Filmic 5 by hayley moore

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 2

CONTENTS

SCORING GUIDE 1/10 – Absolutely and agonisingly terrible. Consider suicide rather than watch this film. Don't worry, you will never see me give out this score unless they do a limited re-release of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With

FESTIVE FILMS

Films for the festive season…7

Me in cinemas and Phil forces me to go and see it because he's a sadistic little git at times. 2/10 – Really, really bad with no redeeming features other than the fact that it's not as terrible as Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. Rest assured, if that film didn't exist a film scoring 2/10 would actually score 1/10. Think yourselves lucky 2/10'ers!!!

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART ONE Tents, tension and trauma…12

3/10 – Seriously not worth your time. There might be a tiny glimmer of hope in there somewhere but it's hidden under so many piles of shit that it's really not worth digging for. Avoid. 4/10 – Might be worth seeing with your mates if only to have laugh at. This is the point were a film is bad but almost enjoyable for various reasons. Terrible reasons, but still. Don't watch it on your own as you probably won't get a lot out of it (if anything) but rag it with your mates and you'll have a good enough time.

THE KING’S SPEECH

Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush in all their amazingness…20

5/10 – Meh. It's watch-able but you won't want to see it again. Some good things about it but unfortunately too many flaws to really be anything too decent. Shame. See it if you want but don't expect a lot. 6/10 – Good. If you have an interest in this particular type of film you'll probably get enough out of it to make a viewing fairly worthwhile. It's not going to change your life but it won't exactly be a waste of your life either. Worth considering.

TRON: LEGACY

The 3D spectacular of 2010…24

7/10 – Now this is more like it. The official point at which a film would be worth seeing again at some point and could maybe even earn itself a place in your DVD collection if it plays its cards right. An enjoyable film spoilt by a few things which let it down a bit but which ultimately is a satisfying viewing. If you have any interest in this type of film you should definitely

THE GREEN HORNET

The 3D failure of 2011…29

go to see it. 8/10 – Pretty much a 7/10 but with less flaws, resulting in a better overall package. Thoroughly recommended! 9/10 - You need to see this film. Very little to complain about and the only things I can really think of are

UPCOMING FILMS WE WANT TO SEE So you can plan your future cinema trips…32

pretty minor niggles. Almost perfection. 10/10 – Heaven. Reserved only for the likes of Pulp Fiction, Fight Club, Toy Story 3 and a few others. I will only award this score if I feel something really is a true classic! Additionally I will clarify that you will never see me giving '.5' marks. That would basically be scoring out of 20 which is absolutely ridiculous. The scope is far too wide to really mean anything. I mean, how would you clarify the tiny little difference between a 15/20

TOP TEN FILMS OF THE YEAR The definitive top ten films of the year…33

and a 16/20? It's seriously not worth it. The only time '.5' should ever be used is when scoring out of 5. But if your giving half marks in that situation your scoring out of 10 anyway so you may as well just use a 1-10 scale you idiots.

A WORD FROM THE EDITOR WELL HELLO THERE. BEEN A WHILE HASN’T IT? YOU MAY remember that we promised you a Christmas Special for December. I believe I said it would probably be out around Christmas time. Erm. Yeah. Sorry about that. I got ill and didn’t manage to do everything I needed to do to get the issue out in a satisfactory state. So to try to make it up to you we’ve merged that issue into this months issue to give you all an extra large helping of Filmic this month! Not only have we got four big reviews of movies such as Tron: Legacy and The King’s Speech, we also have a feature on some classic Christmas films to get you back into the festive spirit of four weeks ago. Go on, you know you want to! In addition to that we have our now definitive Top Ten Films of 2010 and a brand new feature giving you a heads-up of what’s coming out (and what I’ll be seeing) in the coming weeks. Due to increasing dissertation demands and the like, Filmic is going bi-monthly for a bit after this issue so we won’t be seeing you for another couple months, but that gives me plenty of time to start work on my Top Ten Films of 2011 and store up reviews of quite a lot of upcoming, exciting films. Expect another big issue come the time of Filmic 6! Hope to see you in the not too distant future,

Muz

CONTRIBUTORS ADAM MUSGRAVE – Film Critic wannabe who is single-handed keeping Orange Wednesdays going. http://thegroovyguidetofilms.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/Muzzy88

HAYLEY MOORE – Graphic designer extraordinaire http://hayleymoore.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/design_dream FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 4

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 6

festive

films

As this was initially going to be our Christmas Special of Filmic, we

came up with the idea of choosing a few of our favourite Christmas films to discuss. Rather than drop the feature due to the issues unforeseen delays, we’ve included it anyway. Maybe you can remember the films and watch them next Christmas, or put your tree back up, pretend it’s still Christmas and watch them all now. Either way, these are four

great movies whatever the time of year, so join me as I embrace my fondness of the Yuletide season…>>

festive FILMS

IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE

THIS IS A SAD IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE OK, film. Probably the

Released: DECEMBER 20TH, 1946

saddest film I’ve ever seen. George Director: FRANK CAPRA Bailey (James Stewart) is one of Running time: 130MINS the kindest people you could hope to know, always thinking of others and putting his own happiness to one side. He’s saved lives, careers and his hometown of Bedford Falls through his good deeds, and yet on Christmas Eve he finds himself a penniless, wanted man. It’s heartbreaking. Why then is it such a good Christmas film? Well, for one thing the ending is one of the most heart-warming things you could possibly imagine. It completely embraces the spirit of Christmas and, despite the struggles George faces throughout the film, the story’s end is certainly a happy, feel-good one. Secondly it has a great sense of humour to neutralise the sadder moments, mostly down to the always incredibly likable figure of James Stewart (the Brad Pitt of his day!), and the performance of Henry Travers as Clarence, George’s Guardian Angel. Clarence is a bumbling and infectiously cheerful Second Class Angel who hasn’t yet earned his wings, and the story of his mission to save George and earn those wings ultimately becomes just as engrossing as the main plot.

WELL, FOR ONE THING THE ENDING IS ONE OF THE MOST HEARTWARMING THINGS YOU COULD POSSIBLY IMAGINE.

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 8

I also love the framing of the film. Starting on Christmas Eve with George at his lowest, Clarence is given his mission by the other angels and then gradually shown the story of how George got to be in his current situation. This allows Clarence and the angels to interject at various points in the film and comment on what we see happening. Through following George grow up we, along with Clarence, get to see what a great guy he is and why it’s his prayers in particular that are being answered with this Christmas miracle. As the flashbacks come to a close and Clarence steps in to help George you expect a speedy conclusion, but suddenly a whole new act to the story comes into play which shows just how important George has been in the lives of those around him. Once both the audience and George himself appreciate his wonderful life (sorry!) he can have that happy ending he undoubtedly deserves. Whilst, strangely for a Capra film, it wasn’t a huge success at the time of its (Christmas) release, It’s A Wonderful Life has come today to be recognised as one of the greatest Christmas movies ever made. I would go one better than that. For me, it’s one of the all-time greatest films full stop. Like all the films in this feature, if you haven’t seen it you really should. And it isn’t so over the top with the Christmas theme that it becomes something you would only want to watch during the festive period. Christmas is indeed the perfect time to watch it but in reality you can absolutely appreciate the film at any time of the year. Surely that really is the sign of a great Christmas movie?

festive FILMS

THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL

A CHRISTMAS CAROL. The iconic Charles Dickens story of Ebenezer Scrooge, a man who hates people almost as much as he hates Christmas, visited on the night of Christmas Eve by three ghosts representing the past, present and future to show him the error of his ways. It has been adapted into film form more times than I care to count, and definitely more times than I care to watch. But one version stands out from the crowd. One version is completely unlike any other adaptation of the story you have seen. One version features puppets and Michael Caine. I’m here to tell you that The Muppet Christmas Carol is the best version of A Christmas Carol that there is.

THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL

Released: DECEMBER 11TH 1992 Director: BRIAN HENSON Running time: 86MINS

For one thing, Michael Caine’s performance as Scrooge is now legendary. He gets it just right and is completely believable as a grumpy, uncaring old git. Then he is completely believable as a reformed, jolly, singing and dancing old softy at the end of the film. The journey he goes on inbetween, seeing himself let down his young fiancè Belle, watching the Cratchit family joyfully celebrate Christmas despite their poverty and Tiny Tim’s worsening condition, and then learning that Tiny Tim will later die and that his own death will be celebrated by the town, is pretty tough for Scrooge to watch. There’s no wonder he decides to make amends. The emotion that Caine brings to the film is perfectly balanced by the fun and frivolities of seeing our favourite Muppets masquerading as A Christmas Carol characters and singing merry songs. This was the first Muppet film produced after the death of their creator Jim Henson and is directed instead by his son Brian. It was up against the odds and had a point to prove then, and in my eyes it surely manages to be The Muppets finest hour. At the very least it proved without doubt that The Muppets had plenty of life left in them, and although the later films never matched the greatness of this one (though Muppet’s Treasure Island comes pretty damn close) it was obvious after this that The Muppets could survive without their creator.

and Death-like Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come and the big, booming, festive Ghost of Christmas Present are complete contrasts and yet both serve their purposes very well. It’s a credit to the puppeteers and design team that each Muppet looks and acts distinctly different has their own identifiable personality.

THE EMOTION THAT CAINE BRINGS TO THE FILM IS PERFECTLY BALANCED BY THE FUN AND FRIVOLITIES OF SEEING OUR FAVOURITE MUPPETS

The Muppets themselves look great, with Gonzo acting as the Narrator/Charles Dickens and Rizzo the Rat starting a popular comedy double act with Gonzo that would carry over into the next few Muppet films. All the favourites turn up - Kermit as Bob Cratchit and Miss Piggy as his wife, Statler and Waldorf as the Marley twins (definitely worth shoe-horning an extra Marley into the story just to see them sing “Marley and Marley”), Fozzie Bear, Animal, The Swedish Chef, Beaker and so on. The new puppets constructed to represent the three ghosts are very impressive too. The spookily silent

Whilst many film adaptations of the story all feel very similar and are largely indistinguishable apart from the cast, The Muppet Christmas Carol is not afraid to take a few liberties with the story and play around with the formula to see what works. It still hits all the right beats and gets the message across loud and clear, but does so in a highly fun way. Everyone likes a traditional Christmas ghost story, but it’s nice to watch The Muppet Christmas Carol and have a ghost story told in a way that feels undoubtedly amusing and jolly at the same time. This is the reason I enjoy the film so much - it takes something classically Christmassy and manages to make it even more festive. Simply excellent.

READ ON FOR THE SNOWMAN AND MORE >>

festive FILMS

THE SNOWMAN

BASED ON THE POPULAR BOOK WRITTEN and drawn by Raymond Briggs in 1978, The Snowman short film has become a much loved British tradition that is shown by Channel 4 every year without fail. Telling the story of a little boy (James) who builds a snowman that comes to life, the ‘winter wonderland’ idea is a strong theme in this film and I’m sure every Released: DECEMBER 24TH 1982 child who watches it wishes they could go on an adventure to see Father Christmas with their Director: DIANNE JACKSON snowman too. I am of course an absolute sucker for a good animated film and this is a beautiful Running time: 26MINS thing to watch. Taking direct inspiration from the illustrations of the book, the visuals in the film are created with pastels and crayons which come to life through the magic of animation. It’s as if the drawings in the book itself have started to move in a Harry Potter world fashion and it looks absolutely brilliant. You only have to watch the falling snow and the swooping owl in the opening scene to realise what a good choice making the film in this way was.

THE SNOWMAN

James and the Snowman go from one amusing set piece to the next as the Snowman tries to understand the various household appliances and toys that he comes across. The second half of the film then moves on to a flight above the town, accompanied of course by the theme of “Walking In the Air”. Despite what the media will tell you every bloody year, Aled Jones did not sing the version heard in the film (he re-recorded the song in 1985 and it entered the charts at number 5), but instead you hear the operatic tones of Peter Auty. The song fits the scene amazingly well and makes for a very memorable Christmas moment. Upon landing the Snowman takes James to a Christmas party where they meet up with other living snowmen and the one and only Father Christmas. This act is created specifically for the film and doesn’t appear in the book. In a stroke of genius, the version of Father Christmas is from Briggs’ 1973 book Father Christmas and the success of this film led to that book being adapted for its own film in 1991. It’s great to see the two interacting with each other here and if you’ve seen and enjoyed The Snowman it really is worth tracking down Father Christmas too as it features a recreation of the James and Snowman party scene from Father Christmas’s point of view. It’s all very meta and it is a real treat to see. Just like the book the film features no talking, only musical accompaniment, so The Snowman is interesting to watch from a film enthusiasts perspective as you see it relying on a lot of old silent-era movie methods to entertain the audience. Slapstick comedy is certainly one of the things that prevails the most, with the Snowman exploring the world and getting things wrong in a very visual way so the audience easily understands what has happened and provokes a laugh. Whilst being a funny and entertaining film though, it has to end on a sad note as the Snowman melts. It’s a sadness that children can totally identify with too as the excitement of building a snowman is always later counter-balanced with seeing it melt. It’s a simple story but it resonates with kids and is therefore very effective. Meanwhile adults and big kids like me can appreciate the skill that went into creating such a charming and visually stunning film. It’s a definite Christmas classic. FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 10

festive FILMS

BATMAN RETURNS BATMAN RETURNS

SPOT THE ODD ONE Released: JUNE 19TH 1992 out. Whilst the other films I’ve chosen for this Director: TIM BURTON feature are all classically Christmassy movies, Running time: 126MINS Batman Returns doesn’t really have anything in common with them at all. Unlike the other films, it wasn’t released anywhere near Christmas (in fact about as far away as you can get) and instead of celebrating the joys of Christmas it has a rather more cynical approach to the festive season. Away from its Christmas setting the film also has quite a dark, adult feel, and was criticised by some on its release as being too grown-up and different to Burton’s original Batman movie. With the mental breakdown of Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer), her now iconic Catwoman costume and Penguin’s (Danny DeVito) tale of childhood abandonment, you can see why the film is regarded as ‘dark’, though to my mind it is no darker than the original. It’s a shame though that these complaints may have ultimately led to two very disappointing Batman films that could easily be interpreted as some strange, zany parody of the characters and story of the Batman world - Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. Let’s hope we never see the likes of them again. With regards to Christmas, Batman Returns is not a fan. As the now humorously named business mogul of Gotham City Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) is introduced as ‘Gotham’s own Santa Claus’, he throws out presents to the gathered crowds and they scrabble around selfishly to be the ‘winners’ of these gifts. The suggestion of the rich businessman actually being Santa Claus, bringing superfluous joy to the people through his mass-produced products, is surely a sly dig at the consumerist parade that Christmas has become to some people. As Shreck throws his presents about, the inconsiderate residents of Gotham greedily lap it up and do not spare a thought for each other as they fight over the commercial commodities on offer. Again, the subtext here is of a public who only wants personal and material gain at Christmas, rather than the traditional festive attitude of thinking of others and enjoying time with family and friends. It’s a rather depressing view of the holiday, but in many respects it accurately portrays the modern day attitude and obsession with Christmas as a frenzy of gift receiving and self-indulgence. This is by no means the full story, but it is a relevant observation and there is an important message to be learned from these scenes.

As far as the rest of the film goes, the winter setting provides some stunning imagery and the story largely concentrates not on Batman or Bruce Wayne, but the sad stories of villains Catwoman and The Penguin. The performance of Danny DeVito is particularly memorable, managing to come across as disgusting and repellent yet when necessary making The Penguin seem lost and lonely enough to briefly convince Gotham and even Bruce Wayne that he may be worthy of becoming Mayor. The long-lasting image of Batman Returns will always be Michelle Pfeiffer in her Catwoman costume, but she also puts in a convincing performance as both the timid and reserved Selina Kyle and the transformed sexy and confident Catwoman. The action sequences don’t always hit the mark (there’s one particularly infamous scene with Batman and Catwoman fighting on some rooftops where their respective movements between shots are completely inexplicable and impossible) but the focus of the film isn’t the fighting, it’s the character arcs of the villains. Whilst the Christmas backdrop is ultimately only a small part of the overall film, the atmosphere is present throughout and the films commentary on the holiday is both clever and meaningful. The story and characters are definitely worth your time. It may not be traditional, but Batman Returns is without doubt a very good Christmas movie.

review

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 12

ARRYand POTTER the

A DEATHLY HALLOWS PART ONE

So, this is the beginning of the end, as they say. >> 13

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS (PART ONE) Released: NOVEMBER 19

Director: DAVID YATES Running time: 146MINS In short: If I have to explain Harry Potter to you, you’ve obviously been living under a rock for the last 13 years. This is the penultimate film in the series.

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 14

SO,

THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF the end, as they say. Only the beginning though. For as this film is indeed based on the last book in the massively successful Harry Potter series, the decision was made long ago to split the story over two films, with the second part not due out until next July. In watching this first film then, we get a taste of whether this was ultimately a good move. How does splitting the film up affect the way it presents the story to us? Does it work? Is it for the better? That’s actually fairly tough to answer. Let’s have a little think about it… This chapter of the story sees the famous trio of Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) and Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint), leave the confines of Hogwarts

and head out alone to destroy the numerous ‘Horcruxes’ that will weaken and ultimately destroy the evil wizard Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). Much like in the book, having the fantastic threesome decide not to attend Hogwarts has a massive impact on the familiar structure of the past films, with many of the hallmark elements you might associate with the world of Harry Potter absent. Most of the major characters turn up at some point but there is a lot less of characters like Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane) and Severus Snape (Alan Rickman) than you will find in previous films. I’m pretty sure Professor McGonagall (Maggie Smith) was nowhere to be seen. And, of course, Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) is now dead, so his image is confined to ominously glaring at people out of newspaper

photographs and the like. The almost complete absence of many familiar characters and merry Hogwarts-related goings-on makes this all feel very different to what has come before. The Potter films have been getting increasingly darker ever since Azkaban and this is the darkest yet. Once director David Yates is finished with this franchise he really needs to direct himself a horror film. It really looks like he could have a good one in him somewhere and he does a very good job of ramping up the tension in a couple of the thrilling sequences throughout. Unfortunately those sequences are largely few and far between. The three musketeers' quest to find Horcruxes is hardly amazingly fruitful in this first part, and they end up spending a lot of time sitting around in a

tent trying to figure out what the hell they are meant to be doing. This can really drag in places. As if you didn’t get enough of moody hormonal Ron or moody hormonal Harry in previous films, they rear their ugly heads here a few times and the film degenerates into some big yawn fest of a scowling tournament. It is, however, hard to blame this completely on the film. After all it’s a large part of the book, and in adapting the whole camping malarkey to the big screen the film is only being faithful to its source material. It’s a complaint I have always had with the book, and it’s just a shame the film also has to suffer because of this overlong plot thread. Watching these parts of the film you do start to question the necessity of spreading the story over two films, and the more cynical of us begin to

The changing faces of Harry Potter from the very beginning. 15

review accuse Warner Bros. of just wanting an extra money-spinner to tide them over. It’s not quite the sprawling, epic story you might want or expect. Thankfully, there is evidence elsewhere to suggest the split wasn’t such a bad idea. The main advantage is that the relative lack of time constraints the two film approach affords means many things that might have been skimmed over or tweaked previously can now be given the focus they deserve. For example Dobby’s death, barring an “oooohhhhhh look Voldemort is at full power” sequence, pretty much becomes the climax of the film. Think about that. Dobby hasn’t been seen in the films since his introduction in Chamber of Secrets. He was denied the opportunity of giving Harry the gillyweed in Goblet. He was denied the opportunity of revealing the Room of Requirement to Harry in Phoenix. He was denied the opportunity of spying on Draco Malfoy for Harry in Half-Blood Prince. The film series has not been kind to poor Dobby over the years. If they’d done this story in just one film I’m sure they’d have got someone else to save everyone and Dobby would’ve been screwed out of another appearance. Yet here his final acts become the big emotional end to the film. I’m convinced this won’t really make sense to anyone who hasn’t read the books as they just don’t have any meaningful connection to Dobby, but I personally am glad they could do the plucky little house-elf his due. It’s things like this that make you champion the decision to do two films - most of the story is present and correct and isn’t just waved off because they didn’t have time to do it justice. Despite my misgivings about the latter half of the film, the events before the three amigos totally cut themselves off from the world and shack up in a tent are actually pretty interesting and exciting. From the entertaining sight of seeing Daniel Radcliffe in bra and panties, to the intense broomstick/ motorbike sequence that follows, to the Polyjuice Potion aided entry to the Ministry of Magic to retrieve one of the Horcruxes, for a good amount of time the film completely delivers on the thrilling action and light comedy you would expect from it. The amount of great British talent you see in the early parts of the film is also very enticing, especially with Bill Nighy now being added to the long list of acting legends that

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 16

YET HERE [DOBBY’S] FINAL ACTS BECOME THE BIG EMOTIONAL END TO THE FILM… I PERSONALLY AM GLAD THEY COULD DO THE PLUCKY LITTLE HOUSE-ELF HIS DUE.

review

THE FIRST ACT OF DEATHLY HALLOWS (PART ONE) IS PROBABLY THE BEST THAT HARRY POTTER HAS EVER BEEN, AND I GENUINELY COULDN’T THINK OF A WAY THAT IT COULD BE IMPROVED. have appeared in the Harry Potter franchise. The first act of Deathly Hallows (Part One) is probably the best that Harry Potter has ever been, and I genuinely couldn’t think of a way that it could be improved. That’s not to say that it’s all bad afterwards of course. There are a couple of flashes of genius to be found later in the film too and Yates does a fair enough job of keeping you adequately entertained in the run up to the big Dobby-to-the-rescue finale. In fact, probably my favourite part of the whole film takes place not more than 20 minutes from the end. Whilst Hermione recites the old fairy tale on which the whole idea of the Deathly

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 18

Hallows is based, the film suddenly cuts to a fully animated sequence that recreates the story, complete with voiceover from Emma Watson. It’s a very dark story about three wizards trying to cheat Death and the animation reflects this, presenting us with plenty of silhouettes and shadows. It really comes out of nowhere, looks fabulous and is a refreshing change. I love it when a director experiments with film-making in this way and it results in an extremely attention-grabbing few minutes unlike anything you’ve seen before in the franchise. When it comes down to it, I really struggle to come to a definitive conclusion about the film. It’s overlong at 146 minutes and you do start to huff, puff and look at your watch towards the end, but that time also allows for some excellent moments that stick in the memory and remind you that, by and large, it is a very enjoyable film. The pros of having a Part One and Part Two probably do outweigh the cons in the end too, and certainly a blockbuster

of a Part Two has now been set-up. I fully expect the last film in the series to be the high point of Harry’s film career, and the action sequences that we did get in this film have served to whet my appetite for what is to come in the final showdown. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part One) is definitely not perfect but it hits enough high notes to make it easily recommendable and probably the best in the series so far.

8 10

review

THE KINGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S SPEECH Released: JANUARY 7TH Director: TOM HOOPER Running time: 118MINS In short:

Story of the reluctant King, stammering George VI, and how he overcame the odds to become the inspirational voice of British Royalty during World War II. An absolute masterpiece in every sense of the word.

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 20

THE

KING’S SPEECH Every so often a film comes along which you simply have to applaud and recognise as a great work of art. The King’s Speech is one of those films.

WITH A KEEN EYE YOU CAN PICK THEM OUT, KNOW BEFOREHAND WHAT WILL LIKELY become a classic and what will end up in the DVD bargain bins. The King’s Speech was never going to end up in that kind of a state but it took a lot of people by surprise when first shown to crowds at last years Telluride Film Festival in September. Quietly going about its business with little hype up until then, standing ovations met the film at its end and it was suddenly being tipped as a favourite for Oscar glory. That no-one was hugely aware of the film before September has surely helped its success on release - rather than have the media over-saturated with news about how amazing the film was going to be, it was released softly, did well to become the UK box office number one, and then actually made more money in its second week of release than it did in the first. Now nominated for 14 BAFTA’s, and Colin Firth having already won a Golden Globe for his performance as King George, The King’s Speech could actually outshine other well received and hotly tipped releases such as Inception. What an achievement that would be for British filmmaking. The film charts the story of Prince Albert the Duke of York (later to take on his father’s name and become King George VI), and begins with a scene that anyone who momentously screwed up a presentation at school can relate to. The difference here is that Albert’s stammer means he really has no control over the fact that he is unable to speak to his large audience and the long silence as people despair over what they perceive as an inadequate prince is immediately enough to allow us to sympathise with Albert. Albert’s wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter), who would later become better known to us 21st Century people as the sweet and impressively long-lived Queen Mother, constantly seeks out new therapies to combat Albert’s stammer which all fail, much to Albert’s irritation. She eventually learns of the atypical methods of Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who refuses to refer to Albert as anything other than ‘Bertie’, his nickname amongst his family members, and demands that Bertie must come to him for treatment rather than the other way around. Initially offended and horrified by Logue’s methods, the prince eventually forms a close bond with Logue and as events spiral out of Albert’s control he unexpectedly finds himself the King of a country at war. In a film that you may expect to focus entirely on the drama and historical significance of its subject matter, Logue’s treatment of Bertie and indeed many other aspects of the film are all presented with a great deal of humour. Not in any kind of mocking way - any character who mocks Albert because of his impediment is always met with a feeling of intense dislike from the audience - but for a film about someone who struggles to speak, David Seidler’s script is full of clever wit and when he does talk Albert can be a very funny man. Logue really stands out as a comedic character, his

unorthodox methods of treating ‘Bertie’ and his general disregard for the importance of whom Albert is are side-splitting, and yet he becomes Albert’s confidante and only real friend upon the prince’s revelations that he was bullied as a child by his brother, father and nanny. The ability of Rush to switch from ridiculous jester who makes Albert do silly things, to serious man who knows exactly what he is doing, connects with Albert and significantly improves his self-confidence and whole life shows amazing talent. Bonham-Carter doesn’t want to be left out either, portraying a woman who has a huge amount of compassion and love for her husband and a knowing wry humour about her position of importance as a public figure. Without any doubt though, the star of the film is Albert himself, Colin Firth. Firth manages to accurately portray such a debilitating and pronounced stammer that we constantly feel his frustrations and agony, though importantly it never becomes too much to the point of us actually wishing we didn’t have to watch such awkward and saddening moments. Firth has said that after shooting the movie his normal speech seemed alien and wrong to him, as if something was missing, having to mentally overcome the stammer that he had placed into his own speech. Such dedication to the role is extremely commendable and shows what a committed method actor Firth is. Albert’s vulnerability and insecurities about becoming the King of England are thoroughly convincing and the fact he was so unsure of himself and yet went on to become a popular figure of solidarity during the war with a sixteen year reign shows what an extraordinary man he could be when not restraining himself due to his fears. In one small scene an interesting comparison is made between Albert and Adolf Hitler, his wartime rival. Whilst Albert cannot understand a word Hitler is saying upon watching one of his impressively confident and energetic speeches, he has to admit that whatever it is “he’s certainly saying it well.” There’s no doubt Albert would love to be able to speak as Hitler could speak, if only to then oppose him in in his own awe-inspiring style. It certainly is a strange irony that these two great leaders stood opposite each other in history, and yet their handle on public speaking could not have been any more different. The whole film slowly builds to an emotional crescendo as Albert, now King George VI, must deliver an inspiring speech on the radio to his public, the day after Britain’s declaration of war on Germany and the start of World War II. Still lacking in confidence about his stammer, Albert demands to have Logue by his side to talk him through the speech and support him. It’s amazing how such a simple thing as listening to a man deliver a speech can stir up the emotions and at this point director Tom Hooper has to be particularly commended, cutting to the various important figures in Albert’s life as he makes the speech amongst many others his wife, his brother and his mother - all showing pride and, understandably, relief as Albert successfully makes his way through the five minute dialogue. Again, Firth is fabulous and you hang on to Albert’s every word, even as he pauses and slips up in places. Firth has obviously listened to the original speech many times and upon listening to it myself after seeing the film I was stunned at just how familiar it sounded. The cheers and congratulations George receives upon completing the speech are enough to bring a tear to the eye. This will test even the manliest of men. King George VI died in 1952, at which point our own Queen Elizabeth II, his eldest daughter, took over the throne. This film, as well as being exquisitely well shot, well scripted and well acted, will hopefully open up the eyes of many people as to what an astonishing man George VI was. Many may be put off by the connotations of a film about Royalty - stuffy drama or boring political fare. This is nothing of the sort. It’s the first must-see movie of 2011 and, who knows, maybe we’ve even found the best film of the year already. Only time will tell but one thing is for sure; The King's Speech is a work of pure genius.

/10

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 22

review

TRON legacy

TRON: LEGACY

Released: DECEMBER 17TH

Director: JOSEPH KOSINSKI Running time: 125MINS

In short: Belated sequel to the original 1982 film which broke new ground. It now feels very familiar just with updated, though highly impressive, visuals. Story achieves the feat of being both obvious yet mind-boggling.

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 24

review

I’m glad I went to see the preview footage of Tron: Legacy at one of the best Cineworld cinemas in the country before I saw the film in full. To anyone reading this who lives in my area - do not go to see a 3D film at Vue. The colours in the film were muddy, the glasses they give you (which you then have to give back at the end) are both uncomfortable and very dark, and to make matters worse they barely achieved the 3D effect anyway. What I saw of Tron: Legacy on release was a far cry from the amazingly atmospheric and crystal clear footage I saw a couple of months before-hand in Sheffield. Either Disney messed around with the film a lot during those few weeks or the equipment was simply sub-par or not set up right at the Hull Vue. I think I can tell you with confidence which is the most likely. It didn’t completely ruin the film for me, but it came close.

WELL,

involves the character on which the series is named after and Quorra, touted for most of the film as a possible love interest for Sam, turns out to be the last of the ISO’s. As it turns out though, neither plot-line really has much effect on the story and could easily have been forgotten about. Kids that go to see this film who are blind to all of its history aren’t going to have a Clu (oh yes I did!) as to why the film is named after what seems to be an inconsequential side character who turns up for 5-10 minutes. Ultimately, some of the decisions on what the story should or shouldn’t focus on are completely bizarre. It’s the equivalent of the 2009 Star Trek film revolving around the origins of the villainous Q or something. Only fans of the show are going to have heard of him and care. Fortunately the writers of Star Trek were not idiots and made the story much more friendly to a wider audience who might be convinced to see a Star Trek film, hence its massive success through good word of mouth. The writers of this film were not so clever. To be fair, this doesn’t seem to have dented its box office success much, though it hasn’t made quite as much money as Star Trek and its tickets will have been double the price due to the 3D. Score one to the film that actually makes some sense to the general public.

In all honesty though, the film itself wasn’t as great as I would have hoped.

In all honesty though, the film itself wasn’t as great as I would have hoped. For one thing the story is pretty impenetrable if you don’t know much about the original film, and even if you have seen the original it’s all still a bit of a struggle. The important points are that Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) liberated a digital world (known as The Grid) in the first film, and then spent years developing brilliant new technology inspired by his ongoing trips to The Grid. In the time between the original and this sequel Kevin has disappeared, leaving behind his son Sam (Garret Hedlund) and best friend Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner). Discovering a secret room in his fathers old arcade twenty years later, the now 27 year old Sam is also transported to The Grid where he finds his now aged and beardy father and a younger looking digital replication of his father known as Clu. Clu was created by Kevin to help him develop his ideas but he’s now gone insane and, in a stunning revelation of narrative genius, wants to escape from The Grid and take over the world. Kevin, his ‘apprentice’ Quorra (Olivia Wilde), and Sam must now make their way to the portal in the sky leading back to the real world before Clu can make it there first or it re-seals itself.

Visually it is an amazing accomplishment, with the largely computer generated setting of The Grid looking hugely convincing and detailed.

I’ve barely scratched the surface with that overview. There’s other guff about Clu committing genocide against the ISO’s (a newly discovered race of sentient computer beings), and Tron himself briefly shows up as a brainwashed and reprogrammed soldier of Clu, only recalling his true identity as saviour of The Grid when reunited with Kevin. It certainly feels like these two things should be important, especially as one of them

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 26

However, if you ignore the story, Tron: Legacy can become quite impressive. Visually it is an amazing accomplishment, with the largely computer generated setting of The Grid looking hugely convincing and detailed. The dark skies filled with lightning storms are breath-taking and the sleek redesign of vehicles such as the light cycles and the Recognisers will put a grin on the faces of long-term fans. As with the original Tron the effects are state of the art and set a high bar for future CGI-heavy films to compete against. The digitally created Clu, made to look like the Jeff Bridges of 28 years ago, is fairly believably animated. Although the technology is still not quite good enough to hide the fact we are watching a computer enhanced face, the slightly robotic and cold look this gives to Clu actually ends up enhancing his character as a digital madman. The 3D I saw at the preview screenings complimented the imagery of the film well and brought out the best in it, creating something almost as impressive as the 3D world that Avatar created one year ago. Once again, it’s a shame that by far the best

aspect of the film was ruined at the screening I attended. Despite the rest of the film being pretty unworthy of accolades, I could see Tron: Legacy doing well in some of the technical categories come the movie awards season, and deservedly so.

Stardust like character who appears to be the life and soul of The Grid. Indeed, no-one else as fun and jovial as Castor turns up either on The Grid or in the real world, everyone else taking on a rather sombre and serious mood that doesn’t exactly suit the pretty silly and fantastically eccentric Disney story that they are featured in.

I also have to take my hat off to Jeff Bridges, who manages to play three versions of his character each with distinctive, yet subtle, differences.

I also have to take my hat off to Jeff Bridges, who manages to play three versions of his character each with distinctive, yet subtle, differences. His performances in the film are effective and the reuniting of weathered old Kevin with his son is a nicely emotional one. Garrett Hedlund is convincing as Sam, conveying well the years of suppressed concern and sorrow he has felt surrounding his fathers disappearance. Also impressing in some unusual manner is Michael Sheen as Castor, the owner of The End of the Line Club on The Grid. He’s almost unrecognisable as a hugely camp Ziggy

Tron: Legacy at times shows promise and undoubtedly has a very striking and iconic look about it. Seeing screenshots and trailers before release I was very much looking forward to the film, but the main appeal here is mostly in that very eye candy I saw before-hand, with cool machines whizzing about in a techno, glow-stick inspired world. It’s definitely worth seeing for the spectacle of the effects, but you probably won’t be coming back for much else or to relive the story. If this film is meant to kick-start the franchise into a new series of

films, it fails to explain the universe, its history, and its rules adequately enough for a new audience to appreciate properly. I could see a third film being made, but they’ll have to come up with a better way to combine narrative and technical wizardry to get me as excited about the franchise again.

6 10

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 28

THE GREEN HORNET THAT’S IT. I’VE HAD ENOUGH OF 3D. WE have reached breaking point. I wanted to see The Green Hornet in 2D for two reasons. Firstly, it isn’t a film that sounded like it would be in any way improved by the addition of 3D. There is nothing in there that wouldn’t look perfectly fine in 2D, as most films over the 120 odd years of film-making have done. It’s good enough for all those great movies throughout history, and adding 3D does nothing to improve the actual quality of your film. Secondly, I had Released: JANUARY 14TH it on good authority from a number of sources that the 3D was indeed Director: MICHAEL GONDRY terrible anyway. So I look at the screenings for The Green Hornet Running time: 119MINS and what do I find? There are no In short: Disappointing movie based on normal screenings of it anywhere the long-running super-hero character. Some in my area. In four cinemas. The fun moments and an enjoyable performance nearest 2D showing was around from Christoph Waltz, but the script is poor 35 miles away. Ridiculous. Not overall. Pretty much forces you to watch it in even Avatar was exclusively 3D 3D which is then absent for much of the film. and that was made for the format. But we’d set Filmic up to have a Green Hornet review and feature it on the cover so I sucked it up and went to see it in 3D. It is the last time I be forced by a film studio (or by the cinemas - I’m not entirely sure whose decision it was) to see something in 3D. Next time there is no 2D showing of a film I specifically want to see in 2D, I just won’t go.

THE GREEN HORNET

I’M

very aware of this issue turning somewhat anti-3D. My Tron: Legacy review had a go at it too, but that was largely down to the actual cinema I saw the film in. Generally speaking, the 3D in that film was very impressive and worthwhile, because it was always planned for 3D. What I’m talking about here is bolting 3D onto a film that wasn’t shot that way. It makes a massive difference. You lose the depth of image that you gain from using a 3D camera and because of time constraints only certain scenes in the film end up being converted. At various points throughout my watching of The Green Hornet I took my glasses off and was met with the normal image you would find when watching a 2D film. These images hadn’t been adapted for 3D at all. I imagine I paid all that extra money for about half a 3D film. I also took my glasses off during the later action scenes, as the addition of the 3D in earlier scenes was simply distracting me from what was going on. I am not dead-set against 3D altogether, but films like this do nothing to help

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 30

promote it as an important or valuable feature. All it does is show that the main appeal of 3D to most film studios is to wring extra money out of audiences for more profit. It’s unacceptable. Moving on to the actual film, there is little in The Green Hornet to really get excited about. The character has been around in some form or another for 75 years, though I can’t say I’m familiar with him or have ever really heard of the guy before the hype for this movie. I imagine for the character to have lasted so long the stories he has featured in over the years must have been a lot more original than the kind of thing that is presented here. After some strange origin tale in which the lazy playboy Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) and martial arts expert Kato (Jay Chou) bond over their hatred for Britt’s recently deceased father, the pair decide to become masked vigilantes who utilise Kato’s technological skills to make a variety of gadgets and a cool car. Britt inherited his father’s newspaper business after his death and uses this opportunity to print high profile news stories about his own actions as

the Green Hornet, all the while getting his handy criminology expert secretary Lenore (Cameron Diaz) to predict what the Green Hornet will do next and then following her lead. They soon draw the attention of Russian mob leader Benjamin Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz) who does everything in his power to stop the Green Hornet and Kato from taking down his empire. We’ve seen this kind of thing hundreds of times in various films, TV shows, books, comics and so on. Obviously it’s a popular format because it can work well, but the story or the characters need something extra to maintain the interest of the audience. Unfortunately I just could not buy into Seth

Rogen playing the lead character. He seemed to over-emphasise everything as if he were trying too hard to act and it comes across as very fake. Jay Chou is better as Kato and does show promise, but the main star here is clearly Christoph Waltz. After shining so brightly as Colonel Hans Landa in Quentin Tarrantino’s Inglourious Basterds, winning universal praise and more awards than he could carry, I’ve been looking forward to seeing what he’d do next. The mob boss Chudnofski, suffering from paranoia and low self-esteem issues, is actually quite a funny character and I can’t help feeling a lot more could have been done with him. Where the script is fairly dire and predictable throughout most of the film the scenes with Chudnofski are a nice relief, but there just isn’t enough of them. Nicholas Cage was initially up for this role and I thank my lucky stars he pulled out when he did. I really don't think I could have dealt with him being in this movie, it's bad enough already.

This is the first superhero film of 2011 and there are many more to come - Thor, Captain America, The Green Lantern and X-Men: First Class amongst others. They are all much more high profile releases than this so I hope The Green Hornet is just an early blip for 2011. Critics have been predicting the downfall of the superhero film for a while now and with a few big box office bombs in the genre last year, a similar 2011 is not what fans of these films would want. Keep making them like this though and that is almost certainly what we will get. Fingers crossed that come April Thor will redeem the genre and take it back to the heights we know it can achieve.

4 10

21st Jan - Black Swan

Natalie Portman stars in this tale of a ballerina cast in the role of the evil Black Swan in a production of Swan Lake. Throwing herself into the part she begins to take on the manic persona outside of just the confines of the theatre, to the concern of both her friends and colleagues. A psychological thriller based on a performance of Swan Lake is certainly different and the early word is very positive. And who doesn’t want to see Natalie Portman’s legs? Anticipation Rating: 5

28th Jan - Tangled. After the success of The Princess and the Frog, Disney release another fairy-tale princess movie in the shape of Tangled, a new take on the story of Rapunzel. Set to become the newest Disney Princess, Rapunzel is both confident and sassy (think Princess Fiona from the Shrek series), and is more than a match for her would-be saviour Flynn Rider. Is this marking a new renaissance period for the traditional Disney fairytale? I hope so. Anticipation Rating: 4

4th Feb - The Fighter.

If ballet and princesses aren’t your thing, a much more manly film about boxing is coming your way. This biopic is based on the boxing career of Welterweight “Irish” Micky Ward, featuring Mark Wahlberg as Ward and Christian Bale as the disgraced brother who trains him up for his championship fight. I have very little interest in boxing but the sport does tend to make for some decent films (Raging Bull, Rocky) so maybe there is hope for this gritty drama. Anticipation Rating: 3

11th Feb - True Grit. I’m not really a massive fan of Western’s

either, but a Western directed by the Coen brothers is a different story. Hot off Tron: Legacy, Jeff Bridges stars as “Rooster” Cogburn, a U.S. Marshall asked by a young girl to track down the killer of her father. Also starring Matt Damon as Ranger LaBoeuf, this is based on the book of the same name written in 1968 by Charles Portis and a remake of the film of the same name starring John Wayne (which I haven’t seen, unfortunately). The trailer bored the pants off me but I’m still optimistic. Anticipation Rating: 4

18th Feb - Paul. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost return to what they

do best - starring in ‘buddy’ movies together. After the horror of Shaun of the Dead and the balls-to-the-wall action of Hot Fuzz, they turn to their love of sci-fi and, in a homage to E.T., discover an alien who needs help. Unfortunately there’s no Edgar Wright for this one (the third film in the fabled Blood and Ice Cream trilogy is still on hold for now), but being penned by Pegg and Frost themselves this is surely going to be hilarious. Don’t let me down now guys. Anticipation Rating: 5

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 32

UPCOMING

films

WE WANT TO SEE

In this new ongoing feature I’ll be highlighting films released in the next month or so that I’m planning on seeing. As I’m trying to see a new release every week this year they won’t necessarily always be good films, but I’ll list them anyway. I’ll provide brief comment on the films and also give an anticipation rating out of 5. Hopefully it’ll help you plan your cinema trips too!,

TOP 10

FILMS OF THE

YEAR

Here we go then - my top 10 films of 2010. I reckon the last few are debatable and could be argued against (they’re much more down to my personal taste) but the rest of the list is solid stuff and those films no doubt deserve their places. All in all its been a pretty darn good year - two 10/10’s lead the list followed by a couple that only miss out on that score by the narrowest of narrow margins. Having three comic book films on the list either emphasises my geekdom or shows that, when done right, comics make bloody awesome films. There’s a couple of truly original films in Inception and Buried and, me being me, Toy Story’s on there too. Next issue we begin our Top 10 Films of 2011, and it’s already looking very good. I can’t wait.

of Fight Club and Zodiac to make a film about Facebook. Doesn’t sound all that impressive? It is.

5. THE KARATE KID

Surprisingly entertaining 80s remake with great chemistry between Jadan Smith and Jackie Chan. No karate to be found though!

6. KICK ASS

Our next comic book entry and our second child star in the making as Chloe Moretz says the immortal C-word and everyone goes BONKERS.

7. BURIED

An imaginative, original and very tense film that deserves much more attention than it has had. Impressive performance from new Hollywood darling Ryan Reynolds.

8. HARRY

POTTER AND 1. INCEPTION THE DEATHLY HALLOWS The first must see film of the year, Christopher Nolan gives us one of the most original and intelligent films for some time. Emotionally gripping and simply superb.

2. TOY STORY 3 The second must see film of the year. The best three-quel of all time and maybe the best in the series. Definitely worth the wait!

3. SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD

The first of a few comic book films on the list, this is the best. Brimming with style it is complete geek heaven.

4. THE SOCIAL NETWORK

(PART ONE)

It’s not without its problems but this is nevertheless a faithful adaptation that, when it gets things right, is a very thrilling and entertaining film.

9. IRON MAN 2 Unfortunately not as good as the original but the amazingly charismatic Robert Downey Jr. is enough to make this very entertaining anyway.

10. THE RUNAWAYS

The other Kristen Stewart film on the list may have been pushed off at the last hurdle, but this deservedly makes it till the end. Very rock and roll and atmospheric. Try it!

David Fincher brings us another masterpiece of a film, changing tack completely from the likes

FILMIC 05 / december 2010 + januart 2011 / 34