28 Weeks Later

I had mixed feelings going into the preview screening of "28 Weeks Later". On one hand I really enjoyed "28 Days Later" - a fresh take on the zombie movie - and I really liked the trailer for this film. On the other hand, I was aware that the original creative team (Danny Boyle & Alex Garland) were only on board as Executive Producers, none of the original cast were in the film and that the directorial reigns had been handed over to someone with relatively little directing experience - Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. It had potential disaster written all over it!

Fortunately shortly after the film started, I realised all my fears were for nought. The claustrophobic opening sequence - a group of survivors (including Robert Carlyle's Don) holed up in a cottage - sets the heart racing and lets you know what's in store... (Giving you a reminder of how terrifying the 'infected' are!) After this initial adrenalin shot, the pace slows down in order to set the scene for the film: Britain was ravaged by the Rage epidemic, the infected have died of starvation, the US Army has moved in to start clearing up the mess, in the process they've created a quarantined repopulation zone for the few survivors in London's Docklands.

However, just as everything starts to seem rosy - Don is reunited with his children (Imogen Poots & Mackintosh Muggleton) who were abroad when the virus hit - it appears that the infection isn't as dead as everyone hoped...

From here on, the film becomes one long adrenaline-fueled roller-coaster ride.

"28 Weeks Later" is to "28 Days Later" what "Aliens" was to "Alien"; there's a lot more action in this film than the original, but it still retains the feeling of being part of the same story. The film manages to crank up everything that I enjoyed from the original - the 'infected' seem more vicious (enhanced by Fresnadillo's documentary-style direction), the shots of a deserted London are much wider in scope (the main characters have to travel from the Docklands to the new Wembley Stadium avoiding packs of 'infected' and over-zealous military-types) and it's held together with John Murphy's score which replays themes from the original film. The cast are great; I have yet to see Carlyle in something I haven't enjoyed, Rose Byrne (fresh from "Sunshine") is good as an American doctor, but kudos should go to Poots and Muggleton, the film's real stars, who really shine in their roles.

Having sat through four days of horror films at 'Dead By Dawn', I can safely say that "28 Weeks Later" is as good as the best films I saw at the festival; Fresnadillo knows how to write and direct a great action horror film. Boyle has (jokingly?) talked about the possibility of "28 Months Later", if that's the case I'll be back for another visit to the apocalyptic nightmare that they've created...

The Lives Of Others

Directly after the visual 'excesses' of "Curse Of The Golden Flower", comes a film that couldn't be any more different... Set in 1984 East Germany, "The Lives Of Others" is full of muted browns and greys.

This critically acclaimed political thriller (meaning I won't be able to add anything about the film that you won't already have read), written and directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, beat "Pan's Labyrinth" - one of the films that made my 2006 Top Ten - to the 2007 Best Foreign Film Academy Award. It comments on the extent and methodology of surveillance that the Stasi employed to keep tabs on East Germany's populace during the height of the Communist era. Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe) is loyal Stasi agent who starts doubting his work when he is ordered to monitor a playwright and actress couple (Sebastian Koch & Martina Gedeck) who are suspected of having Western leanings, but then learns that they are under surveillance because a member of the Party elite is attracted to the actress and wants the playwright out of the way.

I watched this film on a Sunday afternoon, which is usually a disastrous time for me to watch films as I have a tendency to snooze through them. It's testament to the power of "The Lives Of Others" that I was engaged from the start to the end of its over 2 hour long running time, not once did I feel like 'closing my eyes for bit'. The film starts with a chilling classroom scene, where the tutor explains the tricks that can be used to prove a suspect's guilt during interrogation, from that moment I was hooked. I found the film both gripping and moving, this is largely down to Mühe's performance as Wiesler; a man who desperately tries to protect the couple that he is under pressure from his superiors to dig up dirt about.

Curse Of The Golden Flower

"Curse Of The Golden Flower" is the last 'segment' in director Zhang Yimou's wuxia trilogy, the previous two films "Hero" and "House Of Flying Daggers" were films big in spectacle and this is no different.

Set in 10th Century China, the film follows the political machinations of various members of the royal family and household as they vie against each other in a power struggle in the lead up to the Festival Of The Chrysanthemum; the Emperor (Chow Yun Fat) is slowly poisoning the Empress (Gong Li), she's having an affair with her stepson, he in turn is sleeping with one of the servants, meanwhile his brothers are being sucked in, to varying degrees, to a number of plots to overthrow the Emperor.

"Curse Of The Golden Flower" is one of the most colourful films I've seen for some time. The palace interiors are a riot of colour - vivid colours 'tastefully' contrasted with gold... The word 'garish' springs to mind! One of my big problems with "House Of Flying Daggers" was that it was slowly building towards a giant battle at the end of the film, but this disappointingly never materialised. "Curse Of The Golden Flower" goes some way towards redressing the balance by staging battles that wouldn't have looked out of place in Peter Jackson's "Lord Of The Rings" trilogy. There is a fight between soldiers and ninjas, which is quickly followed up by a battle between two armies - one in gold armour, the other in silver. Throw in some blood and chrysanthemums and you have another colourful feast for the eyes on the screen.

While the screen is bright, the film itself is dark. It feels very Shakespearean, while watching it I was constantly reminded of such tragedies as 'Macbeth', 'King Lear' and 'Hamlet' - this link is strengthened through comparisons with Kurosawa's takes on Shakespeare: "Throne Of Blood" and "Ran". As the film plays out you can foresee the bloody mess that will be left at the end. No character is truly innocent, each of them plays a part in their own downfall.

It's the strength of the lead performances that stops the film from feeling like a shallow melodramatic spectacle. Chow Yun Fat is an actor who I've liked ever since I saw John Woo's "The Killer" on video during the early 90s*, here he is utterly convincing as the ultra-cool but ultra-brutal Emperor - in fact he's so cool in this film that even his hair gets its own 'billow whoosh' moment. I've never been too sure about Gong Li as an actor before, but I've been prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and put it down to the material rather than her; she seemed like the weakest link in "Miami Vice" as Colin Farrell's love interest - however female characters tend to be poorly served by Michael Mann - and she wasn't great in "Hannibal Rising", but then, little was... In "Curse Of The Golden Flower" she proves why Zhang has chosen her as his leading lady before, she gives a suitably understated performance as the Empress who wants to overthrow the Emperor and install her son on the throne before she succumbs to the poison slowly destroying her mind, while at the same time unable to act overtly.

If you're looking for a piece of ripe melodrama to 'brighten up' an afternoon, especially if you've enjoyed Zhang's earlier films, you'll enjoy "Curse Of The Golden Flower". You may want to take some sunglasses for the interior scenes though...


*Thanks HJ!

The Messengers

I had really hoped to see "The Messengers", being a fan of The Pang Brothers' earlier work (they wrote and directed the Hong Kong horror film "The Eye" - and its sequels - and Danny Pang worked on the "Infernal Affairs" series). However, time constraints got in the way of me getting around to see it.

Upon reflection this may have been a lucky break, as I received the following review from a friend, who didn't mind me posting it:

"Word to the wise…. caveat emptor!!

IMHO even using your ‘free’ unlimited card you will regret the loss of 1¾ hours of your life with this incredibly poor film. I appreciate that many ‘horror’ films follow well worn genre templates but you would expect the writers/directors to at least attempt a new angle on familiar plot themes or some clever visuals etc. This film didn’t have anything to lift it out of soul destroying mediocrity. It wasn’t even remotely scary, mainly relying on occasional shock tactics (sudden edits with pumped up sound etc) to wake you out of your stupor. And the lame ‘plot twist’ could be spotted a mile off!"

The Hills Have Eyes II

A squad of National Guard trainees are dispatched to deliver supplies to a group scientists working on a top secret mission in the New Mexico desert. They arrive to find the scientists missing...

Over the next 90 minutes, the soldiers are slowly picked off one by one in a series of gruesome ways by the mutants that live in the desert.

There isn't any depth to this sequel of a remake, despite the script being co-written by Wes Craven (the writer and director of the 1977 original). The direction is pretty bland, in fact the teaser trailer has more directive creativity than the film. The majority of the enjoyment comes from guessing who's going to die next and who is going to survive.

[SPOILER] It came as no surprise to find that the cute blonde and the 'anti-war' soldier made it through the film, while the sergeant was one of the first to die. [END SPOILER]

Sunshine

"Our Sun is dying; mankind faces extinction. Sixteen months ago I, Robert Capa, and a crew of seven left Earth frozen in a solar winter. Our mission: Reignite the Sun before it's too late."

That's the basic premise and introduction of 'Sunshine', the new film from Danny Boyle ('Shallow Grave', 'Trainspotting' and 'The Beach') and Alex Garland; the team who previously brought "28 Days Later" to the screen. The crew of the Icarus II are on a mission to create a new star by detonating a stellar bomb in the heart of our dying Sun. Once outside of radio contact with the Earth, the crew pick up a distress signal from the Icarus I, the craft sent out to carry out the very same mission seven years earlier but which mysteriously disappeared. After some discussion, the crew decides to divert from their mission and dock with the Icarus I - two bombs are better than one - with disastrous consequences...

'Sunshine' has similar tropes to 'Alien' and 'Event Horizon' (sci-fi horror) but with the emphasis on sci-fi rather than horror, while at the same time it bears similarities with sci-fi disaster films such as 'Armageddon' and 'The Core' (a team of people out to save the planet). There are many things you can point at from other films - computer with soothing female voice, abandoned spaceships, mysterious distress signals - the influence of 'Alien' is writ large throughout this film. However, what rescues 'Sunshine' from being utterly derivative is its execution. In the same way that '28 Days Later' wasn't 'just another zombie movie', 'Sunshine' isn't 'just another sci-fi horror/disaster movie'. The Icarus II is beautifully realised both internally and externally; the film often cuts from exterior shots of the craft in the darkness of space to the bright but claustrophobic interiors. The sound of the film is great from both the sound design (which generated some great rumbles from the cinema's sub-woofers) to John Murphy & Underworld's score. The performances are uniformly strong, with honours going to Chris Evans, proving he can do more than his brash Johnny Storm in 'The Fantastic Four' (in fact I didn't recognise him initially behind a beard and long hair), Rose Byrne, who provides the film's 'heart', and Michelle Yeoh in a nicely understated performance as the biologist in charge of the ship's 'oxygen garden'.

I found 'Sunshine' a really enjoyable and tense film, from the point where the Icarus I's distress signal is picked up the tension in the film keeps building; I had high expectations going into the film and the filmmakers delivered on them. It may lose its way a little at the end (going into any more detail here would spoil the film), but the journey there by far makes up for its final reel failings.

300

Based on Frank Miller's graphic novel of the same name, "300" tells the story of the Battle of Thermopylae, where a small force of Spartans battled against a Persian army that vastly out-numbered it. Although the Spartans were ultimately defeated, their sacrifice bought time for the Greeks to mass an army that would be able to stand up against the Persians.

Like "Apocalypto" earlier in the year, "300" is an action movie with a historical setting. And like "Apocalypto", it makes no pretense about being 100% historically accurate (although some of the film's more 'memorable' lines - "Tonight we dine in Hell!" for example - do come from classical sources). The film is stronger on action than it is on characterisation - the original comic is not Frank Miller's strongest piece of work when it comes to depth of character; it's partially inspired by the 1962 'sword & sandals' film "The 300 Spartans" which he saw as a child.

Director Zack Snyder (who previously brought us the remake of 'Dawn Of The Dead' - Romero's original concept of 'survivors in a mall' collides with the zombies from '28 Days Later') brings a visceral visual feast to the screen; heads and limbs are removed in glorious slo-mo, the Persian King Xerxes has a tent full of exotic sirens (rarely do you see credits for 'Transsexual Asian 1' or 'Long Neck Woman' at the end of a film), the Spartans are armoured in little more than leather thongs and cloaks. '300' has a 15 certificate, I'd be interested to know how violent a film has to be for an 18 certificate these days...

"300" is filmed using a technique that proved effective for an earlier adaptation of a Frank Miller graphic novel "Sin City". Actors were shot in front of a bluescreen and other visual elements were generated digitally and added in post-production, thus enabling the filmmakers to capture the distinctive feel of Miller's imagery. This give the film an appropriately 'other worldly' feel to it.

Although no flawless masterpiece, I enjoyed '300' for what it was; a big-screen blockbuster.

One thing I should add was that every time I saw (and heard) Gerard Butler as the Spartan King Leonidas I was reminded of Sean Connery's King Agamemnon in "Time Bandits", which has prompted me to give it a long-overdue repeat viewing.

Le Doulos

Took the opportunity to watch a 'rarity' on the big screen. Made in 1962 and described as an existential gangster film (or 'angster'* film), "Le Doulos" is a story of betrayal and revenge from Jean-Pierre Melville (who also made "Le Samouraï"); mixing together French new wave cinema and film noir.

Without going into too much detail of the plot (and thus spoiling it), Melville has concocted, from a novel by Pierre Lesou, a tale of two criminals trying to outwit each other with tragic consequences. "Le Doulos" (or "The Finger Man") has all the familiar trappings of film noir - men in hats and trenchcoats, dark shadows, double-crosses, femmes fatales - but has a certain French style to it, for example, every trenchcoat is immaculate and worn tightly fastened.

"Le Doulos" was an enjoyable evening's viewing and it was good to see a film of this age presented in the medium it was made for rather than on TV.


*Thanks Sam

Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End Trailer

Roll on 25th May!



(Assuming the film is as good as the trailer...)

Sleeping Dogs

"Sleeping Dogs" is a black comedy about relationships and families. Amy (Melinda Page Hamilton) gets engaged to John (Bryce Johnson) and in the spirit of honesty - spurred on by her mother and a co-worker, neither of whom know the details of her secret - tells him of a teenage sexual indiscretion. The film then deals with the fallout of John's inability to deal with Amy's past.

What starts out as a comedy gets progressively darker; the laughs are slowly replaced with smiles and soon even they are a thing of the past. The film was overly long - it could have been covered in half the time just as effectively - and as it progressed I started being distracted by Goldthwaite's direction which, once the laughs had dried up, had a day-time soap 'quality' to it. Hamilton is engaging and sympathetic as Amy; had her performance been weak, the film would have been unbearable as she is in nearly every scene. However, the performance that lingers in the memory is Brian Posehn as the stoner Randy, who has some really nice lines including a bit about monkeys and midgets.

Moral of the film: Don't tell anybody about your teenage sexual experiments if they involved pets!

Inland Empire

David Lynch told Variety magazine that "Inland Empire" was a film "about a woman in trouble, and it's a mystery, and that's all I want to say about it."

Having sat through its 180 minutes running time, that's about all I can tell you about the film...

The film is typically 'Lynchian' in its feel; disturbing images, disjointed story-telling, actors playing multiple roles, reality and dream-sequences segueing into each other. It's shot in DV which makes the film feel all the more unsettling. "Inland Empire" makes Lynch's last feature film "Mulholland Dr." seem easy to understand; I was utterly baffled by this one. In fact, during one moment of on-screen weirdness, I suddenly realised I was having a nosebleed! (My most extreme reaction to a film in some time!)

If you want to get an idea of whether "Inland Empire" is likely to appeal, you can watch two of David Lynch's short films - both made in 2002 - on YouTube: "Darkened Room" and "Rabbits". The first short is one of Lynch's first experiments with DV and has a very similar look and feel, while the latter is directly referenced in "Inland Empire".

I'll finish up this 'non-review' with a quote/clue that Lynch introduced the film with at preview screenings: "We are like the spider. We weave our life and then move along in it. We are like the dreamer who dreams and then lives in the dream. This is true for the entire universe." (Aitareya Upanishad)

The Illusionist

Films about magicians are a bit like buses, you wait for ages for one and then three come along at a same time… (A British film 'Magicians' starring the comedians Mitchell & Webb is due to be released on 11th May)

Although at a first glance the premise of the 'The Illusionist' seems very similar to 'The Prestige' - they're both period dramas about magicians - 'The Illusionist' is very much a different beast. Rather than being a film about rival magicians trying to up-stage and thwart each other at every turn, the film concentrates on the rivalry between Eisenheim the Illusionist (Edward Norton) and Austria's Crown Prince (Rufus Sewell doing his trademark baddie) for the love of a woman (Jessica Biel).

The film is by no means fast-paced, but I felt it had an engaging enough story. The first half of the film I was wrapped up in the feel of the movie; the acting, the cinematography, Philip Glass' score. I spent the second half trying to guess what the film's inevitable twist would be…

Another thing that held my attention was the number of 'Jesus allusions' littered throughout the film; he's the son of a carpenter, he performs miracles (tricks), he 'raises' people from the dead, the establishment view him as a dangerous rabble-rouser, and [SPOILER] he seemingly returns from the dead [END SPOILER]. However, I don't know if this was a deliberate ploy on the part of the filmmakers or if I was reading too much into the film.

Not sure if I would recommend this film to everyone; its slow pacing will bore rather than entertain some people. However, I enjoyed the cat and mouse game played out by Norton and Paul Giamatti as the police inspector out to discover the illusionist's secrets. The film is more of a 'howdunit' rather than a 'whodunit'.

Ghost Rider

The first Marvel Comics adaptation of the year - 'Spiderman 3' is out in May, not sure if there are any more to come...

Before starting my review of this film, I'll state up front that my knowledge of the Ghost Rider character is limited to two very basic facts:
1) He rides a motorcycle.
2) He has a flaming skull as a head.

As a result I had fewer expectations/prejudices than usual for a comic book adaptation and my only requirement from the film was that I wanted an enjoyable popcorn movie.

The film starts with a voice-over telling the story of "the Devil's bounty hunter" in the Old West; a ghostly rider who travels the plains collecting on contracts for Mephistopheles. The voice in question is that of Sam Elliott, and if you want someone to provide a gruff Western prologue in a film you'd be hard pressed to find anyone better than Sam (after all the Coen Brothers used him to similar effect at the start and end of "The Big Lebowski"). So that's two boxes ticked for me: "Western" - Check. "Biblical References" - Check. (Three if you include "Sam Elliott voice-over")

The film then jumps forward in time and introduces the audience to a young Johnny Blaze, a motorcycle stunt performer who works with his father. Without going into too much plot detail, Johnny ends up selling his soul to the Devil (Peter Fonda, clearly enjoying the chance to camp it up as the ultimate bad guy) - an act that isn't without consequences; as folklore tells us, Old Nick rarely delivers on his end of the bargain without some dark twist. There were two things I particularly liked in this opening sequence. Firstly, Johnny makes his contract with the Devil while stood on a crossroads - Robert Johnson would be pleased. Secondly, in a nice little touch, the actress playing the young Roxanne (the character played later in the film by Eva Mendes) is made up with a mole that matches Eva's.

We then jump forward in time again to the 'present' and meet a seemingly invincible Johnny Blaze (played by Nicholas Cage), a man who performs all manner of motorcycle stunts without any regard to his own safety. Johnny is 'lucky' enough to be watched over by an angel (of the fallen kind); Mephistopheles won't let him die until his debt is paid off in full. Such an opportunity comes about when Blackheart (Mephistopheles' son) tries to wrest dominion of Hell from his old man's hands. Johnny now learns that it is his destiny to become the 'Ghost Rider' - at night, and when in the presence of evil, he metamorphs into the flame-headed hero of the comic books. The film now follows Johnny as he gets used to his new powers (demonic bike, flaming chain and 'Penance Stare'™) and leads to his eventual show-down with Bleakheart in the ghost town (literally) of San Venganzas.

As you can probably tell from the length of this post, I enjoyed "Ghost Rider". It won't win any awards for story or acting (I'm sure Eva Mendes is in the film just to provide a transportation device for her cleavage, which makes an appearance in all but one scene that she's in), but it is still highly enjoyable nonsense - a heady mix of supernatural vigilantes and Biblical elements with a sprinkle of Westerns.


Note: For those of you wondering (like I did) where the usual Stan Lee cameo is, there isn't one...
(Stan had no part in the creation of the Ghost Rider character)

Letters From Iwo Jima

"Letters From Iwo Jima" is Clint Eastwood's take on the Battle of Iwo Jima told from a Japanese perspective. It is a companion piece to "Flags Of Our Fathers" which tells the same story but from the American point of view.

Told mostly through the eyes of General Kuribayashi (the man leading the island's defense) and Private Saigo (a foot soldier), the film covers the period from the Japanese army's preparations in advance of the American invasion to their eventual defeat.

Eastwood manages to create a moving (and horrific) portrayal of the battle; in lesser hands it could have come over as "just another World War 2 film", but here he successfully shows the utter futility of war and this is made all the more compelling because it is told from the perspective of the side that is usually portrayed within films as the "enemy". It is an even-handed film, although your sympathies are with the Japanese, neither side is shown as "angels" - both Japanese and American soldiers are shown carrying out dishonourable acts, but these are the acts of individuals rather than nations. Based on the strength of this film, I'd now like to see 'Flags Of Our Fathers', which I missed on its original release, just to see how Eastwood handles the story from the other side.

The Science Of Sleep

Following the death of his Mexican father, Stéphane (Gael García Bernal) moves to Paris to be nearer his mother. Here he falls in love with Stéphanie (Charlotte Gainsbourg) the girl who lives next door. However, the path of true love never runs smoothly as Stéphane spends much of his time living in a dream world.

"The Science Of Sleep" is written and directed by Michel Gondry, who previously directed "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind" - one of my favourite films of 2004 (which is pretty good going considering it starred Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet; two of my least liked actors). In this film Gondry shows that same level of visual flair that he has brought to his other films and music videos, notably the cardboard 'dream TV studio' and the cave brimming with items made from felt, however it lacks the emotional resonance of "Eternal Sunshine".

I don't think this is down to the acting; Bernal and Gainsbourg are both good and they are ably supported by the rest of the cast. For me the problem lies with the script, "Eternal Sunshine" was scripted by Charlie Kaufman - one of the best screenwriters around, having also scripted "Being John Malkovich", "Adaptation." and "Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind" - whereas "The Science Of Sleep" is the brainchild of Gondry alone. The film starts well, full of charm and whimsy, but without someone to rein in Gondry's excesses, I felt the film overstayed its welcome and became dark and depressing towards the end.

Hot Fuzz

I went into this film with very high expectations, it's the first film that I've been itching to see in 2007 (others include '300' and 'Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End'). I'm a big fan of the works of Messrs Pegg & Wright - I've watched 'Spaced' more times than I care to remember and I loved 'Shaun Of The Dead'. (I'll happily admit to watching 'Shaun' at the cinema twice on the first day of its release!)

So, with such high expectations, was I disappointed? No. Although 'Hot Fuzz' lacks 'Shaun’s' brilliance (zom-rom-com), it is still a very enjoyable comedy taking the American action film (guns, cars, big explosions, male bonding) and dropping it in a sleepy English village.

If you've managed to miss the hype for 'Hot Fuzz', this Robert Rodriguez-scored trailer should give you an idea what to expect.

I'm now planning my next viewing of the film...


I-Spy At The Movies: Two Oscar winners have uncredited cameos in the film. Can you spot them?

Notes On A Scandal

The scandal in question is an affair between a teacher (Cate Blanchett) and fifteen year old boy, while the notes are provided by a bitter, lonely older woman (Judi Dench).

An interesting drama (psychological thriller?) from Richard Eyre (director) and Patrick Marber (screenwriter) - two people best known for their stage work - adapting Zoë Heller's novel.

Blanchett is good as the idealistic Sheba but the film belongs to Dench who is truly disturbing as Barbara; the film is interspersed with vitriolic narrative rants from her character. She brings the sort of menace to the screen that was sadly lacking from 'Hannibal Rising'.

Hannibal Rising

Having finished the book last weekend and seen the film yesterday, this will be a combination on my thoughts on both of them.

"Hannibal Rising", as the title suggests, covers Hannibal's early years. One of the elements missing from "Hannibal" (the 2001 film) that was covered in its 'sister' novel was hints at events in Hannibal's childhood; "Hannibal Rising" fills in any gaps that the earlier novel may have had. (The latest film's/novel's 'shock' revelation will come as no surprise to anyone who has read "Hannibal".)

The story is ostensibly a revenge story; without giving too much away, a young adult Lecter hunts down and kills off those people who wronged him during his childhood. The book and film are almost exactly the same (save a storyline about stolen artworks which appears in the book), which isn't a surprise as they were both written by Thomas Harris (the author of the other three Lecter novels).

If I have a problem with "Hannibal Rising" - the film is watchable and the book flies by at quite a pace - it is that it demystifies and attempts to humanise Hannibal Lecter, I'd rather his past had been kept a mystery. In "Red Dragon" (my favourite of the novels, which spawned my favourite of the films - Michael Mann's "Manhunter") 'Hannibal the Cannibal' is dangerous and manipulative; although you learn very little about him and he isn't the story's main character, he certainly makes the biggest impression. The later Lecter stories (especially the films) paint Hannibal as more of an anti-hero. Now we learn that Hannibal became a monster because of the bad things that happened to him in his childhood. Here he is portrayed as a vigilante; in the orphanage where he grows up he only picks fights with bullies and later he hunts down and metes justice on war criminals. As a fan of the earlier Lecter stories, this seems like one story too many, an unnecessary 'prologue' to the series...

Babel (Again...)

One lesson I don't seem to have learnt is that if you don't enjoy a film first time around, don't go to see it again...

Last night I went to see Babel again* and my opinion of it didn't change from my first review. Although one sequence that I really liked, that I forgot to write about first time around, was the helicopter flight sequence (probably because at the time I was trying to work out what the piece of music being used was).


*I should add that I went to see it again as part of an evening course I'm doing, rather than out of choice.

The Fountain

"The Fountain" is the fifth film written and directed by Darren Aronofsky; "Pi" and "Requiem For A Dream" being the best known of his earlier films. "The Fountain" has suffered a troubled history - it was originally slated for production in 2002 as a big budget vehicle ($75m) for Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, but 'creative differences' between Pitt and Aronofsky lead to the production being shut down. Aronofsky then kick-started the project again in 2004 with a smaller budget ($35m) and two new lead actors.

I have a problem writing about this film for the simple reason that I didn't understand it... At the point where I thought I had a good idea of what was going on, the carpet was pulled from under my feet and I ended up leaving the cinema utterly confused.

So what I do know? The film is told through three interwoven story lines set over three time periods: the past, the present and the future. The two main actors Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz appear in all three stories as Tomas/Tommy/Tom and Isabel/Izzi respectively. In the past a Spanish conquistador is on a quest to find the Tree of Life supposedly worshipped by the Mayans, in the present a doctor is looking for a cure for brain tumours (which may come from a rare tree from South America) to save his dieing wife and in the future a man is travelling through space in a giant terrarium with a dieing tree to a nebula (that the Mayans called Xibalba) in order to give it new life.

My confusion comes around what, in the context of the film, is 'real' and what is 'fiction'. The past story line may be fiction, maybe it's the past and the future that are imagined, perhaps it's all real...

Despite my incomprehension of "The Fountain", it was an engaging film. The main performances were strong (and this comes from someone who isn't a Rachel Weisz fan), it is visually stunning (Aronofsky used micro-photography of chemical reactions for the film's nebular effects rather than CGI to give it an organic feel) and Clint Mansell's score compliments the emotions of the film well. Like "Pi" I suspect that this film will probably make more sense following a second viewing.