Evil Dead

The Feel good film of the year!

                                                 Have you had an accident at work?

DIRECTOR: Fede Alvarez

CAST: Just a bunch of young actors playing stupid kids, I've literally got nothing...

PLOT: More gory fun from the Evil Dead franchise, as a reboot shows a bunch of kids who go to a cabin in the woods to help their friend with a drug addiction. The nerdy one reads from a book covered in human skin, causing all sorts of shit to hit the fan!


Like every fan of the wacky delight of the original gore-fest 'Evil Dead' films of the 1980s, when I heard that a reboot, remake, re-imagining or whatever the hell you want to call it was in the pipeline, I had the sudden urge to lock myself in a basement until it had been and gone so that I could wait for it to pass away to the shitty horror revamp afterlife, joining the likes of 'Jason Voorhees', 'The Thing' and 'Freddie Krueger'. But before I could hastily reach a basement (they're not too common in the UK), I thankfully heard that Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert were all on board to produce. Ok, I thought I'd at least attempt to keep an open mind then. Soon after I encountered the trailer and my mind was fully open to the possibilities to a good horror remake, instead being able to join the likes of Zack Snyder's 'Dawn of the Dead' and Breck Eisner's 'The Crazies' (some may argue against that one). 'Evil Dead' was suddenly my most anticipated horror film of the year.

Despite the makers choosing to give the young victims a reason to be in the woods - said reason being that 'Mia' is a drug addict and trying to go cold-turkey (even though putting purple bags underneath a hot woman's eyes does not make them look like they're addicted to heroin) - the characters are all still pretty stupid and poorly performed. That's until all hell breaks loose and we can begin to have some crazy fun with the most extreme gore that you are likely to see in a cinema for quite some time, involving knives, chainsaws and that infamous tree. Say what you like about the acting talent of young attractive people in horror films - they sure know how to run around screaming and get killed.

And what's not fun about watching that? Some may have criticised this version for lacking the zany comedy of previous 'Evil Dead' instalments. It sure isn't as funny and it takes itself very seriously, but there are still some moments that will make you laugh a whole of a lot more than any comedy film that has been released so far this year (which isn't really hard when you think about it). I dare anyone not to crack up during the best rendition of the line "SHE JUST CUT OFF HER FUCKING ARM!" in cinematic history.

It is also a breath of classic fresh air to see much of the effects for the gore being practical. Too many 21st century horror filmmakers rely on CGI blood and decapitations that look faker than using red food dye and horse piss, it just makes you wonder whether filmmakers have become lazy. However, with the amount of practical blood and limbs used in this, especially during the insane finale in which it literally comes from everywhere, there is no hint of laziness, not a sign of cutting corners. They said that this would push all boundaries for what censors would allow in the cinemas and they have fully backed it up with crimson, 'Evil Dead' certainly isn't for the faint hearted.

Not only that, but it is actually a well crafted film. Suspense and tension is built up at an impressive pace until breaking point, which then invokes chaos that will leave you exhausted. You barely have enough time to catch your breath and prepare yourself for the next batch of mayhem. You never really feel for the characters, but put yourself in their positions and you'll soon start to feel a little uncomfortable, and maybe even scared - the thing that modern horror films struggle the most with.

                                            She really did not want to see 'Scary Movie 5'

'Evil Dead' does something that I'm sure none of us thought possible, and that is simply the fact that it does the originals justice. They stick to the same fun, forcing you to writhe around in your seat and cringe at all of the gore and wild happenings and proving to be likable and full of character. Whether it has the same duration of life as the previous incarnations is yet to be seen, but you'd have to be a brave person to rule it out as young horror fans leave the screening around you, beaming either satisfaction or disgust.

With plans for more sequels and another 'Amy of Darkness' now in the works, I am both excited and positive, knowing that not all horror remakes are heartless attempts at building the same thing - an empty shell with no filling. This manages to keep in the same vain as the originals and also manages to offer us something fresh.

Surrounded by tonnes of horror films that are either supernatural and spiritual possessions, haunted houses or humourless torture porn, this will stab you like a blast from the past. An unashamedly fun and disgusting thrill-ride, easily the most fun that I have had in the cinema during a horror film for a long, long time.

P.S. Those of you who are familiar with the originals - stick around until the end credits have rolled. Those of you who aren't, it will be wasted on you.

* * * *                            

Oblivion (IMAX)

Science-fiction Cruise control

                            He didn't realise that he signed a contract for TWO 'Rock of Ages' films...

DIRECTOR: Joseph Kosinski

CAST: Ethan Hunt, Nelson Mandela, the Bond girl that didn't get laid, Jamie Lannister, Mark Wahlberg's and Christian Bale's mum and The Devil's Whore...

PLOT: A memory wiped 'JACK!' (Tom Cruise) is a tech stationed on Earth who fixes broken somewhat more violent 'R2-D2's' a few decades after the planet was invaded and by 'Scavs', meaning that humanity had to evacuate and live on some big spaceship thing. Him and his crazy, commando-braving lover (Andrea Riseborough) are extracting water for the survivors of Earth's invasion who are waiting to inhabit a new home. But not all is what it seems...

Jack. JACK! JAAAAAAACK!!!!! J-Jack! Jaaaa-aaaaack. Jack! JACK!!!! Jake!... erm, I mean, Jack!

Ohhhhh, Jack.

Such is the borrowing that goes on in Joseph Kosinski's second feature-length that he even gives his protagonist one of the most common male names in the western world. Not only that, but he also takes ideas from substantially better science-fiction films, such as '2001: A Space Odyssey', 'Planet of the Apes' and 'Moon', just to name a few. It plays like a remix of a remake of some of the best science-fiction films ever made. But in saying that, it's still damn entertaining.

'Jack!', whose name is said in the dialogue so many times that you'll forget that there's any other name in existence, is a man who believes that Earth is his home, for some weird reason, not looking forward to the day too soon when he has to leave to join the rest of humanity due to the Moon being destroyed by 'Scavs' and the use of nuclear weapons making much of Earth radiated. It looks like a more beautiful version of the 'Fallout' games, which isn't too surprising as Kosinski, famous for bringing us the stunningly visual, albeit style over substance, that is 'Tron: Legacy'.

And that is Kosinski's big problem. The story would be a cracking one if it wasn't a mixture of so many other sci-fi's. His use of SFX is wonderful, the bland colours still make the doomsday landscapes look gorgeous and the action sequences are shot impressively. When it comes to filmmaking, Kosinski is a treat. But when it comes to giving us fresh insight to a genre that has recently become cool thanks to perhaps J.J. Abrams' 'Star Trek' reboot and 'The Big Bang Theory', those of us who stood by science fiction before everyone else became interested still crave more. Style is important, but as Kubrick, Schaffner, and more recently Jones and Blomkamp have taught us, substance is valued higher by sic-fi nerds.

The performances are good for the most part. You know what you're getting with Tom Cruise - his charismatic mannerisms, confident voice and handsome demeanour have made it as if he's become a parody of himself, but fans of his won't be disappointed. As always, where he really excels is when it comes to the action scenes, completely throwing himself into it head first. Say what you want about Tom Cruise, nobody can doubt his optimism and enthusiasm.

Morgan Freeman is annoyingly under-used considering that he features on the poster and is fronted second-behind Tom Cruise in the marketing campaign. Still, it's not as much a kick in the teeth as Gary Oldman's lack of featuring in 'Lawless'. At least he still has something to do. 

Andrea Riseborough is probably the most pleasantly surprising of the impressive cast. She's annoying, overly defensive and lacks ambition and adventure for someone living so far above ground as 'Victoria'. She's wholly unlikable and certainly not the sort of person who you would want to be stranded on Earth with. I don't know if that's just the way Riseborough comes across, as an annoying bitch, but she does it well.

Olga Kurylenko is similar to much of the rest of the film - she's simply ok, simply adequate. The fact that she was probably cast for being extremely gorgeous, once again, much like the rest of the film, can't be overlooked. But at least we're treated to Jamie Lanniser jumping around shooting spherical floating hunks of metal with a bow and arrow.

  

                       "You have to do ANOTHER 'Rock of Ages'?! Kurylenko couldn't quite believe it either

One thing that definitely let the film down was the trailers. Anyone who watched any of the advertisements and paid the very least bit of attention will find the film painfully predictable. All of the drama and emotion laid into the revelations seems wasted as we sit on the cinema seats in smugness thinking 'yeah, I knew that'. Trailers seem to have become even more of an art form in itself lately, but when they begin to give away twists of the plot in a film that relies on 'who? what? where? and why?' then you know you have a big problem. 

There are plot holes galore, especially when it comes to the 'Scavs' and the way that they fucking dress which will probably make you want to tear your hair out. The writers of the film seem convinced that they have given you an elaborate and logical reason as to why things are the way they are, but after a minute of half-concentrated though you'll out-smart the characters on show. 

But where this review has come across as being exceedingly negative, it still remains as a very juicy piece of entertainment. The action sequences are superb and you'll struggle to find a more aesthetically pleasing film so far this year. You'll laugh at how serious it takes itself, trying to throw all of its intelligence and creativity at you despite the fact that said intelligence and creativity has been stolen. It comes across as being very camp popcorn fodder. And considering Kosinski has stated that this is a homage to science fiction films of the 70s, I suppose he got that part right.

* * *

Spring Breakers

Don't worry, this isn't another 'Project X'

                                           Walt would be turning in his cryogenic freezer 

DIRECTOR: Harmony Korine

CAST: New Goblin, Disney slut # 1, Disney slut # 2 and some other sluts...

PLOT: Some sluts (see above) rob some cash so that they can go to "Spring Break ya'll!" Cue antics such as sex, drugs and... Skrillex? Well, that's until they get arrested and then bailed out of jail by James  "look at my shit" Franco...

Seeing 'Spring Breakers' at the cinema last night was certainly interesting to say the least. The film has an awful lot to say about the themes that are on display, and it also says a lot about the majority of who pay to see it.

Judging by the sorts of people who were in the same screening as myself (I'm stereotyping here, but fuck it), most of the people, if not all, were there hoping for a sort of 'Project X' type film. Every time a pair of breasts were on the screen (which happened to be quite often) the hordes of young men would often nudge one another, I'd audibly hear them (pricks) proclaim how hot a girl is. They would laugh at James Franco constantly for his funny accent and mannerisms, for which I can't blame them. However, there never seemed to be a hint of nervous laughter from fellow audience members, which I found quite worrying.

Needless to say, most people who have made this small indie film a box office hit haven't paid to see a slightly experimental film that explores how the American Dream has evolved from people wanting a nice home, a nuclear family and stable, well-paying job into the lust for constant pre-marital sex, drugs and lots and lots of illegally earned cash or, how pop culture has made everyone of the iPod generation desperate to live a life similarly to how they perceive celebrities do.

In short, I'm guessing that most people who have contributed to 'Spring Breakers' $15 million gross (so far) is so that they could see boobs.

And I'm not going to jump on my high horse here; I will admit that the film was at times very, very sexy. Any red-blooded male of any sexual orientation would have probably found the film sexy. Any woman would have probably found the film sexy, they just won't admit it. And there were many a time in the first half of the film that I wish I could transport myself to the sunny shores of Florida state to engage in such activities, because lets face it - it looked like a whole lot of fun. But if you don't feel slightly ashamed of yourself afterwards, then you are the sort of person who this film is attacking. I doubt you even care...

But it is all fun and games until you begin to find yourself involved with someone like James Franco's 'Alien', an egotistical white 'G' who claims to be from another planet, with grills on his teeth, cornrows and bad rapping. He is living the new American Dream, as we watch him show off 'his shit' and boast about having 'Scarface' on repeat. The girls want a taste of that life, but at what cost? 

Shallowness, negative morals and no direction in life - exactly what they think they're doing away from Florida at college, which is only highlighted by Korine's wonderful craftwork, constantly repeating images and voiceover dialogue which drives home the point that no matter what life you choose, it will get bloody repetitive.

                                                  Aron Ralston before he cut off his arm

Away from all of the stinging social commentary and satire of 'Spring Breakers' - when it is provoking your morality and your seemingly not-so guilty pleasures; 'Spring Breakers' is an animal of a film, an assault on the senses.

The performances from the girls are good for the most part, all they really need to do is look sexy though. The only one of them who gets a good chunk of character development is Selena Gomez, as a church-going girl who is often cautious about the antics. She's annoying as fuck and she's meant to be, so hats off to her.

But the performance that steals it comes from James Franco, surely soon to be a cult favourite actor. He is hilarious, in a laugh at the way he speaks "your not black!" kind of way (which highlights the identity crises of almost every character in the film - the pigmentation confusion, if you will) but he's also funny in a nervous tone, almost darkly comic. You're never truly sure what his intentions are (if there are any) and you're just waiting for that big event that seems to take forever to come thanks to Korine's decision to burn the narrative along slowly. And when he begins having a gang war with 'Archie' (played by Gucci Mane, a rapper away from the films who is infamous for breaking the law and generally being a bit of a horrible bastard, who must have unknowingly been criticising his own lifestyle by acting in this film) that seems to be when the story progresses and moves away from character development and aesthetics for a little while.

'Spring Breakers' will rightly cause debate and split a lot of people down the middle. It will stick with you for days to come, whether you enjoyed it or not, and you will be ominously whispering "Spring breeeeaaaak" to yourself for days. Everyone who chooses to watch it will probably be doing so for a different reason than whoever is sat next to them in the cinema. Whatever you say about it, it is definitely no less than an experience, which will provoke you with cultural representations, aesthetic mind-fucks and the strangest mainstream surreality (just wait for Franco singing a Britney Spears song on a grand piano) imaginable.

Either that, or it will just give you a hard on...

* * * *

Trance

Down time for Danny Boyle seems to consist of making awesome films...

                                                 McAvoy was going to scare the shit out of the postman

DIRECTOR: Danny Boyle

CAST: Young Professor X, that French guy who's in everything just so that he can scream at people in French when he's angry, and one of the many whores of Sin City...

PLOT: Off the back of shouldering the pride and cynicism of the entire nation, Danny Boyle remembers that he makes films - this one's about an auctioneer (McAvoy) who screws over some art thieves (Cassel, et al.), but he takes a bang to the noggin and can't remember a thing. Enter an American chick who happens to be a hypnotherapist (Dawson), who attempts to help the hapless auctioneer remember where he put the expensive bit of painting.

'Trance' strikes me as one of those rarest of things - a British film that isn't just for the British. That's probably helped by the fact that two of the main characters are American and French, but it always makes a welcome change to see a film which has been made in England which isn't about Cockney gangsters or kitchen-sink dramatics. Those sorts of films are at times all fine and good, but one does sometimes wish for more from UK talent, something like, oh I don't know, a hedonistic head fucker of a film that will assault your senses and morality. Yep, something we can all enjoy.

The plot is a puzzle as much as the film is itself. It's both simple, but add a hypnotherapist to the mix and it quickly becomes complicated at the same time. It's a wonder that nobody had ever done it. All of the characters from the talented cast are rubik's cubes who surely won't be cracked, as their likability, motivations and moral compasses are all over the place. If all of this confusion is too much for you, simply watch it for one man, the star of the show - Danny Boyle.

Where the film may be unbalanced when it comes to themes and the characters are mostly unlikable throughout, making it difficult to connect, not once can you fault Danny Boyle's ability to craft an entertaining and stylistically addictive film. The look is brilliant, completely catching the essence and the steeliness of London; it also makes sense to set such a crazy narrative in the city, as it's near enough impossible not to get lost in the English capital at one point or another. The editing is masterful, hitting all of the right beats when combining with a booming score that will surely get the blood pumping. Boyle manipulates your excitement seemingly as easy as it is to turn a dial.

                        Early fame for One Direction led to some bad decisions at the cosmetic surgeons

Two scenes where his impeccable talent shines, one at the beginning, one at the end. The first is the opening - the heist voiced over by McAvoy's charismatic, smarmy auctioneer as he talks us through the instructions on what to do if involved in an art heist: "No piece of art is worth a human life." The cinematography is to die for, the editing and music will keep you on the edge of your seat, it will hit you like a shotgun to the temple and you won't want the heist to ever end. You'd be forgiven for arguing that the highlight of the show comes too early, that the film can never match up to it.

The other scene that could compete for being the stand-out of the film comes at the end during the dramatic climax (don't worry, you're safe from spoilers here). But much like the previous description, it is once again down to the fact that the shots are engaging, the music increases in tension to breaking point, and the cuts are timed perfectly. If you're not a fan of the story here, at least watch it for the way the film has been made.

As Danny Boyle seems to have gone all-out to have some fun and show off a bit, you can't blame him after all of the stress he must have had for the Olympics. The feeling has it that this is a project that he's wanted to get done for quite some time but perhaps hasn't been allowed to by producers. But Boyle can pretty much do whatever the fuck he likes now so if he wants to show a man get shot in the meat and two veg then who's going to argue?

But despite the mixed reactions to the story, I would argue that it is still engaging when followed closely with all of your attention. It's interesting to try and guess the characters motives throughout, and it constantly begs the question - who's story really is this? as the film rages on a clear protagonist is lost and everyone generally becomes a bit of a dick. This isn't out of place for a Boyle film, he even often managed to make one of the most recent American heroes look like a bit of a dick in '127 Hours'. The point is, nobody is perfect, and not everyone is certainly what they seem. 

'Trance' may well serve as a very important film for the British film industry, proving that if you want a thriller with guns and explosions, you don't have to rely on the US to give you your fill. The only difference is, Boyle gives you guns and explosions with added intelligence.

* * * *

Cloud Atlas

Who doesn't want to see Halle Berry playing an old Chinese man?

                                                "Still think I'm charming now, ladies of the UK?"

DIRECTOR: The Wachowski brothers? And Tom Tykwer

CAST: Forrest Gump, the worst Catwoman, Professor Slughorn, Agent Smith, hipster Q and Bridget Jones' lover or something or other...

PLOT: Inter-transitioning short films are all linked by heroes and villains who's past decisions affect the future and everything's linked and reincarnation and shit. It's actually much simpler to just play the 'Inception' noise - here's the link: http://inception.davepedu.com


The whole concept of reviewing this film is mind-boggling to me. After one viewing I can confidently say that I didn't fully understand it. I probably didn't even half understand it. And yet, I don't feel like a dip-shit. That's because the premise of this film is deep on so many levels, exploring the themes of religion, reincarnation, good & evil, space & time, and just about everything else that you can imagine. The inevitable second viewing still won't give me a full understanding and a third viewing probably won't either. Maybe I should read the book... NEXT JOKE!

No, in all seriousness, I do actually want to read the book now.

And I want to go back to the cinema to see this again! But unfortunately I won't because I'm skint. But if I had it my way, I certainly would. Simply because 'Cloud Atlas' was an impressive phenomenon of cinema and storytelling.

As someone who isn't the Wachowski's biggest fan (this is my favourite film from them to date), beforehand I was a bit cautious in putting three hours of my life in their hands.

With the help of Tykwer, 'Cloud Atlas' has proved to be one of the most visually stunning films of recent memory. It is shot beautifully, whether in the underwear crapping CGI heights of Neo Seoul, or the simplistic charms of a present-day nursing home - everything looks gorgeous. Even if the plot of the film is melting your braincells, at least take solace in the fact that this is visual masterwork, and let yourself become lost amongst the brilliant set-pieces.

But any film that looks this good needs performances to accompany it, so what better to employ an ensemble with as much talent as this one. But even with all the talent involved, the performances must have still been a test of their qualities. The film is groundbreaking on so many levels, including it's performances, as all of the members of the main cast play multiple characters, and cross sex and racial boundaries. There's not many films that give you the opportunity to see Hugo Weaving in drag.

The vast majority of the performances, despite the challenge they must have been, are top drawer. Tom Hanks is near-perfect as usual playing villain and hero, Hugo Weaving is fantastic playing man and woman and even Hugh Grant does a good job playing himself as a snob and probably not himself as a cannibal. The weakest link would be Halle Berry, but it's a great performance still when compared to her usual standards. Also, Ben Whishaw, of 'Skyfall' fame, is a surprise contender for best actor in there. Well, he was until Jim Broadbent stole the show and had to escape an old people's home.

                                How can the nicest man in Hollywood look like this much of a dick?

'Cloud Atlas' is bound to split people down the middle, such is the nature of the piece. It sometimes tries to be a bit too meaningful for its own good, almost bordering on pretentiousness, as voiceovers talk at you with the help of a thesaurus. But most of the time meaning, or at least the attempt of meaning, is welcomed. It's accompanied by some very funny moments, great action sequences and strong human drama. The running time is a test and concentration may waver now and then, but if you stick with it you may very well be rewarded with one of the most interesting experiences a film has to offer.

Everyone involved in the existence of this film deserves credit, even if you don't like the final product. It's a film that many deemed 'unfilmable', about a story that will piss a lot of people off due to its sheer scale, made with a budget borrowed from a host of different peoples, featuring amazing VFX and actors with multiple roles. It didn't go down a storm with the US public but it has now deservedly made more money than what it cost to make. We should be thankful for this, as films that attempt to break barriers are a gift - even if you didn't enjoy this particular one. Filmmakers should be encouraged to test themselves as well as their audiences and 'Cloud Atlas' may go a long way in doing that.

* * * ½

Django Unchained

'Adult supervision is required.'

                               Am I the only person who's thinking gang wars are getting a bit camp?

DIRECTOR: Quentin Tarantino

CAST: Ray Charles, Colonel Hans Landa, J. Edgar Hoover (cross-dresser), Alicia Masters, Nick Fury and lots of racist people...

PLOT: Jamie Foxx's 'Django' (the 'D' is silent) becomes a bounty hunter with everybody's favourite German, Christoph Waltz (playing 'Dr. King Schulz'). They end up shooting a lot of white people in a bid to get back 'Django's' wife (Kerry Washington) who is enslaved by Leonardo DiCaprio's psychotic plantation owner 'Calvin Candie'.

The idea of myself writing a review on a Quentin Tarantino film strikes me as a little one-sided. As a huge Tarantino fan, I go into every one of his eagerly anticipated films expecting to love it. But fuck feeling biased, there's a reason why I and so many others enjoy his work - because it's fucking awesome. And the fact that this latest offering of violent Tarantino goodness is not far off from grossing $200 million worldwide means many others agree. Certainly not bad for a film with an '18' certificate (rated 'R' for you Yankees).

But 'Django' is simply the same case as any Tarantino film - the majority of his fans will undoubtedly love it, he might convert a few haters to fans, he'll definitely win some new one's who are yet to sample any of his previous films and most of his haters will continue to hate.

But people who hate Tarantino's films surely do so because of personal preferences. At the end of the day, nobody can say that he is a bad filmmaker.

Visually, 'Django' is absolutley stunning - often beautiful, completely taking full advantage of the brilliant scenery, and often harrowing, as the themes and events that surround slavery aren't shyed away from. He continues to outdo himself with explosive and stylish soundtracks - utilising songs that should really not work but somehow work like a treat. The dialogue is as good as it gets - very intelligent, and often extremely funny, which is surprising considering the subject matter. Despite all of the terrible things that happens in the film, I dare you to state that it isn't entertaining, or even hilarious at certain moments - a stand out comedy moment is when the fantastic Don Johnson and his mob of pre-KKK racists are arguing about not being able to see out of the shabby hoods. 
   
But Don Johnson isn't the only outstanding performance from the quality cast. In fact, it's simpler to say who's performance was bad - nobody's. Fuck, even Tarantino had a fun cameo as an idiot Aussie who gets tricked. Jamie Foxx is perfect as the titular character. Considering that Will Smith was originally lined up for the role, after the viewing it is deemed positively impossible for anyone else to embrace the character as he does. Foxx is both charismatic and even morally innocent as he shoots anyone who crosses his path. DiCaprio is terrifying as the eccentric 'Calvin Candie', truly inspiring casting as beforehand I would never have been able to imagine him in such a sadistic, but yet hugely entertaining role.

Samuel L. Jackson continues his impressive form of appearing in every movie ever made with more consistency. His character, 'Stephen', is possibly the most intriguing - a black man who is racist to other black people, who pledges his alleigance solely with 'Candie'. He switches back and forth from 'Look! Point and laugh at the funny talking, uneducated ignorant racist' to 'Woah, shit... he's pretty fucking scary'.

But the man who steals the show, much like Tarantino's previous film 'Inglourous Basterds', is and was always going to be... Jonah Hill. I joke of course, Christolph Waltz is your man. He's still just as vicously entertaining, charismatic and enthralling, even though he's not playing a villain, which came as a surprise. He just oozes cool and you are always in safe hands. He definitely deserves another Academy Award.

                                            DiCaprio was unsure as to whether or not it was 'Hammer Time'...

A lot of controversy has surrounded Tarantino's latest film (yeah, because that's new). I can't help but feel the need to weigh in my opinions on the debates that surround 'Django', which might hopefully spark some healthy and insightful debates.

Starting with the ongoing, never-ending debate of violence following the whole hilarious argument that transpired on Channel 4 when QT was interviewed, my opinion is very simple. Violence in cinema is fun when it is presented in this way - over the top ultra-violence that captures every speck of blood flying through the air in a visually beautfil yet horrific way. Anyone who is familiar with Tarantino's work is accustomed to it, you know you'll be getting a lot of blood. I haven't been as excited during a single action sequence in quite some time, but I was literally on the edge of my seat during one of the late action sequences which was shot amazingly. 

But the main debate surrounding 'Django' is the alleged racism, and more specifically, the extensive use of the 'N' word. Yes, the word is used a lot throughout the film. But in the context of the film's narrative and setting, plus the fact that the film is a long one, the word doesn't seem used for the sake of it. Back then, the word was used all of the time, and Tarantino is simply representing that terrible time. If the director was black, would anyone bat an eyelid? Nobody accuses John Carpenter or Wes Craven of being serial killers due to the fact that they make slasher films. So because Tarantino has racist characters in his films that use a degrading word, it doesn't make him racist.  

I even read one review earlier that accused Christoph Waltz's character being a subject of 'white guilt' because a white man has to help 'Django' on his quest for revenge. A plausible argument, perhaps, but the fact that Samuel L. Jackson plays a horrible black man wasn't mentioned is telling. The point that is being made is that regardless of skin colour, you can be a wanker. 

But away from all of the debates and controversies, this postmodern homage to the Spaghetti Western genre is a must for all Tarantino fanatics and buffs of the classic genre. Whether or not it's up there with his best, I guess I'm not brave enough to say so. But for me, picking a least favourite film of his is akin to picking the least nicest boob... when you come right down to it, they're all bloody nice.

* * * * *

Les Misérables

Wait a minute... this isn't a film about miserable lesbians!

                                                    'My beard is made of adamantium.'

DIRECTOR: Tom Hooper

CAST: Doctor Cox's most hated actor, Maximus Decimus Meridius, Catwoman, Amanda Seyfried chicken, Marilyn Monroe's piece, Andy Tveit (you what?), Borat Sagdiyev, Bellatrix Lestrange, 'I'd Do Anything' to Samantha Banks and that girl from the poster. 

PLOT: A bunch of depressed French natives (portrayed mainly by actors with strong English accents) sing about how shit life is whilst 'Jean Valjean' (Jackman) is on the run from a man who takes the law to heart a little too much - police inspector 'Javert' (Crowe).

My two favourite film musicals are Tim Burton's 'Sweeney Todd' and Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's 'South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut'. So it's definitely fair to say that I'm not really a huge fan of musicals. But as I found the trailer for 'Les Misérables' very powerful and the fact that it has been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscar's, I thought I'd give this a try.

I knew very little about the narrative before going into this film, and I have no previous experience with the source material, all I know that is was orginally a novel and was then adapted to many much-loved theatre productions. And that seems to be its main issue - it is essentially a play. The only difference is the fact that shots cut, the performers are well-known and the production values make huge and lavish sets. But I can't help but make the preconception that that's where the differences seize to exist. I suppose someone who has experienced a production of the play would have to shed some light as to whether or not the film actually does anything different with the material.

But as a film, it is still quite impressive. The production values, as said, make brilliant sets and locations in which the cinematography often shines (just try and ignore the shots where the green screen is painfully obvious). Technically, the film is well made. However, as far as evaluating a film that screams 'PLAY' at you, there's little else to analyse cinematically - only the story (which has already been written) and the performances (in which the people behind the camera largely have to hope that the actors get right).

Tom 'The King's Annoying Fucking Stutter' Hooper made a brave choice to record all of the actors singing live on set instead of taking the more conventional, safe option of having them sing in a studio. The decision doesn't always hit the mark, but when it does it does so brilliantly. It gives the actors the chance to improvise their movements, to really feel the emotions - when a voice breaks due to the tears, that's for real, and it is often beautiful to see. But the decision doesn't always hit the mark because not all of these actors are amazing singers.

Hugh Jackman, the star of the show and an already proven singer due to his stints on Broadway, is excellent when 'Valjean' evokes pure power and emotion in his voice, but he tends to struggle and keep your attention in the more low-key numbers. Russell Crowe is good when he has to stick to the one tone but is uncomfortable with anything else - the highlight of his performance is a comical sound effect which is made due to his selfishness which won't be discussed any further due to spoilers. But as Crowe's 'Javert' is essentially the villain of the piece, perhaps he can get away with delivering the least amount of emotion in the songs. What's Amanda Seyfried's excuse?

Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter are both welcome comic relief from a story that is so downbeat even setting fire to rabbits would be regarded as comedy in comparison. Their performance of 'Master of the House' will bring some much-needed smiles to your face as they both rob and cheat for money. Marius Pontmercy (Redmayne) and Enjolras (Tviet), the student protestors leading the revolution both sing magnificently. The scenes of revolt are my personal favourites due to the feelings of liberation and defiance as the characters refused to mope around feeling sorry for themselves.

But there are two certain women who are battling it out to steal the show with particular scenes. Hathaway's rendition of 'I Dreamed a Dream' is stunning, she is deserving of the praise heaped onto her and even the coldest hearts will have to try their best not to feel any hint of sadness. It is in her performance where the decision to record the vocals live really comes to fruition, as the shot hardly cuts from her teary face and as she swings from croaky voiced defeat to all out bravery. But the real surprise may have been Samantha Banks in her big screen debut, who's glorious performance of 'On My Own' is truly heartbreaking.

                                        The annual fox hunt had gotten a little bit out of hand.

I couldn't help but feel like a heartless bastard at the end though, as almost everyone around me was bawling their eyes out as the tragic ending took place. The reason the melo-drama never touched me is down to the fact that it's relentless. Apart from the fun to be had with Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter, the whole thing is a sordid affair of sadness. It's overwhelming to an extent where the drama no longer feels dramatic, as with an action film with non-stop action is rarely always exciting, or a horror film that tries to scare you every other minute hardly ever succeeds in doing so. 

And as the running time does begin to drag, as the low-key songs are never performed as well as the all out, give-everything-you've-fucking-got songs, you are left waiting for long stints of time to see something worth waiting for - be it a solid performance from Jackman or a gut-wrenching song from Hathaway. 

But perhaps for me on a personal level, a film in which spoken dialogue is at a bare minimum, the musical genre had just become too much for me. This isn't a film that I will be rushing to see again, but you can bet that I will be searching for particular songs - 'I Dreamed a Dream', 'Do You Hear the People Sing?' and 'On My Own' as well as a few others, on Youtube. However, there is something to be had here, not so much fun, maybe excitement, or perhaps it's just a film for people who like to feel. This is a film for a certain type of person, and that type of person isn't difficult to find - not many films, even the best ones, are viewed in the UK and manage to render a round of applause. But for me, I guess that I'm just not that type of person. Yet as a musical, there still was some enjoyment to be found. 

* * *