BURKE & HARE
simon pegg makes killing into a living
ISSUE 04 NOVEMBER 2010
THE mini ISSUE THE SOCIAL NETWORK the social event of the year PLUS
TRON: LEGACY PREVIEW
after attending an exclusive preview of the new film
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 2
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 Me in cinemas and Phil forces me to go and see it because he's a sadistic little git at times.
Will it live up to it’s er, legacy?…6
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!!! 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
THE SOCIAL NETWORK
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
Courtroom drama telling the
but almost enjoyable for various reasons. Terrible
advent of Facebook…11
but rag it with your mates and you'll have a good
reasons, but still. Don't watch it on your own as you probably won't get a lot out of it (if anything) enough time. 5/10 – Meh. It's watch-able but you won't want to see it again. Some good things about it but unfortunately
BURKE AND HARE They do know how to make a killing…16
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. 7/10 – Now this is more like it. The official point at which a film would be worth seeing again at some
TOP TEN FILMS OF THE YEAR Have any of this months films made the line-up?…20
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 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 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 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 Hello faithful readers! Bit of a shorter issue than usual this month, mainly down to lack of funds to see as many films as I’d have liked and distractions in the form of university coursework. Groan. Never mind, Filmic 4 is no less important or exciting as it contains an extra special analysis of almost half an hour of footage from a film which isn’t released until next month!! Yes, we are ahead of the times for a change and bring you a not-to-be-missed sneak peak at the sublime looking Tron:Legacy. We also review the absolutely fantastic The Social Network and the entertaining duo of Burke and Hare. Is that enough to keep you going? Next month we’re going to be spoiling you big-time as we’re thinking of adding even more new features. A ‘Coming Soon’ section, flagging up the release dates of films we’ll be seeing and reviewing in coming months, should make its debut in Filmic 5. We may well also do something exciting for my favourite time of year, Christmas. Yes, a Christmas special. Coming your way! With possible, maybe, if I find the time features focusing on some classic Christmas films! Watch out for it around...ohhhh...I’d say...Christmas time? Hope to see you then!
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 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 4
TRON LEGACY LEGACY MANAGES TO USE IT TO GIVE THE WORLD AN IMMENSE FEELING OF DEPTH. THE GRID SEEMS HUGE AND IT’S ALL HELPED BY ASTONISHING VIEWS OF THE WORLD IN WHICH THE BUILDINGS AND LANDMARKS SEEM TO STRETCH ON FOREVER. IT IS EASILY THE BEST USE OF 3D SINCE AVATAR
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 6
TRON: LEGACY Released: DECEMBER 17TH Director: JOSEPH KOSINSKI Starring: Jeff Bridges, Michael Sheen, Bruce Boxleitner, Garrett Hedlund, Olivia Wilde A FEW WEEKS AGO I WAS LUCKY ENOUGH TO find myself at a special exclusive preview screening of 23 minutes from Tron: Legacy. The 23 minutes were made up of various scenes from the first half of the film. Consequently they contained little in the way of spoilers and largely served to flesh out some of the key set-up scenes that some of you may have seen in trailers for the film. Despite this I must say I was very impressed by what I saw. Here is a rundown of some of the things I saw and my overall impressions.
Firstly I want to point out that, whilst filmed in 3D, the initial scenes in which our characters are in the ‘real’ world are presented in 2D, with the 3D effect coming into play only once Sam Flynn (son of Kevin Flynn, the protagonist of the original Tron) enters the computer system. As a result of this the first scene I saw was exactly like a ‘normal’ film, apart from appearing a little dimmer because of those damn tinted 3D glasses. In this scene Alan Bradley (Boxleitner) informs Sam (Hedlund) that he recently got a page from the office of his father, who has been missing for twenty years. It’s great to see Boxleitner back from the original film and it shows the respect that this film pays to the original. It also, hopefully, suggests that Alan Bradley’s digital world alter-ego, the character known as Tron himself, will appear at some point in the film. As I mentioned though, very little is known about the later developments in the film so it is tough to say for sure. In the next scene I saw, Sam decides to go check out his dad’s old arcade for any sign of him. The lovingly re-created arcade looks great and will be instantly recognisable for fans of the original film. Sam rather too easily manages to find a secret passage hidden behind an old Tron arcade game (a computer game invented by Kevin about his adventures in the computer system), and makes his way to an underground office containing the digitising laser that sends humans into the digital world. After messing around with it for a while Sam ultimately meets the same fate as his father and gets trapped in The Grid. From here everything I saw was in 3D with generous lashings of CGI. The switch really helps to create a ‘wow’ factor and is successful in making The Grid seem like a completely different world. Rather than just using the 3D to have things coming out of the screen at you (though there was a little of that), Legacy manages to use it to give the world an immense feeling of depth. The Grid seems huge and it’s all helped by astonishing views of the world in which the buildings and landmarks seem to stretch on forever. It is easily the best use of 3D since Avatar and looks, just as is the case with Avatar, like it will be an important and worthy addition to the film. This is how 3D should be, not the last minute, money making gimmick it is usually used as on films that don’t even need it. That being said, you could view Legacy’s use of 3D as exactly that – a novelty or gimmick only of use for showing off another world and of no use to the actual storytelling. I would say though that in this case it really works, and the effect it has is definitely worth it. I was both extremely happy and in awe of what I saw.
Once on The Grid we were presented with a few updated concepts from the first film - the disc throwing game and the iconic light bikes. Both, as you can imagine, looked superb and that really is something that appeals to me with this film. It just looks very cool. The dark, moody atmosphere contrasted with strips of bright, colourful neon light, towering buildings and amazing lightning storms. The style is gorgeous and whether the film proves eventually to have an engrossing and emotional story line or not, it will be worth seeing for the technically astounding effects alone. However, the last scene of the preview did see Sam finally meet up with his father again, looking old and haggard, and did indeed prove to be a somewhat emotional affair, hinting that Legacy isn’t just all show and no meat. For whatever reason Kevin Flynn is in hiding far outside of the main city of The Grid, in a place reached only by entering a hidden-in-a-cave entrance not unlike the Batcave! And in a final trailer to round out the preview we saw a younger representation of Kevin who seems to be out of control and may ultimately prove to be the films villain. I would guess this is Kevin’s ‘programme’ (the digital representation of the earthly ‘users’) from the original film, but who knows. That we are this close to release and still don’t really have a clue about the latter half of the film is quite exciting in itself. Leaving the screening I was hugely pumped up by what I had seen and I honestly can’t wait to see the full thing. The mysteries that the footage hinted at are genuinely intriguing and I really want to see more of The Grid to find out what other sumptuous images the film can throw at us. There’s not too long to wait now and if Tron: Legacy lives up to what I have seen, 2010 in film will certainly go out with an almighty bang. Watch this space for the review!
THE DARK, MOODY ATMOSPHERE CONTRASTED WITH STRIPS OF BRIGHT, COLOURFUL NEON LIGHT, TOWERING BUILDINGS AND AMAZING LIGHTNING STORMS. THE STYLE IS GORGEOUS AND WHETHER THE FILM PROVES EVENTUALLY TO HAVE AN ENGROSSING AND EMOTIONAL STORY LINE OR NOT, IT WILL BE WORTH SEEING FOR THE TECHNICALLY ASTOUNDING EFFECTS ALONE.
TRON 101 Just a little catch-up material for those uninitiated in the world of Tron. Spoilers!! THE ORIGINAL FILM INTRODUCED US to Kevin Flynn, an intelligent young software engineer whose work had been stolen by the unscrupulous Ed Dillinger. Dillinger had used Flynn's work to build up a powerful and successful company of his own, ENCOM. Flynn and his friends Lora Baines and Alan Bradley (who has developed the Tron security system) attempt to hack into the companies mainframe to retrieve evidence of Flynn’s stolen work. Lora has been developing a laser which can digitize real world objects into the mainframe, and this ends up getting used on Flynn, allowing him to enter the digital world and battle the Master Control Program (MCP). The MCP has been created by Dillinger to do his bidding and control the entire ENCOM mainframe. Flynn’s digital self ends up running into Tron, Alan’s security program. Tron has been overrun by the MCP who would rather remain free from a security system monitoring his every move. Flynn and Tron eventually find Lora’s program and together they finally succeed in shutting down the MCP, liberating all of the programs in the ENCOM system. Returning to the real world, Flynn finds he is now able to freely access the files which prove his work had been stolen and uses this evidence to out Dillinger to the world. The film ends as Dillinger realises the MCP is now nonfunctional and Flynn is announced new CEO of ENCOM.
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 8
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 10
THE SOCIAL NETWORK
THE SOCIAL NETWORK Released: OCTOBER 15TH Director: DAVID FINCHER Running time: 120MINS
In short: An intriguing look into the makings of the mighty
Facebook. A surprising sense of humour mixed with great dialogue and performances elevate it to being one of this years best.
heard a lot of people complain that The Social Network is boring. This irritates me. What, exactly, were people expecting to see when they decided to watch a film chronicling the uprise of Facebook? Dragons? Spaceships? Maybe a musical number or two? I sincerely hope not, because it’s obviously not that kind of film. What you do get, and this I’m sure is precisely the reason it got that label of being ‘boring’, is a lot of dialogue. Lots and lots of talking. Dreadful, no? No. The dialogue of the film, enhanced by some excellent direction and performances, is the thing that propels The Social Network to the next level. It is in fact the exact opposite of what some people seem to be saying. The dialogue between our characters is actually the most interesting part of the film. A film about Facebook could indeed have turned out to be very boring and pointless. This film most certainly is not. To be fair, the story of how Facebook came to be is a lot more interesting and juicy than someone with no knowledge of the subject would assume. The basis of a good story and film was definitely there from the start. The now world famous Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) is a technical wizard who, through a mix of his own ideas and maybe a bit of inspiration from Harvard rowing twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (Armie Hammer), creates the social networking site Facebook which goes on to be a mega hit. “A bit of inspiration” from the twins may be understating it a bit. Whilst showing us their version of the events, director David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin constantly move the story forward a couple of years to a point where Zuckerberg is facing legal action from the twins, who accuse Zuckerberg of stealing their idea. Simultaneously with this trial, Zuckerberg is also being sued by former best friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). Eduardo invested a lot of money into helping Zuckerberg create Facebook and, ultimately, never got anything in return. In the end the actual events showing how Facebook was created become almost extended flashbacks. They do take up the bulk of the movie but they are sandwiched in between scenes of meetings between the legal teams of the two trials. This framing device actually works very well as it gives the different characters the chance to narrate certain sections of the film as they recollect what happened. The relationship between Zuckerberg and Eduardo becomes the main focus of the film, and I personally think it is fair to say we get a good representation of both of their sides of the story due to this decision. A lot has been made of how the film seems to portray Zuckerbergs creation of Facebook as a revenge story in which he attempts to show up and/or reclaim the girlfriend who dumps him in a fabulous scene at the start of the film. The film kind of starts as it means to go on, heading straight into a long monologue from Zuckerberg to his girlfriend about how much smarter he is than average students. After a fatal, almost unthinking, “I’m better than you” put down, she leaves him. When Facebook is gaining notoriety about mid-way through the running time he bumps
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 12
into her again and she spurns his advances. He reacts as is natural with the attitude that he doesn’t need her anyway and he’ll show her what she’s missing. But a shot in the final scene of the film suggests that he is still far from over her, despite all the success he has had. Rather than be anything spiteful I think this extra plot thread really helps to humanise Zuckerberg. After all, he is still just a young student and he’s lost someone who he did really care for, despite his social stupidity and big ego. The situation makes it much easier for the audience to feel sorry for Zuckerberg, and maybe even pity him. The most relatable person in the film though, and the one we are really supposed to get on side with and empathise with, is Eduardo. He is nothing but a good friend to Zuckerberg,
A LOT HAS BEEN MADE OF HOW THE FILM SEEMS TO PORTRAY ZUCKERBERGS CREATION OF FACEBOOK AS A REVENGE STORY IN WHICH HE ATTEMPTS TO SHOW UP AND/ OR RECLAIM THE GIRLFRIEND WHO DUMPS HIM IN A FABULOUS SCENE AT THE START OF THE FILM.
helping him out with money he rarely asks questions about and giving him someone to lean on and have a good time with. He is, unquestionably, Zuckerberg’s only friend. Unfortunately Zuckerberg’s success leads him to fall into the wrong crowd. That crowd is headed by Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), co-creator of Napster. He advises Zuckerberg on many things and is influential in helping Facebook become big, but he is just looking out for himself. In my opinion he is the real villain of this piece and manages to convince Zuckerberg to add a clause in Eduardo’s contract which allows his share in the company to later be reduced from one third to less than 1%. We immediately feel bad for Eduardo and the whole presentation of the films events, that Zuckerberg is later being sued by two separate parties, leads us to feel like Zuckerberg is a selfish, uncaring tit. There are moments though that suggest he just made a stupid mistake and wants to rectify his relationship with Eduardo, but he just doesn’t have the confidence or humility to do it. There is no doubt Eduardo is the victim, but deciding whether Zuckerberg, Parker, or both are responsible for this mess is not portrayed as black and white.
how he transitions to huge Hollywood star when he becomes SpiderMan in a couple of years time. Holding everything together with his usual expertise is David Fincher, putting the film together in a way that, for me, never dragged or lost momentum. Framing the events of the founding of Facebook within two trials discussing those specific events is a clever move and skipping between the two timeframes further helps to keep things interesting. A glorious sequence spanning the opening titles of the film follows Zuckerberg’s journey to his dorm room and is full of sweeping overhead crane shots that show off some very beautiful locations. A scene in a New York club takes the attention-grabbing move of making the music the primary noise we as an audience hear. This of course makes it more difficult to make out what the characters are saying, drowned out by music just as in real life, but causes us to hang onto every word more closely and intently concentrate on the discussion taking place between Zuckerberg and Parker. It’s extremely smart.
EISENBERG PARTICULARLY IS GREAT, MANAGING TO MAKE US BELIEVE THAT ZUCKERBERG IS BOTH VERY SMART AND THE KING OF WITTY REMARKS YET COMPLETELY SOCIALLY INEPT AND UNABLE TO HAVE A PROPER CONVERSATION WITH ANYBODY.
Now, if we return to what I said at the start of this review, all the legal action and dialogue may sound like a boring concept for a film. But it really isn’t. Eissenberg, Garfield and Timberlake all put in amazing performances and the script, though very dense, is thoroughly engrossing and has plenty of energy that the actors capture and put across brilliantly. Eisenberg particularly is great, managing to make us believe that Zuckerberg is both very smart and the king of witty remarks yet completely socially inept and unable to have a proper conversation with anybody. If he failed as the main focus, the whole film would fail. Timberlake shows a lot of character and successfully brings us a man with a lot of intelligence but a weakness for partying, drugs and girls. Garfield is his usual adorable self, playing the innocent yet oft trodden upon party very well so that we feel extra bad when he is betrayed. It will be very interesting to see
Exactly how close to real life the events of The Social Network are, I do not know. I imagine there aren’t many people who do know, not even the makers of the film. The film is based on a book, The Accidental Billionaires, written by Ben Mezrich, who claims to have had contact with Eduardo Saverin and seen court papers from the real life trials, suggesting the basics are quite grounded in truth. In the end though, it doesn’t really matter if the film is accurate or not. The main thing is that it is entertaining and tells an engaging story with characters that we can become attached to. It achieves this with ease. Maybe its way of portraying drama through extensive dialogue and the relationships between its characters isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. If it isn’t yours then I feel sorry for you. You are failing to connect with one of the best films of the year. This isn’t boring. It’s a classic.
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 14
WHO THE HELL ARE BURKE AND HARE? THE REAL BURKE AND HARE WERE 19th Century grave robbers named Brendan and William respectively. Yes that’s right, not William and William as portrayed in this film. Presumably for some reason screenwriter Nick Moorcroft thought that we could only handle the one name between the two of them. Then again, he did co-write St Trinian’s 2: The Legend of Fritton’s Gold so lets not expect too much from him eh? Burke and Hare committed 17 murders in the space of almost a year from November 1827 to late October 1828. The whole side story of the film in which Burke meets and woos Ginny is a load of tosh that never happened, he actually had a wife called Helen who was in on the murders. Hare’s wife, Margaret, also knew what was going on and even helped with a few of the murders. Ultimately Burke and Hare were shopped in when one of their tenants found the body of a man hidden under one of the beds. What a clever place to put a body when leaving the house unattended. There wasn’t enough evidence against the pair to sentence them to death, so Hare was promised immunity if he testified against Burke, which he did. Burke was hanged on January 28th 1829 and his skeleton can still be seen to this day at the Edinburgh Medical College Museum. Hare quietly slipped away the next month and was never heard of again. It is unknown what became of him. Spooky! Basically, just so you know, most of the film is a load of rubbish and is adapted to make Burke and Hare seem a lot more innocent than they actually were. One of their more shocking murders involved Hare breaking the spine of a young boy after stretching him over his knee. You certainly don’t see that in the film, do you!
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 16
BURKE AND HARE BURKE AND HARE
Released: OCTOBER 29TH Director: JOHN LANDIS Running time: 91MINS
In short: Silly yet slightly dark comedy which doesnâ€™t quite live up to the expectations that the list of legendary names involved evokes.
this is a weird one. Whose idea was it to take the horror story of the 19th Century Burke and Hare murders and turn it into a comedy starring Simon Pegg? Why did legendary director John Landis, whose filmography includes Animal House, The Blues Brothers and An American Werewolf in London, choose this script to be the basis of his first cinematically released film for over ten years? And why oh why does the film bring us Christopher Lee only to kill him off after two minutes?! Burke and Hare often comes across as being a bit of a confused film and, unfortunately, everyone who was involved with it seems to have been a bit confused about it too. Cheeky chaps William Burke (Simon Pegg) and William Hare (Andy Serkis) are the best of friends, stricken with money problems. In their attempts to get rid of the body of a paying lodger who has snuffed it they discover that the local medical school will pay handsomely for any cadavers they can provide. Hare being desperate to provide a good life for his wife Lucky (Jessica Hynes) and Burke being desperate to get laid by paying for Helen (Isla Fisher) to put on an all woman rendition of Macbeth, they resort to bumping people off in the street in order to sell them on. Itâ€™s not long until the disappearances start to make waves though and Police Captain McClintock (Ronnie Corbett) soon begins to sniff around the medical school, coming dangerously closer to outing Burke and Hare.
Now the first thing we have to mention here is what an amazing cast list this film has. It’s almost unbelievable some of the comedy talent and true cinematic icons involved. Simon Pegg, Andy Serkis, Jessica Hynes, Ronnie Corbett, Tim Curry, Christopher Lee, Bill Bailey, Reece Shearsmith, Paul Whitehouse, Stephen Merchant. This film should be heaving with great jokes and funny moments. Things first become a bit of a let down when you realise that half of the names there are basically cameo roles or characters who only appear for maybe five to ten minutes in total. It’s genuinely nice to see them but it’s also underwhelming. Stephen Merchant literally has one line and it’s not even meant to be a funny one. Bill Bailey bookends the film as an executioner telling the story and delivers his lines well but again has very little to do. Paul Whitehouse probably provides the best moments of the film in an hilarious 2 minute sequence but then he is off again, just like that. Christopher Lee turns up, mutters a few things, and then gets murdered. Bye bye, just like that. What? A lot of things just feel very disjointed and unnecessary, and many of the people involved seem to have been gotten in only to make the names on the poster look good. You have to be in a forgiving mood not to feel a bit cheated by that. Furthermore, in contrast to what we might have thought when we saw the cast list, there are some really lousy lines in here. “One time I had confidence in a fart and then I shat myself” is hardly comedy gold. And the decision to take the story of real life murderers and turn them into fun-loving, goofy protagonists is a slightly disturbing one. These guys were a nasty piece of work. They killed seventeen people and in the end they couldn’t even be loyal to each other - in contrast to the conclusion of this film, William Hare, under the promise of his subsequent release and immunity to prosecution if he confessed, ratted out Burke and let him hang. The fact we are made to cheer for these two men and boo the police force trying to protect the public is madness. Luckily though, Pegg and Serkis are our two murderers. The result is that, despite the questionable morality of doing so, it does become easier to cheer Burke and Hare on when you have two such attractive personalities portraying them. Pegg and Serkis have a good chemistry going on and it’s a shame that rather than focus on this close relationship, the relationship between the title characters of the film, the script adds a love conquest for Burke and chooses instead to focus largely on Burke’s mission to get his leg over.
camaraderie between Pegg and Serkis lifts the film up on many occasions. The appearance of Michael Winner riding a horse drawn chariot only to spectacularly plunge to his death over the side of a cliff is a quick cameo you can forgive, mainly due to the sheer amusement over the randomness of both the star involved and the event that takes place. In the end, despite my derision over the misleading quality of the cast list, there isn’t really a particularly bad performance from anyone. Landis is a very celebrated director of a few 70s and 80s classics but you can really tell here that all he’s done in the last ten years is direct a couple of TV/DVD documentaries. The scenes are never as sharp as they could be, some of the comedy timing is a bit off and ultimately you get the feeling the film could’ve done with a bit more care in post-production. It seems to have been rushed out very quickly for some reason, initially being announced just over a year ago, getting
THIS FILM SHOULD BE HEAVING WITH GREAT JOKES AND FUNNY MOMENTS. THINGS FIRST BECOME A BIT OF A LET DOWN WHEN YOU REALISE THAT HALF OF THE NAMES THERE ARE BASICALLY CAMEO ROLES
It isn’t all bad though and there is something good here trying to break free. The sight of little Ronnie Corbett in full militia uniform and a helmet which pretty much covers his whole face cracks me up every time. The aforementioned
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 18
just the one trailer about two weeks from its release date and then popping up with very little fanfare. I wasn’t particularly impressed with the marketing the film received either as it was presented as a light hearted, almost family film in both the trailer and the poster, which featured beaming shots of Pegg and Serkis. Then again, strange though it may seem that’s not too far from what the film is. I can’t blame Landis for the faults in the studio's marketing. All I can do is hope that, if Landis decides to get back in the directors chair again soon, this brush up of his film directing skills was good practice for him to get back on top form.
by the cast and director. It’s certainly worth seeing if you want something to laugh at and entertain you for an hour and a half but I doubt you’ll be rushing to see it again in the future. Hopefully the upcoming Paul, Pegg’s next ‘buddy’ film in which he re-teams with old friend Nick Frost and finds an stranded alien, will provide much greater results than this.
I’ll wrap up by saying that Burke and Hare is by no means a disastrous film, it just doesn’t live up to the massive potential promised
FILMS OF THE
felt like we should have some kind of
ongoing feature here in the pages of and after a bit of consideration
films of the year .
T his will change I’ ve seen new films
good enough to go in it !) so keep an eye out for it in each issue and make sure you ’ ve seen all the films on the list !
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.
it ’ d be cool to have a constantly updating top
of Fight Club and Zodiac to make a film about Facebook. Doesn’t sound all that impressive? It is.
the end of the
year we ’ ll have a definitive list of the best
2010. A nd then we can start afresh 2011! R emember , this list contains only films that I have seen . T here are a few other films that I reckon would make it onto the list based on what I’ ve heard about them but unfortunately I haven ’ t seen them yet . H opefully I can rectify this at some point . films of
An imaginative, original and very tense film that deserves much more attention than it has had. Impressive performance from new Hollywood darling Ryan Reynolds.
1. INCEPTION 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 David Fincher brings us another masterpiece of a film, changing tack completely from the likes
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 20
8. 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.
9. THE TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE
Easily the strongest of the Twilight films, I am going to get absolutely ripped to pieces for including this on the list.
10. THE RUNAWAYS
Well well well. Kristen Stewart now has TWO films in our top 10. She, rather unexpectedly, becomes the first star to be given that honour (I’m sure she would be very pleased!).
FILMIC 04 / NOVEMBER 2010 / 22