say enough good things about it. It blew my mind.

 

Going back to something mentioned earlier, the bad films of the year, in which there have been plenty but I have gladly avoided most. I have liked most of the flicks I've seen on the big screen in 2012. There have, however, been a couple I didn't enjoy. The over-rated "Magic Mike" in which nothing really happens and no character has any likeability, and the frustrating to watch "The Offender" in which the main antagonist in so annoying that I felt like leaving the cinema on more than one occassion, plus real young offenders were used in some scenes and so the performances are very hit and miss. Shame really, the concept was a good one with lots of potential, shame the actors involved were very unlikeable individuals, which makes it tough to root for the people the filmmakers are obviously hoping you will root for. Still, these were utterly terrible films so it's been a good year for good flicks.

 

Superheroes are all the rage. They have been for years now with so many big budget blockbusters hitting the screens each summer featuring different cape wearing, batarang throwing, spiderweb shooting, hulk smashing, hammer pounding, lantern....erm....using......mega powers. This year we saw a knight of darkness end his Nolan-career, a group of avengers smashing up bad guys in the middle of the big city and a red and blue arachnid saving the day once again. These three movies were what the summer of cinema in 2012 was all about. The Avengers broke records and pleased fans around the World with it's mega action and delicious performances. The Amazing Spiderman improved on the previous movies and featured a great cast. The Dark Knight Rises became one of the most popular movies of all time and united fans and critics in a thing called "awe". All tremendous movies in my view, I can't wait to see what 2013 brings from the world of the comic book.

 

2012 also seems to have been the year that horror films were pretty much all about ghosts. I'm a big horror fan and have always loved the variety that comes with the genre. Zombies, ghosts, monsters, serial killers, cults, vampires, werewolves, fantastical beasts, possessed kids, animals with rabies, haunted houses...the sky has always been the limit and horror always surprises fans in the most unusual ways. 2012 however seems to have been a record with a big old scratch on it in the sense that most of the horror flicks have been ghost based. There's been a few that went elsewhere like the psychological thriller "House at the End of the Street" and monster flick "The Chernobyl Diaries" but most others have surrounded hauntings or possession. I don't mind so much but I miss the variety that used to come with horror. Lovely Molly, The Possession, Sinister, When The Lights Went Out and A Night in the Woods all hit screens around summer 2012. I miss the monster flicks and would love the zombie movie to get over the hurdle of being overdone a couple of years ago, there's still plenty of life left in the living dead.

 

My favourite flicks of 2012 is a hard list to create, there have been so many I've enjoyed. Dredd immediately comes to mind when thinking about films that I absolutely loved. It was violent, energetic, funny, dark, exciting and as a fan of 2000AD it did alot more for the world in which it came than the previous Stallone monstrosity in which ole' Sly just HAD to remove the mask and show his handsome dimples even though it was against the whole idea of the Judge himself. Dredd was one of my favourite movie experiences of 2012, and in 3D it was just bloody cool having head splattering gore flying at me every few minutes.

 

"Liberal Arts", "Ruby Sparks" and "Perks Of Being A Wallflower" were all excellent indie dramady's that also come to mind when thinking of enjoyable experiences at the movies this year. Funny, moving and acted brilliantly, all three of these flicks may have gone under the radar for some people, which is a shame considering how good they were. Comparable in the sense that they are all based around people with problems and inperfections.

 

 

There have been a number of reasons to be a paying customer of the cinema this year. There are things that annoy me, like the constant rustling of candy wrappers (eat before you go see a movie, please!), the shining annoyance of peoples cell phones every five seconds, the whispering of people who apparently enjoy wasting money and time by paying to whisper through a film other people are trying to enjoy. But there are also so many nice things, including the fact that showing support to these movies means we can keep seeing them because they'll keep getting made.

 

2013 has lots to be excited about as a film junkie, here's to another year of geeking our on release day!



 

 

 

Movie Review - The Innkeepers

You might know Ti West from his 2009 film The House of the Devil which was fairly well received by horror fans who appreciated its subtle yet believable 80’s look and feel. If there’s one thing I repeatedly heard about that movie, it’s that it was slow moving and in the eyes of some took a while to get going. I enjoyed the slow nature of the storytelling in HOTD so was expecting good things from The Innkeepers.

The Innkeepers is a ghost story, pure and simple. It reminded me at times of “The Legend of Hell House” with it’s reliance on atmosphere and silence to draw the viewer into a feeling of impending doom. In a nutshell, The Innkeepers follows two staff members of a ‘soon to be closing down’ hotel who attempt to discover the rumoured haunted past of the hotel and the spirits who may or may not inhabit it. It’s a simple formula and that’s a good thing. To complicate a haunted house/hotel movie can be just as clique as leaving it simple and letting the dialogue and story speak for itself. The performers themselves are of a similar quality to West’s previous outings. Hit and miss you might say, but still capable of holding the film above a certain level for the most-part.

In the same way that HOTD did, The Innkeepers moves slowly and develops the relationships between the characters and the hotel. The certain quirks and nuances of the two leads are explored for a good while before the horror part of the film actually gets under way. Sara Paxton (Claire) and Pat Healy (Luke) inject humour into the mix to keep the leisurely pace of the film from becoming exasperating, this does help, but I still admit to checking my watch on a couple of occasions which I didn’t do during House Of The Devil. This confirmed early on for me that this wouldn’t be my favourite Ti West offering, but I kept with it and enjoyed the experience of the hotel itself and the silent scenes of the camera merely sweeping across the hallways and up and down staircases.

Claire and Jake at times interrupted my feeling of dread with comedy which was a little strange. It is only when Claire becomes more interested in following Jakes lead and trying to fathom the history of the hotel that things pick up. Jake is the ghost hunter wannabe who runs a mediocre website but it is Claire who really throws herself into the challenge of uncovering the possible haunting of the inn in which she works. The guests who occasionally appear at the hotel are fairly uninteresting, except for one old man who requests a particular room. I expected more weird and wonderful guests to appear but it didn’t happen. The old man and a “celebrity” who could apparently tap into the land of the ghosties were the only guests relevant to the tale and even they didn’t elicit a huge interest. The problem with The Innkeepers isn’t with its slow and precise nature, now a signature of director West, but more with its inappropriate lack of scares and lack of interesting traits among its sparse amount of characters. It’s running time of 101 minutes shocked me when I looked after I’d finished watching, I felt like I’d been sat there for over two hours.

Ti West is a director that I enjoy and his style is interesting but with The Innkeepers I found it to be all a little too familiar and lacking substance. I enjoyed the tone at times and the hotel itself was a fantastic setting for a ghost story. It felt, to me anyway, like it should have gone full throttle on occasion rather than making the decision to take a step back and slow it all down again. Questions remained unanswered and I am happy to not have most of them answered, I just felt some needed conclusions in order to fully round off the experience.

A director to keep an eye on for sure, but a film that I doubt I will go back to anytime soon. Disappointing,  though not by any means terrible, The Innkeepers felt like a girlfriend who kisses you for an hour with her hand on your crotch but then puts her coat on and leaves all of a sudden leaving you wondering why the last hour happened without a real conclusion.

Enjoyable at times but nothing groundbreaking.

2.5 out of 5.

Review - Liberal Arts

Okay, so we all know Josh Radnor from his many years as the "unlucky-in-love" lead, Ted, from popular sitcom 'How I Met Your Mother'. We might also know him from his first and only other directorial outing 'happythankyoumoreplease' from 2010. That was a cute, emotional and very enjoyable little indie charmer that showed Mr. Radnor had a flair for independent comedy drama and an ear for pretty realistic, though sometimes delayed, dialogue. Enjoyable, some might say passable, but still very much worth seeing.

So when news of Josh’s second time in the fabric backed, star emblazoned chair was confirmed I found myself reading up and making attempts to keep a close eye on this little project. A project that would become “Liberal Arts” and in turn become the best film that Josh Radnor has yet made.

I saw Liberal Arts on a Friday on its first showing in a theatre with only six more people, some quietly munching on popcorn but all obviously excited to see the film. I will say that in a quiet theatre setting with very few people to make noise is the nicest way to enjoy a film, but on it’s first showing on release day it was a little bit surprising that more people didn’t pick up a ticket to see something that I feel is a nice breath of fresh air in a blockbuster heavy season of film, a breath of independent cinema that welcomes you with humour, drama and an excellent cast.

The story, in a fairly large nutshell, tells of Jesse Fisher (Radnor), a thirty-five year old man who has been floating unexcitedly through the years that followed his university education where he studied English and History. He heads back to his old college stomping ground to see his favourite professor retire and to show his gratitude for said teachers’ effect on him in his youth. It is there that he meets Zibby (Elisabeth Olson), a sparky nineteen year old who enjoys her improv group and reads the occasional book, unapologetically I might add, about sparkly vampires, much to the dismay of Jesse, but I'm getting ahead of myself. They strike up a friendship and begin to spend time together drinking coffee, talking about college, books, relationships and all the things that two people about to lose their heads over their heels tend to talk about. Jesse begins to realise that things are getting a little serious and so he does the ‘age-math’ in which he realises that Zibby, though advanced and mature, is sixteen years his junior. This is a problem, yes, in the eyes of his professor friend too, it is a problem. I won’t go on because it would spoil things and this is a film to be enjoyed, not spoiled.

Radnor gives a heartfelt performance and is very likeable as the confused and disappointed-by-life guy, but at times I felt like I was going to see Neil Patrick Harris run on screen and label one of the scenes Legen, wait for it, dary. In other words, it felt like his previous characters from film and television were very similar to this one and while the character of Jesse isn’t a bad one or an unlikeable one it doesn’t seem to be a stretch for Mr. Director either. Still, this doesn’t stop the enjoyment.

Elisabeth Olson, as is becoming commonplace, is terrific here. Warm, funny, inviting and very authentic, she offers something seldom seen in romantic comedy these days, a strong will without being hard faced and a personality that wont apologise for opinion and emotion. She plays the part brilliantly and when she isn’t on screen you tend to wish she was. The smaller parts are also worth mentioning. Richard Jenkins plays the reluctant retiree professor with a hint of sarcasm and wit while also giving a depth and sadness to a role that is not there for very long. Allison Janney as the former professor who hates gooey-hearted un-manly men is a fun addition too. Zac Effron is a bizarre choice for the hippy-ish, peace and love-er that gives advice in the form of t-shirt slogan like life affirmations, but he incites a laugh or two so it doesn’t really matter how unnecessary he actually is. Elizabeth Reaser plays a librarian for a short time two and is another warm heart in what is a very solid cast.

I laughed, felt sadness and just thoroughly enjoyed ‘Liberal Arts’. There’s nothing offensive here, and I suppose there’s nothing ground-breaking either. It depends on your outlook really as to whether or not you feel like you’ve heard this story before, but with the depth and credibility that the characters have it is hard to say you’ve seen anything quite like it.

 It looks pretty, sounds pretty (it even has a glorious classical score) and most of all it leaves the viewer, or me at least, with thoughts of life, love and the future, in a positive way for once.

4 out of 5

The Imposter - Movie Review

 

A new day and a new review.

 

This week, a fortnight after it got a very limited release in the UK, we had a chance to see a film that has been on my radar for a while and the interest was at an all time high as we went into the cinema to sit down and watch. The film in question is the critically acclaimed documentary "The Imposter".

 

The story is a difficult one to explain without going about spoiling certain points for people yet to read about it or see the film, there may be spoilers ahead.

 

Frédéric Bourdin, a frenchman in his early 20's, poses as a young boy from Texas who disappeared three years prior to where this unusual tale begins. The strange part of the story however is told through stylish reconstructions and discussions with the individuals involved.

 

The family who lost their son were met with news that he had been found in mainland Spain. What follows is the story of the familys' reuniting with their son, who looks older, darker haired, has features of a much older boy such as stubble and a French accent. The family take the boy back as if nothing is wrong and the imposter is granted citizenship to the United States after convincing the US government that he is who he says he is.

 

The story is bizarre and dazzles you with the sheer suprise that this could happen. There are twists and turns and each talking head tells their own truths to the camera, which are actual truths remains to be revealed.

 

The documentary itself is shot very well and flows in a way that keeps the attention of even the most light-of-focus movie-goer. Brilliantly told and just totally wacky, it is definately a must-see tale of hope, hopelessness, loss, gain, truth and lies.

 

8 big movie stars out of 10