Ocean's Eleven. A Review.

It is said that absence makes the heart grow fonder, well I had not watched Ocean’s Eleven (2011) in quite some time, and then I fell in love with it all over again. Style and star power, glamour and grifters, it is pure entertainment. 

Professional thief Danny Ocean is fresh out of prison and already has plans to pull of the biggest score of his career - a Casino heist. Danny assembles 10 other con-men to pull the perfect heist, but things become complicated when the ruthless Casino boss they are stealing from is also dating Danny’s ex-wife. Can Danny win back the girl and get the money, or will his best laid plans fall apart? 

The assemble cast is what immediately impresses, and while there were other actors considered, it is now hard to imagine anyone else in the roles that the cast make their own. George Clooney and Brad Pitt steal the show as Ocean and his right-hand man Rusty Ryan. They share entertaining banter, and have a similar chemistry that Newman and Redford had on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The rest of the eleven do not disappoint, Matt Damon is insecure as the rookie, Elliot Gould is Las Vegas personified as Reuben, I won’t mention them all but suffice it to say the gang really do feel like a gang - and not a bunch of egos competing for screen time. Julia Roberts is thoroughly on-point as Tess, she steals all the emotional moments and delivers them with such credibility that it lifts Ocean’s from light entertainment to something with heart and soul. The one weak link is Don Cheadle as Basher, Cheadle is a fine actor but he is certainly not British. His accent ranks as possibly the worst I’ve ever heard on film, and it seems an odd choice compared with the rest of the film which is slick and meticulously produced. 

Steven Soderbergh is possibly the best director whom nobody has heard of. This is probably because his work is so eclectic, from Magic Mike to Contagion, Soderbergh refuses to be pinned down. His work on Ocean’s Eleven is superb, his understated direction of some of Hollywoods biggest stars juxtaposes with the flashy visuals, to create a film that is smooth and slick rather than unwieldy. Soderbergh served as cinematographer as well, creating striking images that demand attention. The denouement as the gang watch the Bellagio fountains to Debussy’s Clare de Lune is one of my all time favourite scenes in any film. Soderbergh also masterfully works around the fact that the first act of the film is essentially all introductions and exposition, he doesn’t simply put all the gang in a room with name badges, he takes the time to give backstory and fill the world of the film where grifters have elaborate code-names and a history of their own.

One of my favourite youtube channels is Tony Zhou’s Every Frame a Painting. Tony analyses the style of different directors in depth, in an entertaining and educational way - here’s hoping he picks Oceans Eleven as his next case study. Soderbergh certainly treats every frame as a painting, the placement of the actors, the field of view, everything is considered and deliberate. Apparently Soderbergh wanted to shoot the whole film in black and white but was denied by Warner Bros, and for once I am thankful for studio interference because the colour scheme in Ocean’s Eleven is sublime - particularly the reunion between Danny and Rusty looks like something out of a dream, there is a timeless quality to the aesthetic, which means that even 13 years on the film feels fresh. 

There is always room for improvement, and the sequels Ocean’s Twelve and Thirteen expand and improve on some aspects of Eleven, in particular giving the female characters more to do, and considering the repercussions of the criminal lifestyle. That said, Eleven is an excellent stand alone film in its own right, its status as a remake and trilogy notwithstanding. Ironically for a film about a casino heist, the stakes never seem too high, this is arguably part of the film’s charm - its light and breezy tone, however despite the magnitude of the crime and the apparent ruthlessness of Andy Garcia’s Casino Boss, the gang never seems to be in much peril. Perhaps this is just the result of our expectations of hollywood, the heist does not appear to go according to plan and Roberts gives Danny something to lose, so this is only a minor criticism of an otherwise thrilling film. 

Someone asked me whether reviewing films had ruined the experience of watching them, well before I knew anything about films I liked Oceans Eleven, now I love it. Perhaps it is not the deepest film, perhaps some of the performances are over the top, and perhaps some of the accents should have gotten certain actors in Barney Rubble - TROUBLE!! However, Ocean’s Eleven is a superbly well crafted piece of entertainment, absolutely worth the time to watch, and filled with little details that make it worth watching again and again. 

WHO: George Clooney,  the youngster may just have a promising career ahead of him

WHAT: The Bellagio Fountains scene, perfect. 

WHY: Because the house always wins. Play long enough, you never change the stakes. The house takes you. Unless…

WHEN: …when that perfect hand comes along, you bet and you bet big, then you take the house. 

(Art from: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/no056-my-oceans-11-minimal-movie-poster-chungkong-art.html)

To Catch a Thief. A Review.

Alfred Hitchcock’s To Catch A Thief takes you back to a time before budget airlines, back to a time when films really were escapism that could transport you to beautiful and exotic places. The master of suspense crafts a tale of deceit and betrayal, keeping you guessing until the very end. 

Cary Grant receives top billing (more on that later) as John Robie, former jewel thief “The Cat” enjoying retirement on the French Riviera. He is pulled back into the criminal world when a series of jewel robberies put him under suspicion, and the only way to clear his name is to catch the real criminal himself. This mission brings him into the orbit of enigmatic socialite Frances Stevens - played by Grace Kelly. The film then becomes a balancing act between the intrigue and mystery of who is impersonating “the cat”, and also the burgeoning relationship between Robie and Stevens.

Living up to his reputation as a master of cinema, Hitchcock presents a tightly wound thriller in which nobody is above suspicion. Unlike modern cinema, where the temptation is to pay big money for a star villain and have them chew scenery, Hitchcock keeps the audience in the dark as to the identity of the chief antagonist for almost the entire running time, this does not however dampen the sense of danger. The clever script keeps the pressure on Robie, the police are doggedly trying to pin the crime spree on him, while his old allies from the French resistance become a threat as they suspect The Cat is up to his old tricks and putting them under scrutiny as well. It is also one on Hitchcock’s lighter and more playful films, with some elements being tongue-in-cheek and others down right farcical. In particular the interaction between Grant and Jesse Royce Landis (as Frances’ widowed mother) is played for laughs and successfully so - with the bourbon-sipping worldly-wise Ms Stevens getting some of the best lines in the film. 

The film looks gorgeous, especially for the time, winning Director of Photography Robert Burks the academy award. Sweeping views of French wine country, idyllic sandy beaches, and a car chase which even today creates excitement, the award was well deserved and should also have received a letter of thanks from the French Tourism Board. Of course the effects and equipment are dated more than 50 years later, what never goes out of style however is style itself - something Hitchcock and Burks clearly understood and put at the heart of the film. 

While the mystery holds up well, and some of the dated filmmaking techniques can be forgiven, what really needs updating is the billing of this film. Cary Grant was the big star whom Hitchcock had to coax out of retirement to make this film, and while Robie is surely meant to be a laid-back character - Grant seems a little too relaxed. How can a man ever be so placid and even robotic in the presence of the brilliant Grace Kelly? To Catch a Thief is Kelly’s film through and through; she makes every ballroom scene more refined, every beach that bit more exotic, and as the love interest for Grant she is the only thing that makes the flirting interesting. Only in her mid-20s, Kelly gives an assured and mature performance, she was my chief-suspect for much of the film, certainly not the bimbo which Grant treats her as. While watching the interplay between Kelly and Grant, I could not think of anyone who could replace her, meanwhile I was recasting the part of John Robie with every gruff remark - my personal choice at the time of writing would be Clooney. Thus despite the tense plot and abundance of style, the romance in To Catch a Thief never feels vital, and only works at all thanks to Kelly’s comic timing and charm. 

To Catch a Thief has been on my watch list for quite some time, and it certainly did not disappoint. Hitchcock presents a postcard perfect vision of the life of master thief in France, the film holds up remarkably well as modern cinema techniques are no replacement for a director with a great sense of pace, and the discipline to know when to show your cards and when to hold. If anything about the film needs updating, it is the gender politics, with Grace Kelly deserving a better sparing partner than Grant. Of course Grant has that star quality, a twinkle in the eye that suggests he is capable of all sorts of mischief (see the casino scene in particular), however like his character he seems to have been enjoying retirement and coasted through parts of the film. Ultimately To Catch a Thief is not Hitchcock’s most iconic film, certainly not Grant’s best, it does however exude class and sophistication thanks in no small part to the presence of Grace Kelly.

WHO: Who else but Grace Kelly?

WHAT: The French Riviera, I’ve booked my plane tickets already. 

WHY: With style and substance, a masterclass in class, TCAT deserves a watch.
WHEN: Whenever you watch it you will be in 1955, with a glass of something classy. 

(Art from: http://www.sffaudio.com/?m=201101)

Son of Rambow. A Review.

When we were young, me and my friends saw The Matrix waaaaay before we should have. The result was slo-motion kungfu on the playground and a couple of severely grazed knees. It was brilliant. One of the reasons I love films so much is that every once in a while you can have a really visceral reaction to seeing one, and this is what happens to Will Proudfoot when he is shown the staggeringly violent Rambo: First Blood. What ensues is one of the most charming British comedies of recent years; a brilliant mixture of nostalgia tinged school hijinks, visual comedy, compelling performances, and a reverence for the art of amateur filmmaking.

Will Proudfoot has grown up as part of a religious community where music and television are forbidden, and so he retreats into a very vivid imagination. Lee Carter is the school rebel, though not without a cause. Lee wants desperately to make a movie for entry into a BBC competition, and after seeing First Blood Will is obsessed with all things Rambo, and so the unlikely pair team up to turn Will’s surreal script a reality - and for him to become the Son of Rambow. 

Bill Milner impresses as Will Proudfoot, managing to portray innocence and naiveté without being irritating. He has a real Buster Keaton-esque knack for physical comedy, with some of the best laughs in the film coming from Milner being thrown around in the name of cinema. Will Poulter is excellent as Lee Carter, managing to be enigmatic rather than arrogant, it is a 3-dimensional performance as when the bravado disappears we see the vulnerability underneath. The supporting cast all do a solid job, with Jessica Hynes standing out as Will’s conflicted mother, but overall it is Milner and Poulter’s film, and they carry it off wonderfully.

Director Garth Jennings is one half of Hammer and Tongs - an outfit known mostly for their music videos such as Blur’s Coffee and T.V. Jennings directs with vision and confidence, with Rambow feeling like a more personal film than Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the smaller scale suiting Jennings’ ability to find the cinematic in the ordinary. A good example of this is the defunct power station where the children film their masterpiece, through Jennings’ lens we see the piles of refuse and hulking concrete towers not as an eyesore but as a playground. Director of Photography Jess Hall gets the best out of the Hertfordshire countryside, capturing the idyllic summers we remember from childhood but don’t seem to get anymore. The one misstep for me was a sequence in which Will is running home and his imagination is represented by onscreen animation. It is not badly done, however there was very little animation used in the rest of the film - making this one intense scene feel a little incongruous. 

Although it is a family film, Son of Rambow tackles some fairly complex themes. The relationship between Will and Lee forms the core of the film, the two leads have real chemistry and when the friendship is tested there is real hurt and anguish. The subplot of the French exchange students is amusing stuff, particularly the way that Will’s schoolmates slowly change their appearance over the course of the film to be more chic, and the resolution with the French bidding adieu is surprisingly melancholic. The matter of Will’s religious family I personally found a little uncomfortable, Jennings is respectful of the subject, however there never seems to be a neat way to resolve the tension involved, which while certainly realistic - feels a touch frustrating. The absence of Will’s father looms over the film, with Will losing his father’s watch, as well as the inspiration behind the Son of Rambow being Will’s own desire to find his father. Milner portrays Will’s longing for a father figure effectively, especially his rejection of his mother’s friend Brother Joshua, and in the end Will does seem to come to terms with the loss of his father, however in a fairly subtle way. Jennings manages to juggle several themes and subplots, which at times crowd one and other in the films 96 minute running time, but overall he handles the subjects with wit and charm.

It is clear that Jennings and company are filmmakers who love making films, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the efforts Will and Lee, with their homemade stunts and effects, as they try to make movie magic. Jennings manages to capture the joy and exhilaration of making your own films, the necessary innovation and resourcefulness, the inexplicable charm of things being a bit rough around the edges. In many ways, Son of Rambow is the perfect antidote for a lot of the dark, brooding, effects heavy blockbusters we see these days, reminding us what films should be about. 

WHO: Will Poulter, seemingly a kid enjoying making a film about a kid enjoying making a film. 

WHAT: The hair, the clothes, the music, the 80s.

WHY: As inspiration to get out there and make your own masterpiece.

WHEN: At the beginning of the summer holidays, to remind you not to waste it.

(Art from: http://trampt.com/original-art/53593/son-rambow-watercolor-scott-campbell-scott-c)

Surviving. A Reflection.

There’s no way I could review a film that I’d made, for one thing I might not be very nice about it. What I would like to do is a little bit of self-indulgent reflection of my experience making Surviving, and the lessons I’ll take forward into my next project.

Surviving is a short film about a petty criminal who has made some poor choices, and is a broken man at the beginning of the film, he meets an other-worldly woman who makes him confront the past he has been trying to forget. The plot is based on a short story I wrote for a fiction-writing class, and so straight away I faced the limitations of translating my imagination into a script that I could reasonably expect to shoot. The script went through a few drafts, the most helpful process was workshopping it with the filmmaking society at NC State, they gave me some great advice and helped me get rid of some of the cheesier lines that I had included. Having spent hours with the film during the editing process, I can’t hear a single line of dialogue without cringing, and I know appreciate the challenge of writing dialogue that sounds realistic and advances the plot. Looking back, the script certainly needed another few drafts before shooting to have gotten the best out of the story, which brings me to my first major lesson learned - taking the time beforehand to plan and prepare is never time wasted. 

For cinematographers I could not have wished for better help than Christian Roach and Corey Reid. They both put up with my indecision and inexperience when shooting, and gave brilliant advice. I also learnt the importance of communication, I may have the clearest image in my head of how the shot should look, but I have to tell my cinematographer if I want it to materialise. Christian also helped me find the locations for the film, which brings me to the most important lesson I learned on this film - the absolute essential importance of scouting locations beforehand.

On the shoot we experienced all sorts of problems, at which I can laugh now, but at the time were incredibly frustrating. There was the fact that there was a parade downtown with heavy police presence while we had prop guns in the back of the car, there was the peddle pub (yes that’s a thing) filled with drunken middle-aged people who then crashed into a land rover, there was the train that ran past the set and the motorcycle club that had a engine rev-off round the corner. All these issues could have been averted with a proper location scout; of course there will always be unforeseen issues that you have to deal with on the day (that’s part of the fun), but you can make life much easier for yourself by taking the extra time to check your locations first. 

This was the longest film I’ve made to date, and also the first one to feature dialogue in a major way. Working with sound is a colossal pain, the extent of which has only become clear when editing and having to deal with things like different parts of a room having a different background ‘room tone’. The outdoor scenes were even more frustrating to work with, there being crickets, trains, wind etc in the background, and only having a decent mic for one of the two cameras we shot with. The key here is to be prepared and to devote as much thought to sound as you do to visuals. I’ve tried to learn every trick in the book from every internet forum for how to fix sound in post, the answer? Get it right on the day!!!

The cast of the film I owe a huge debt of thanks to, they all agreed to help me out in a very limited timeframe, without having had real chance to learn the script or rehearse. Added to that some of the lines were taken straight from the short story and so were overlong, it is a wonder they were able to deliver the lines with the quality that they did. I was particularly pleased with the amount of chemistry between Tim, Alex, and John as the gang, none of whom knew each other very well before the shoot - amazing how much more relaxed people are after you supply them with beer as a prop! I cannot say enough good things about Tim, he is incredibly generous with his time, easy to work with, and for my money he really can act. Kristin did a great job with a difficult role, I initially wrote it as a part with absence of any emotion, a cold character that was intended to seem remote and all-knowing. Kristin put some warmth into the character for which I am very thankful, as it makes their scene together more compelling. Again I would love to go back in time, rewrite and rehearse, but for what it’s worth they did a fantastic job.

I don’t think I can fairly evaluate myself as a director, but hell I’ll have a go. The part I’m most proud of is the section where Tim is sat in the car waiting, I think the quick shots give off a feeling of panic, Tim did a great job with his nervous mannerisms, and I’m happy with the way the classical music is juxtaposed with the frantic action.

Also, considering how little time the cast had to prepare (my fault) I think I got some good performances out of them.

Things I need to work on….
The film as a whole has pacing issues, the mid section is over-long while the ending feels rushed. I think this is something I can definitely improve upon with experience, and also figuring out how much screen time one page of dialogue actually turns in to.

I wanted to get a really creepy tone for the beginning, and looking back I would liked to have planned out some more elaborate, off-kilter shots to give this sense of unease. This goes back to the importance of knowing your locations before you shoot. 

This being the first film I was the only director on, I was perhaps a little to passive. Partly because of time constraints and partly because I already felt I was asking a lot of my cast and crew, I was reluctant to take the extra time to get each shot and each line exactly how I wanted. I absolutely don’t want to be some kind of dictator on set, but with my next project I’ll need to have a clearer vision before hand, and be more focused on set to make that vision a reality.

Overall I don’t think it is too bad for a first effort at directing, and there are some things in the film that I am really proud of, I certainly have learnt a lot of lessons to take forward. 

How to conclude this non-review? Surviving is a film I feel very lucky to have been able to make, and it has been an invaluable learning experience. The finished product, while a little rough around the edges, is something I think the cast and crew should be proud of.

WHO: The entire cast and crew. Thank you again.

WHAT: Tim sat in a car having a freak out. I really like that bit.

WHY: To learn from my mistakes! 

WHEN: Whenever you want, as long as I’m not in the room!

A handy link if you want to see the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Qz4zk4kO4

Pacific Rim. A Review.

Pacific Rim is supposedly visionary director Guillermo del Toro’s love letter to the Kaiju films he grew up watching, his 7 year old self having been “transported” by this strange genre of film coming out of Japan. The influences of monster movies such as Godzilla are clearly evident in the scope and design of Pacific Rim, making it film that stands out - if not always for the best reasons. 

The central conceit of the film is fairly novel (at least to Western audiences), monsters are coming from a fissure in the Pacific Rim, and Earth’s human’s have banded together to build giant robots - or Jaeger - in order to protect themselves. Veteran Jaeger pilot Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) must overcome his traumatic past in order to help the Human resistance. This setup leads to some monumental battles, treating viewers to a truly awesome sight of organic alien invaders vs steel behemoth defenders, and while the plot develops with a whimper in the background, the film’s major selling point is the big fight sequences. 

Big is the only word for the fight scenes in Pacific Rim. Gargantuan, colossal, enormous - these are all good words too, but really they are just big. The special effects team have pulled off a great feat in putting these battles on screen, and while I only saw the film on a laptop, I can imagine the effect of seeing Kaiju and Jaeger clash on the cinema screen is something to behold. The Kaiju look spectacular, it is evident that the effects team were all genre fans and put a lot of love and attention into creating an alien race that are not just some uniform legion of cannon fodder (looking at you Avengers) but in fact are individually crafted killing machines. While del Toro made this film as homage to the monster movies of his youth, I was raised on Power Rangers and Transformers, so the draw for me was the Jaegers. Apparently close to 100 different Jaeger were designed, but only a handful appear on screen. The Jaeger that we do see are easily differentiated, and ridiculous as this may sound, look like they could actually work. Of course I’m no engineer, and the mumbo jumbo about neural links between copilots is pure sci-fi guff (to my knowledge anyway), but the actual Jaeger click and clunk in a very satisfying way, they look like they really were cobbled together by a Human race on the brink of extinction. Will the effects look dated in time? Perhaps, although a lot of the fight sequences happen underwater or in the dark, so some of the rougher edges are disguised. For the most part, Pacific Rim’s marketing strategy of “roll up and watch big things duke it out for some reason” looks absolutely fantastic. 

Of course the Jaeger and Kaiju are just two thirds of the Pacific Rim’s cast, and unfortunately the human third lets the side down slightly. This is not to say there are not good performances, Idris Elba is solid, and Rinko Kikuchi emits genuine emotion and personality, in fact their relationship is one of the strongest in the film. Charlie Hunnam is likeable enough as the lead, although he never really gets the chemistry going with Kikuchi, and perhaps this is because their screen time is limited by the occasional giant monster battle, but for copilots who are supposed to mind meld or whatever, we are given little reason to believe in their relationship. The rest of the Jaeger pilots get relatively short shrift as far as script is concerned, and this is a real shame. I was put in mind of the World War 2 films, where the squad would always be ethnically diverse to represent how everyone pitched in for the war effort. Similarly in Pacific Rim the Human resistance in made up of characters from all around the world, and while for once the Australians get a look in (albeit via some dodgy accents) the rest of the international cast are poorly served. While watching the interactions between the pilots, bravado and nerves creating tension, I was put in mind of Ron Howard’s F1 Drama Rush. I wish the film had focused more on this aspect of its world and reaped the dramatic dividends, however all too often the human interaction is sidelined in favour of a Kaiju-Jaeger showdown. 

It is obvious that a lot of thought has gone into the mythology of Pacific Rim, there is a history to the Human-Kaiju war, and even some musings on glorification of violence and the commercialisation of war. However, I found myself wishing a little more care and attention had gone into the script, which instead relies on cliches and stereotypes all to often. Case in point is the ‘research division’ of the human resistance. While Charlie Day (and I am a little biased here as I like the guy) does something fairly interesting with the science geek persona, he is accompanied by a sidekick stiff upper lip British guy, it was cringeworthy to watch their interactions. All too often what could have been compelling clashes between the Jaeger pilots boiled down to macho staring contests and daddy/brother issues. Obviously the film never pretends to have the depth or sophistication of Pan’s Labyrinth, but there were times when the the dialogue and plot felt like nothing more than string to tie together the fight sequences - and that’s not good enough, especially as it seems as though del Toro has created a rich world worth exploring.

All I heard about Pacific Rim at the time of its release was that it was robots fighting monsters, and if that was your thing then you’d enjoy it. I found this analysis off-putting, and only agreed to watch this film after it was recommended by a friend. Well, robots-fighting-monsters it is, but it is spectacularly well designed and extremely good natured. There are characters in there with potential, which is disappointingly not realised, and there is a world that poses some genuinely interesting questions about how humans respond to threats. Overall the film fails to be anything more than surface, but it is surface to marvel at. With a sequel in the works, perhaps I’ll get to explore the world more after all. 

WHO: Rinko Kikuchi, more of her please. 

WHAT: The Jaeger designs, I want one.

WHY: Robots-Fighting-Monsters! 

WHEN: You’ve stockpiled the sugary snacks and its 1am. 

(Fan Art from: http://fashionnaction.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/mako-mori-pacific-rim-fan-art-by.html)

The Nightmare Before Christmas. A Review.

It’s that time of year. The shops are all busy, the adverts are kicking in to high gear, and everyone thinks that you’re miserable if you’re not wearing an awful jumper. What better to get you in to spirit of the festive season than a charming stop motion classic filled with zombies, vampires, and showtunes?

One of the most subversive children’s films ever made, The Nightmare Before Christmas stars Jack the Pumpkin King of Halloween Town, as he stumbles on something strange and new - Christmas. Jack convinces the rest of the ghoulish citizens of Halloween town to remake Christmas in their own demented image. This involves stockings filled with snakes, skeletal reindeer pulling a coffin sleigh, and of course the kidnapping of “Sandy Claws”. Not your traditional festive film then.

So how has Nightmare endeared itself to so many, and why was it the first choice in my house on December 1st? It has a lot to do with the warped imagination of Tim Burton, who didn’t direct the film due to other commitments but whose grubby black fingerprints are all over the film. The way the rooftops of Halloween Town are crooked like witches’ hats, the black and white palate, the maggots and worms and muck and slime, the aesthetic is vintage Burton. From Batman and Beetlejuice, to Willy Wonka and Wonderland, Tim Burton has become one of Hollywood’s most bankable filmmakers, and Nightmare takes us back to his roots, before computers could do everything, and films were stitched, glued, and nailed together.  

The characters in Nightmare are just as dysfunctional and grungy as the town in which they live. Jack is a thin and towering figure who would make anyone jump out of their skin if crossed in a dark alley. He is the toast of Halloween Town, but he wants more, and once he sets his mind on recreating Christmas, nothing can sway him from his delusional quest. Sally is the creation of the nefarious doctor, all she wants is to leave his laboratory and experience the world, where she falls hopelessly in love with Jack. Sally is timid and shy, and seemingly the only one who sees the folly in Jack’s plan, it is one of the film’s highlights seeing her come into her own in the final act. There is also the fiendish Oogie Boogie, his trick or treat triplets, and the Mayor who is an elected official and so cannot be expected to make decisions. Burton’s world is completely full of characters who look like they leapt off the cover of his highschool notebook and onto the screen, and while some of their antics might seem horrific (the Clown with the tearaway face?!), it is all done with such creativity, imagination, and spirit, that you find yourself laughing at the ridiculousness of it all. 

Nightmare is not just a treat for the eyes, but also the ears. Danny Elfman’s soundtrack (and lead vocals) is filled with catchy tunes you will find yourself humming for days afterwards. My personal favourite is the gleefully insane “Kidnap the Sandy Claws”, where the terrible trick or treat trio discuss diabolical means with which to capture jolly old St Nick. Elfman’s tunes will make you laugh, but they also pack an emotional punch, particularly “Jack’s Lament”, as the Pumpkin King longs for something more. Perhaps its my untuned ear, but there are times that  I don’t quite catch the lyrics to the songs, however as this is a film which merits rewatching, I’ll know all the words by next Christmas. 

Why is Nightmare such a firm favourite for Christmas? It is unique, it is funny, and it has heart. It doesn’t matter that its rough around the edges, or that its grotesque (in fact that might be why a lot of kids love it), and it doesn’t even matter if Jack never finds out what Christmas means. Nightmare   is all about being with the ones you love and appreciating what you have, and as I sat with my housemates watching the film, it occurred to me that really is what Christmas is about. 

WHO: Jack the Pumpkin King, an iconic figure and great company. 

WHAT: Halloween Town, what I imagine the inside of Burton’s head looks like. 

WHY: Because it’s Christmas! 

WHEN: You’ve got to fit it in somewhere between Elf, Die Hard, and Love Actually!

(Artwork from: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/nightmare-before-christmas/images/32328036/title/nightmare-before-christmas-fanart)

Scott Pilgrim vs The World. A Review.

Last night I jumped at the opportunity to see one of my favourite films on the big screen at the fantastic Hyde Park Picture House in Leeds. So armed with a sharing sized pack of chocolate buttons (does anyone seriously share those?!) I settled in to watch a film that rewards me every time.

Full disclosure, I like films, comic books, and video games, so I am predisposed to enjoy a film based on a comic inspired by video games. However there are plenty of awful comic book movies, and I shudder to think about video game adaptions, so Scott Pilgrim was never a sure thing. Scott (Michael Cera - who else?) is no Superman, he’s just a regular Canadian 22 year old, getting over a bad break up and trying to get his band Sex Bob-Omb off the ground. His world is turned upside down when he meets Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and, for reasons less complicated than you’d think, he has to defeat her 7 evil ex’s to be with her. Standard stuff then.

The film is remarkably well cast. Between 2007 and 2009 Michael Cera had starred in Superbad, Juno, andYouth in Revolt among others, and so by 2010 he was at the height of his awkward powers. Cera gives a deceptively easy performance as Scott, a character who is funny, cringeworthy, confident, shy, awkward, jealous, and most importantly relatable. He is the key to the film, because Scott makes some bad decisions and the audience has to still route for him in the end, and Cera pulls this off with easygoing charm. Apparently Kevin Smith likened Scott to Bugs Bunny, and the comparison is a compelling one as Scott relies on resourcefulness to beat the odds. Winstead more than holds her own as the enigma that is Ramona Flowers. She has the looks and grace of the “it-girl” however she is much more than that. Actually my favourite Ramona moments are not when she is the unattainably mysterious cool girl, but when she is normal, for example turning up on time to meet Scott, or telling him to act like a grown up. Winstead manages to sell vulnerability and confidence with just a look, every bit the girl worth fighting seven evil ex’s for! The pair are no slouches in the action department either, while the film is pretty cg heavy, they and other cast members went through considerable martial arts training for the fight sequences.

The supporting cast are all memorable in their own way. Chris Evans and Brandon Routh are clearly enjoying themselves in cameos as evil ex-boyfriends, while the other members of Scott’s band have great chemistry and some wicked lines - particularly Alison Pill. Special mention goes to Kieran Culkin as Wallace - Scott’s ‘cool gay roommate’. Culkin is wickedly funny, charming, and an absolute scene stealer. Jason Schwartzman oozes slime and arrogance in a similar vein to Ben Stiller’s White Goodman in Dodgeball, making the final boss battle immensely satisfying.

Anyone who is aware of Edgar Wright as a director, most famously for Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, will know that he has a certain visual flair. Scott Pilgrim contains plenty of the Wright Stuff, his trademark fast cuts, closeups, and impeccably timed visual gags. Wright’s natural creativity and wit is well matched by Bill Pope’s cinematography. Known for The Matrix and Spiderman films, Pope sets up some truly stunning shots, and while there are many striking visual effects shots, there are plenty of examples of good old fashioned practical filmmaking in there - including a striking shot of Scott and Ramona sat on the swings. Wright has described Scott Pilgrim as the main character in a film playing in his own head, and so the film looks like the fantasies of a 22 year old slacker, complete with handy scorecards rating how awesome the band members are, and a pinwheel in Scott’s head as he picks an excuse. There is substance to the style, the script contains gags aplenty as well as moments with real heart, there are surprises and moments of victory, as well as an authentic and exhilarating soundtrack by Beck Hansen.

The comic/video game influence is always at the forefront of Scott Pilgrim, and sometimes this works very much in the film’s favour. There are jokes at the expense of well loved video games, and visual gags that take full advantage of comic book surrealism. However, there are times when the film’ pays too direct a homage to its influences. I found that some of the fight sequences were a little overlong, and while it may be fun to fight a boss battle if you’re holding the controller, it can be a little frustrating to watch. That said, at no point in Scott Pilgrim was I bored, and it would have been a grave mistake for the filmmakers to have tried to restrain themselves too much, much of the film’s charm comes from its cluttered, everything and the kitchen sink style. There are fingerprints all over the film, the end credits featuring hundreds of artists who turned Scott Pilgrim into a labour of love.

Scott Pilgrim deserves much wider recognition as a wonderfully creative and inventive film. It is an absolute joy to watch, richly rewarding for those who are fans of comics and video games, but also laugh out loud funny for those who are not. It is a love story, an indie comedy, a martial arts flick, a coming of age story, and so much more. Before the final battle, Kim Pine, drummer of Sex Bob-Omb, screams “WE ARE SEX BOB-OMB AND WE’RE HERE TO WATCH SCOTT PILGRIM KICK YOUR TEETH IN”, I have to agree that sounds like a damn fine plan for an evening.

WHO: Kieran Culkin makes comedy look easy.

WHAT: Scott’s haircut.

WHY: The eye-popping visuals practically demand your attention.

WHEN: If your local cinema is doing a late night screening then go to that! If not it’s an ideal unwinder after a busy day. 

Grosse Pointe Blank. A Review.

A couple of weeks ago I was sat on a train thinking about hit men. There was probably a suspicious looking man in a suit with a briefcase sat in the same carriage. This train of thought lead me to think about hit men movies, and the relative lack of decent films starring these morally ambiguous characters. I pondered whether it was possible, or whether the kind of person who makes a good hit man just isn’t interesting enough to be a protagonist. How would I make a good hit man movie? Well now I think I know, but I was beaten to it by George Armitage’s Grosse Pointe Blank (1997). 

Martin Blank (John Cusack at his laid back best) hasn’t been back to Grosse Point since he ditched Debi Newberry (the marvelous Minnie Driver) on prom night 10 years previous. Now he is back in town for the 10 year high school reunion, awkward rekindling of previous relationships, meeting with mom, visiting old haunts. And an assassination if he can find the time.

GPB is the best hit man film I have seen in a long while, and this is because it is principally a romantic comedy. The hit man plot features the double crossing and intrigue one finds in your standard assassin tale, but it serves mostly as a subplot to the main narrative of Martin’s reacquainting with his home town and his attempts to start things back up with the one that got away (or the one he left). It is to the script’s credit that both elements hold up very well, complementing rather than getting in one and other’s way. 

Cusack doesn’t fit the mould of a movie hitman, he doesn’t have Brad Pitt good looks or Michael Shannon’s creepiness, what he does pack into the role is humanity. Blank is a hitman with a crisis of conscience, ok nothing groundbreaking there, but what is interesting is that Blank deals with this uncertainty in a very human way. While he is seemingly cool and collected in the face of gunfire, Blank is thrown off his game by Debi. Their first reunion, awkwardly played out on live radio, exposes the fact that international assassin is just a job title, and that the person underneath is as vulnerable as us all. Grosse Pointe Blank’s masterstroke is the realization that to make a good hitman movie it is important to focus on the ordinary, rather than the extraordinary - this is a lesson Mr and Mrs Smith exploited to great benefit more recently. 

In fact I would go as far as to say that the action sequences are where Grosse Pointe Blank is at its weakest. Things have moved on since 1997, the shootout sequences are cartoonish but not in a good way. Cusack does put in a decent hand-to-hand fight sequence in the final act against ghoulish villain (and Cusack’s real life kickboxing mentor) Benny Urquidez, but by and large the action is functional and serves to advance the plot - and really isn’t that what action should be for? The principal threat to Blank is rival hitman Grocer (played in over the top fashion by Dan Aykroyd), however he is absent for most of the film, and while he returns in a big way for the final act, death at the hands of Grocer is a far less fearsome prospect that the mundane and lonely life Blank faces if he can’t get Debi back. 

With all the death and existential crises, you’d be forgiven for thinking GPB might be a glum affair. Thankfully it has a script that crackles with wit and levity, from Blank’s attempts to find answers from terrified psychiatrist Alan Arkin, to the deluded oddballs that attend the reunion, GPB is less a jet black comedy, and more a blood red rom com. Perhaps some of the references are dated, the fashion certainly is, but good old fashioned awkward boy-meets-girl-meets-assassin never goes out of style. GBP is a fun ride while it lasts, and a lesson to future filmmakers that hit men are people too. 

WHO: Minnie Driver brings the screen to life whenever she’s on. 

WHAT: The high school reunion, every bit as awful as you’d expect.

WHY: As proof that mid-life crises can happen to anyone. 

WHEN: If you, like me, were too young to catch this back in ’97, then it is worth catching up with the next time you fancy some stylish light relief. 

(Art from: http://mightyfineline.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/grosse-pointe-blank.html)

2001: A Space Odyssey. A Review.

Although I saw Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time only recently, I felt as though I had already seen it. Such is the influence of the Sci-fi behemoth that it has informed the style and substance of many films since (notably Nolan’s Interstellar) and achieved the pinnacle of any zeitgeist film - a Simpsons parody. And while there were still surprises in store for my first viewing, I can’t help but feel it did not live up to expectations. 

The production design is immaculate, with a stark palate of blacks and whites, the occasional splashes of colour such as Dave’s (Keir Dullea) orange space suit make for striking images.The space station and the ship Discovery One have a realistic quality to them, without the grit and grime of the ship from Alien. Having grown up with cgi heavy sci-fi such as the star trek reboot and the star wars prequels, the practical in-camera effects of 2001 made a refreshing change. Oddly it seemed more like science fact than science fiction, knowing that the effects were physically done on set somehow made them seem more real within the narrative. That is until a sequence in the film’s final act, which while cutting edge at the time now looks like something windows media player would produce as standard. That being said, on the whole the film looks great nearly 50 years on - especially on a big screen. 

Saying that the film contains sparse dialogue is being generous, it is almost barren. The effect however is not alienation, rather as a viewer I found myself even more drawn in - reading significance into every furrowed brow, every glance. What dialogue there is, serves to create a stifling atmosphere, particularly Dave and Frank’s (Gary Lockwood) hushed conversation inside the pod, their deadpan delivery makes the situation seem even more desperate. Most iconic of all are the conversations between Dave and the artificial intelligence HAL (Douglas Rain). Keir Dullea injects real humanity into his interaction with the faceless HAL (perhaps more than he does with his colleague Frank), while HAL’s silky voice goes from reassuring to sinister - a touchstone for sentient machines ever since. I found the drama between HAL and Dave truly compelling, and only wish that it had made more of the film, the relationship between man and machine is fascinating and rich for exploitation, and its resolution I felt seemed rushed - as though Kubrick was making haste to explore other themes, which I did not connect with as much.

I would try at this point in my review to avoid spoilers, but seeing as I didn’t really understand the ending it seems as though I couldn’t spoil it if I tried. It is a testament to Kubrick’s direction that I was gripped by the final scenes, even though I was completely baffled by what was happening. In discussion with a friend straight afterwards we had found completely different interpretations, perhaps we are just products of a generation that expects to be told explicitly what to think, but we agreed we were both going home to do an internet search of possible readings of the final act - a very 2014 reaction to 2001. It is to the film’s great credit then, that even if its main selling point was lost on me, I found so much else to enjoy. In particular, the biting satire of consumer culture, from the product placement of IBM and PanAm (perhaps not intentional satire) to the charge for making a video call home (to a daughter not impressed in the slightest that her father is in space), to the horrific looking in-flight meal, all these things resonated with me. As I have stated, the interaction between Dave and HAL was for me the most interesting part of the film, and perhaps as we live in an era dominated by smartphones (with their sleek obelisk shape) and technology, this was the most relevant to me.

From a filmmaking perspective, 2001 is immensely impressive for both its ground-breaking practical effects (the rotating spaceship reminiscent ofInception’s hallway scene) and the gorgeous cinematography. The production design remains influential, HAL’s cycloptic eye fading away is a visual motif that has been recycled many times. The narrative, while perhaps leaving me a little cold, contains so many themes that it remains relevant to this day, and likely will continue to be so in the future. Aptly for a film concerned with human evolution, 2001 has played a key role in the evolution of cinema, and for this reason alone deserves your attention. Beyond all the plaudits and controversies and even moon landing conspiracies, there is much to enjoy in a film that, even if it doesn’t have many satisfying answers, raises some interesting questions.

WHO: Keir Dullea, manages to pull of compelling dialogue with a black box.

WHAT: The Obelisk. 

WHY: To work out what the ending means. And tell me. 

WHEN: If you watch this film in 2050 it will still be relevant.

(Art from: http://applehammer.com/?p=108)

Love Steaks. A Review.

The temptation to use cookery metaphors for German indie Love Steaks is too much, so I’m going to limit myself to just one. Here goes. To get the best out of a steak sometimes they need tenderising with a mallet, and so the two lovers inLove Steaks go through a bruising both emotional and physical, to get the tastiest result possible. Okay now that’s out of my system, on with the review. 

Love Steaks follows the lives of Clemens (Franz Rogowski) and Lara (Lana Cooper) as they work as a masseuse and a chef at a luxury hotel. As a relationship grows between the two, they must learn to overcome their differences if their love is to survive. Not exactly a groundbreaking set up, however Jakob Lass tells a story that is not sickly, but packed with punkish flavour. 

The film is shot almost entirely in two locations, a luxury hotel spa and the beach. Strangely however, the film doesn’t feel cheap or claustrophobic, instead it feels real. The characters who work at the hotel are trapped there, Clemens the masseuse literally lives in a supply room. The characters are also trapped within themselves, Clemens painfully awkward, Lara extroverted but struggling with alcohol. Now this perhaps does not sound like a recipe for comedy (damn there’s another cooking metaphor), however Love Steaks is infused with enough anarchic spirit and wit that the two potentially tragic leads become genuinely funny in both their trials and triumphs.

Love Steaks was made on a shoestring, but it is not short on heart. The two leads are damaged goods, but both have hopes and dreams which the audience root for. Clemens is riddled with awkward indie cliches like compulsive rule following and inexperience with the opposite sex, if he were any more shy he’d be played by Michael Cera. Lara is the opposite, a trainee chef she revels in the pressure cooker environment in the kitchen. Of course we’ve seen this relationship play out a hundred times, however in Love Steaks it is played with such honesty that it doesn’t feel stale. In one of my favourite sequences, Lara grills Clemens on why he is so shy, was he bullied, beaten, abused? He replies he had a happy childhood, perhaps he was a little chubby. The whole sequence had the a ring of authenticity, the film didn’t need to give its characters some childhood trauma to earn their flaws, rather it accepts the fact that sometimes people are just a bit flawed. Perhaps to the films detriment it relies a little too much on this philosophy, to the point that its characters are still slight enigmas as the credits roll, however in general this approach to character development with an intense focus on the here and now sets Love Steaks apart from similar films. 

The supporting cast is relatively small, but they all play their roles well. Surrounding Lara and Clemens with people who it seem as though they have their own stories to tell, they create separate worlds. The upper floor where Clemens works seems to be populated by oddballs, his mentors are very concerned with the flow of energy in the bodies of their clients (but unable to give reasonable advice when Clemens encounters a particularly forthright client), also a highlight is the peculiar concierge Herr Winter, a pompous man who lives in his own world. The other side of the coin is the chaotic kitchen in which Lara works. The kitchen staff are anarchic and highly strung, they seem to be Lara’s family, but do not realise her fragile state and contribute to her problems. Here one of the films great strengths is also a weakness. The focus of director Jakob Lass is excellent, the relationship of Lara and Clemens is always front and centre, examined in minute detail. However because of this focus, the secondary characters are at times simply set dressing, there only to populate the landscape.

Love Steaks is a film that will surprise and amuse, its lack of polish is part of the charm, watching the film feels abrasive and vital, like an indie should. It is by no means a perfect film, the budget constraints show and the supporting cast feel underdeveloped, also we are left with questions about the main characters. However the heart of this movie beats  as though it is fighting for survival, Lara and Clemens are put through a crucible like two rocks being smashed together by the waves. The end result is a film that demands attention, and rewards it. 

WHO: Lana Cooper is on electric form.

WHAT: The final scene, breathtaking. 

WHY: Jakob Lass has made a brash film that cries out to be seen. 

WHEN: In an interesting double bill with Gone Girl, because relationships can be weird sometimes.

A Hard Day. A Review

In A Hard Day Homicide Detective Go Geon-soo is under investigation for corruption by internal affairs, he is late for his mother’s funeral, he attacks police who stop him for a DUI check, and he hides the victim of his hit and run in his mother’s coffin. And he is the hero. Perhaps the biggest achievement of A Hard Day is that the audience feel compelled to root for an anti-hero who’s behaviour would make him the villain of most western action films, as he becomes more and more desperate to save his career and his life - and entertains us along the way. 

First of all, the film looks great. There are some inspired shots in there, including a chase sequence shot largely from birds-eye view. There is definitely a film-noire influence, with some moody night-time shots, however it is certainly not a gloomy affair, willing to bring the action out into the light of the day. Lets talk about action, because there is a lot of it. This is not the heavy-footed, plodding brutal action of films like Taken, but rather a fleet-footed mixture of parkour and martial arts. Of course this is nothing new, parkour has been in vogue since Bond and Bourne brought it into the limelight, but A Hard Day brings such authenticity and flow to the action set pieces. The fight sequences all feel vital, with combatants grasping for any weapon within their reach to gain the upper hand and stay alive. This blend of Jackie Chan style resourcefulness and Bourne style brute force is a winning combination that keeps the action fresh. 

The plot itself is well paced and well thought out. What begins as a coverup and blackmail story, takes a few unexpected twists, and our anti-hero is forced to make desperate choices. Supporting characters all feel real, as though there is backstory that could be explored with more time on screen. Unfortunately, some of the plot threads could have been pulled at a little more, the police corruption makes for some compelling drama, however it is never truly resolved. Likewise we are constantly reminded that Go is a bad son, but never given any real substance to this (besides the obvious grave incident). Ultimately the subplots take a backseat to the desperate conspiracy that drives Go to push his limits, and while this makes for gripping action, it does not fulfil the potential of the story.

I saw A Hard Day at a busy screening at the Leeds International Film Festival, the cineliterate audience seemed to thoroughly enjoy their evening, and there were more than a few laughs at moments in the film. It is indeed an enjoyable experience, however I did find myself wondering what tone the director was aiming for. There were laugh-out-loud moments of black comedy (the hiding of the body a particular highlight), other moments of satire, social commentary, straight up action, and a couple of plot developments that stretch credulity and force the viewer to make the choice - do I go along with this? As I listened to audience members discuss the film, it seemed as though everyone had found something they enjoyed, even if there were parts they were less keen on, so it is commendable that director Seong-hoon Kim managed to craft a film with so many components and still create a satisfying experience. 

A Hard Day is an imaginative and entertaining action thriller, the cast all play their roles with gusto, with special mention going to  Cho Jin-Woong, who plays the villain with equal menace and madness . The film moves at a brisk pace, keeping audiences gripped and delighted with Go’s predicament. The action set pieces are a joy to watch, both light-footed and bruising in equal measure. It will probably earn an unnecessary english language remake in the not-to-distant future, but do yourself a favour and see the original, you won’t regret it. 

WHO: Cho Jin-Woong chewing the scenery. 

WHAT: The coffin sequence, nail-biting and hilarious.

WHY: To take a refreshing break from sequels and franchises. 

WHEN: Before hollywood make their watered down version!

Guardians of the Galaxy. A Review

Its safe to say that Marvel are on a bit of a roll. Since the success of 2008’s IronMan, the comic book giant has had hit after hit. With all this success under its belt, I find it strange that nearly every review I’ve read has referred to Guardians of the Galaxy as something of a risk. Well the film is excellent, but that didn’t take me by surprise, here I give you my imaginary pitch…

Hello mr Hollywood Producer man, I’d like to make a movie under the umbrella of the current box office champion Marvel studios. Its going to be a sci-fi, you know kinda taking influence from that little indie StarWars film. Marvel has done pretty well hiring geeky passionate left field directors (hi Joss Wheedon) so I think I’ll keep that winning formula going. Hmm we should probably have some big names on the poster so how about Vin Diesel of the Fast series and Bradley Cooper from the Hangover? Those guys not sci-fi enough? What about Zoe Saldana from Avatar and Karen Gillen from Dr Who? What’s that you say, audiences love cute animated stuff? What about a wise cracking racoon with a rocket launcher?  I’ll throw in a talking tree too, just ‘cause. I’ll see myself out…

Okay so maybe there were risks, who knew if Chris Pratt could carry off the leading man role? Who knew if James Gunn would be able to sell Marvel’s galaxy far far away? Who knew if wrestler Dave Bautista could act? Happily these questions are all answered within the the first 20 mins of the film. Chris Pratt is a joy to watch as Peter “Star-Lord” Quill, and earthling beamed into this new galaxy with nothing but a walkman and some 80s references. He steals nearly every scene he’s in, cracking quips and kicking ass in equal measure with and ease that would make Indiana Solo jealous. Pratt has a slew of leading roles coming up, including Jurrassic Park 4, it seems Hollywood is buying into his screen presence and its easy to see why. Sci-fi films can become overly complicated and expositionary, George Lucas if you’re listening I don’t give a crap what little microbes make the force work, can Qui Gon fight the red ninja man now please? Gunn treats the audience as though we are actually paying attention to the film and doesn’t explain everything 5 times. We soon figure out what the reavers are, who Nova and Kree are, and why Lee Pace is upset. He also seems to understand that if a picture is worth a thousand words then a moving picture is worth even more, for example a shot of Rocket Raccoon’s scarred back tells us more about the nature of his origin than some wordy backstory. The result is a film that unfolds organically but quickly, and you never have chance to think somethings ridiculous because something even brighter and funnier will be along. If Chris Pratt is a bet that paid off, Dave Bautista is a revelation. I’ve read that he was very nervous about his performance and didn’t want to let the side down (sterling features as ever at Empire!), he needn’t have worried, it seems like the role he was born to play, he expresses naiveté and earnestness while grabbing some of the film’s biggest laughs including my favourite literal interpretation of a metaphor ever! 

GOTG is funny too, I mean properly funny. The back and forth between the Guardians is always enjoyable, and often hilarious. Sometimes its outrageous lines, sometimes slapstick, sometimes just the chemistry between a cast that is even more remarkable considering two of the principals added their talents in post. The supporting cast all add to the comedic element, whether from comedy veterans John C. Reilly (whose character has a touching sign off) and Peter Serafinowicz,  Glenn Close in a pitch perfect cameo, or a spaceship full of hillbillies. Gunn has managed to get the tone almost perfect, matching the raucous humour with high stakes action and some more touching moments. 

GOTG is not without the usual problems that plague superhero-origin-space-comedy-actioners…. Villain Ronan (Lee Pace) is on good form but is not given enough to do, he is not as criminally shortchanged as Christopher Eccleston was in Thor: The Dark World, however he sacrifices a lot of his screen time to the assembling guardians. Also bullying Pace for screen time is Josh Brolin’s Thanos - Marvel’s big bad. I like that they are moving forward and including Thanos outside of an after credits easter egg, but it does take away from GOTG that it’s primary villain is nothing more than a pawn. Another issue is the amount of destruction in the film’s final act. Of course there needs to be a suitable amount of peril to earn the film’s ending, and the destruction is by design rather than wanton, but it still seemed the nameless folks of Xandar got a rough ride. Neither of these issues are deal breakers, they simply serve to highlight how hard it is to cover all bases when creating such a vivid and varied world. I would also say I would have happily sat through another half hour so that Gunn could add depth, but then again with blockbusters becoming more bum numbing every year, GOTG’s relatively fleet footedness is a welcome example that you can tell a grand tale in two hours. 

I could go on for hours about all the little touches that make GOTG so good; the soundtrack, the set design, Benicio del Toro! Really all I need to say, is that I enjoyed GOTG in the same way that I enjoy Raiders of the Lost Ark, is there any higher praise? Gunn has crafted a film with wit and soul, the thousands of hours of work from the production team build a world I’m dying to explore, and the cast fill the world with character and a real rebel attitude. 

WHO: Chris Pratt’s Star Lord. An earthling lost in a strange galaxy and having a blast!

WHAT: Awesome Mix vol. 1. Best soundtrack of the year. 

WHY: To vote with your feet that Marvel’s “risk-taking” is paying off.

WHEN: Yesterday. Seriously you should already have seen this film.

(Art from: http://designbump.com/brilliant-guardians-galaxy-fan-art/)