Listmania ‘10! Crew Contributions Of The Year

It’s weird how Black Swan and Inception completely took over 2010, to the extent that I’ve barely thought about any other movies. In the Best Movies list I finished last week, I intended to make a comment about how the enjoyment-gap between them was almost non-existent: my memory of both of them is that they were like really very loud out-of-body experiences, but with trains, lesbian sex, nail-clipping, Winona Ryder clutching a glass of some expensive drink and looking very angry, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s tight buns (a pair of buttocks I didn’t actually notice, what with him running across the ceiling in his most memorable scene, but I have since found out from some of his lady-fans that his bum was very nice). I liked everything in the Best Movies list (obvs), but the leap from number three to number two was pretty large.

As you can see from these categories, Black Swan and Inception keep cropping up. It’s hard to exaggerate how impressive they both were on a technical level. The pleasure I derived from seeing two films as well crafted as this make me wonder if I’m really just a sucker for pretty things onscreen: certainly a conversation I had about Tron: Legacy just a couple of hours ago — which saw me make an unconvincing case for it by just pointing out how much my eyes and ears enjoyed it — makes me think I’m shallow.

But balls to it. Black Swan and Inception moved my heart as well as my two primary face-sensors. They’re near-perfect film experiences that left me breathless with joy in their final moments, and deserve all the praise I can throw at them. In the meantime, see below for some compliments for other films as well. They are not intended to be scraps from the table: all the work mentioned below is exemplary.

Best Director: Darren Aronofsky – Black Swan

Honorable Mentions:

Christopher Nolan – Inception

David Fincher – The Social Network

Lisa Cholodenko – The Kids Are All Right

Lee Unkrich – Toy Story 3

Takashi Miike – 13 Assassins

Best Screenplay: Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg – The Kids Are All Right

Honorable Mentions:

Christopher Nolan – Inception

Nicole Holofcener – Please Give

Aaron Sorkin – The Social Network

Noah Baumbach and Jennifer Jason Leigh – Greenberg

Michael Arndt – Toy Story 3

“Where Have You Been?” Director of the Year: Joe Dante – The Hole

Best Visual Effects: Digital Domain / Prana Studios Inc. / Ollin Studio / Mr. X Inc. / Prime Focus Vancouver – Tron: Legacy


Honorable Mentions:

Double Negative / Asylum Visual Effects / Method / Rising Sun Pictures / Ghost VFX - The Sorceror’s Apprentice

SPI / CafeFX / Matte World Digital / In-Three Inc. - Alice in Wonderland

Hydraulx – Skyline

C.O.R.E. Digital Pictures / Buf / Image Metrics - Splice

Double Negative – Inception

Best Cinematography - Shelly Johnson - The Wolfman

Honorable Mentions:

Matthew Libatique – Black Swan

Robert Richardson – Shutter Island

Wally Pfister – Inception

Christopher Doyle – Ondine

Martin Ruhe – The American

Best Editing: Lee Smith – Inception

Best Sound Design – Craig Henigan – Black Swan

Honorable Mentions:

Ren Klyce - The Social Network

Leslie Shatz – Meek’s Cutoff

Eugene Gearty and Philip Stockton - Shutter Island

Richard King – Inception

Akritchalerm Kalayanamittr and Koichi Shimizu – Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

Best Soundtrack (of the century, let’s face it) – Hans Zimmer – Inception


Honorable Mentions:

Clint Mansell – Black Swan

Daft Punk – Tron: Legacy

Alexandre Desplat – The Ghost Writer

Anton Sanko – Rabbit Hole

Kjartan Sveinsson – Ondine

Best Individual Song: Derezzed by Daft Punk - Tron: Legacy

Best Production Design: Kevin Ishioka – Tron: Legacy

(Image taken from Steve Jung’s lovely website.)

Honorable Mentions:

Dante Ferretti – Shutter Island

Thérèse DePrez – Black Swan

Albrecht Konrad - The Ghost Writer

Guy Hendrix Dyas – Inception

Robert Stromberg – Alice in Wonderland

Best Costume Design: Penny Rose - Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

Honorable Mentions:

Lindy Hemming - Clash of the Titans

Michael Wilkinson / Quantum Creation FX - Tron: Legacy

Bruce Yu – Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame

Janty Yates – Robin Hood

Michael Kaplan – The Sorcerer’s Apprentice

Worst Director: Paul W.S. Anderson - Resident Evil: Afterlife

Dishonorable Mentions:

Kevin Smith – Cop Out

Alexandre Aja – Piranha 3D

Tim Burton – Alice in Wonderland

Tom Vaughan – Extraordinary Measures

Chris Columbus – Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief

Worst Screenplay: Linda Woolverton - Alice in Wonderland

Dishonorable Mentions:

Paul W.S. Anderson - Resident Evil: Afterlife

Robert Nelson Jacobs – Extraordinary Measures

Rob and Mark Cullen – Cop Out

M. Night Shyamalan – The Last Airbender

Pete Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg – Piranha 3D

Worst Cinematography – Andrew Dunn – Extraordinary Measures

Dishonorable Mentions:

Michael Watson – Skyline

Robert Richardson – Eat, Pray, Love

David Klein – Cop Out

Oliver Bokelberg – The Bounty Hunter

Michel Abramowicz - From Paris With Love

Worst Editing: Kevin Smith – Cop Out

One more to go: miscellaneous gubbins of the year, where I pick the best hair, creepiest poster, and most debonair badass, among other things.

Listmania ‘10! The Worst Movies Of The Year

With the miserable regularity of the Grinch’s alarm clock, my deafening hoots of praise give way to similarly loud hoots of derision, aimed at the lowest of the low. This inevitable post also sees the return of my usual hand-wringing, as I try to mitigate the fact that I’m bitching about a bunch of movies like some know-it-all while talented (and, I have to say, not so talented) people actually CREATE something, just to see it pilloried by some schmuck blogger. How rude of me! How arrogant! And yet here we are. Because I really felt the urge to bitch about a bunch of crappy Jennifer Aniston movies. Again.

Film critic Anne Billson was talking yesterday about the polarisation of popular opinion into either rabid fandom or frothing hate, with comment sections on many pages turning into a bear-fight between these diametrically opposed viewpoints. I have to admit this gave me pause: here I am writing about 30 movies I loved and 30 movies I thought were just appalling. If the impression I give is of someone who can only see things in black or white, bear in mind the 50-odd movies that didn’t get on either of these lists. Take The Book of Eli, for example. It doesn’t get on either list as I thought it was merely all right. If I were to list all of the movies I saw this year in order of preference, it would be squarely in the middle. It didn’t get higher because of that bone-headed twist at the end. It didn’t get any lower because I really liked a lot of the cast and the Hughes Brothers made it look nice. (Actually, it’s either that or Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, which was neither here nor there, really.)

As for these movies, it’s not black and white here either. My number one movie featured some of the most incredible production design of the year, and the generally rather amazing effects had a lovely texture to them. My number 25 movie made me laugh at it in derision, but when the dancing started I shut the hell up with a quickness, as pointed out by Daisyhellcakes. Same as with my previous list. Black Swan‘s success was not due to the screenplay, which I thought was certainly good enough, but included some clunky lines pushing the subtext into the open where it quickly withered and died. This meant little, though. It was only the odd moment, and it was easy to forget as Aronofsky weaved his amazing spell with the writers’ clever manipulation of ambiguity.

So here is my anger. I tried to at least give a rounded reason for my dislike: there are any number of shittily constructed films made each year, but there usually needs to be something more than just cynically dashed-off pandering at play. Okay! I’ll stop trying to cover my arse now.

25. Step Up 3D

It seems like an act of wanton cruelty to include something as childishly good-natured as this in the list, but note has to be made of the ineptitude of the filmmaking. Newly enrolled in university to study electrical engineering, Step Up 2‘s Moose is torn between his parent’s desire for him to forget about all of this silly dancing, and his irresistible urge to pop and lock and jive and krump or whatever its called. If he doesn’t give in to his urges, square-jawed Luke’s dance-utopia The House of Pirates (which is almost identical to Hansel’s loft in Zoolander) will be taken over by evil trust-fund asshole Julian. Oh noes! Moose’s dilemma is presented several times in identical ways (Do I attend this exam? Or the World Jam contest scheduled at the most conveniently inconvenient time possible?), to no suspense whatsoever. This is only the smallest of Step Up 3‘s flaws (the fact that 65% of the movie is made up of elaborate handshakes is another). Still, at least the dancing is AMAZEBALLS, though even then the choreographers are restricted by the need to advance the dancers into the 3D cameras as often as possible just to show iof the revolutionary technology ZOMG. I still recommend it for its good-timey atmosphere, thrilling soundtrack and mad skillz. (Seriously.)

24. Remember Me

It might think of itself as a spiritual successor to Erich Segal’s Love Story, but it feels more like an opportunistic remake of Untamed Heart, but without Christian Slater and Marisa Tomei’s spark and charisma. The story of a depressed and unpredictable young rich boy and the poor daughter of a bereaved cop sporadically hints at something more interesting: Allen Coulter wisely keeps things dour and unironic, restricting his palette to somber greys and making sure only one deeply obnoxious character ever really acts like he has a pulse. Unfortunately the casting of teen heartthrob (and co-producer) R-Pattz opposite Emilie De Ravin (sans Aaron the BAY-BAY!!!) scuppers the love story: Pattinson’s chemistry with his female lead is only slightly more convincing than with his Twilight co-star Kristin Stewart, which isn’t saying much. None of this matters, though. The offensively stupid ending wrecks everything, coming from nowhere in a futile effort to create something profound from the inconsequential goings-on, but as That Plot Twist could have been replaced by any other tragic event without changing a thing about the movie, its inclusion smacks of tasteless emotional manipulation.

23. Micmacs

The latest from Jean-Pierre Jeunet stands as the prettiest movie that made my hackles rise this year. This curious mash-up of simplistic anti-Bad-Things proselytising and cutesy slapstick has many things to commend it, not least the stunning photography, the delightful production design, the elaborate Rube-Goldberg setpieces. Even the weird tonal mismatch that sees a bunch of DELIGHTFUL eccentrics conspiring against two beastly arms dealers is interesting, though it veers close to the edge of trivialising a serious subject. Nevertheless, personal bias intrudes. As with Wes Anderson — a filmmaker with his share of detractors — Jeunet’s style can overwhelm all other praise if you’re not onboard with his sub-Chaplin shtick. It’s a delight to look at, but if you’re in any way immune to the trick of having a bunch of simpering ninnies endlessly grinning at the camera while accordion music coats the whimsical proceedings with an unnecessary extra layer of treacle, this is not the movie for you. The jokes are almost all unforgivably bad, too. Consider this not necessarily “terrible”: more “unbearable if you have a low tolerance for twee things”.

22. Biutiful

Why is this movie — a critically acclaimed project from an award-winning director, dealing with weighty themes like poverty and death and redemption and sorrow, filmed with great skill by a talented photographer and featuring some of the best sound work of the year — at number 22 on this list? Solely because of Javier Bardem’s towering performance as Uxbal, a man tortured to almost comical lengths by the unseen hands of misery-pornographer Alejandro González Iñárritu. If it wasn’t for Bardem, this movie would be in the top five. Smearing nasty-smelling mud on your face might be advertised as being good for your skin, but it’s still stinky, nasty mud that takes ages to wash off. Biutiful is the same thing: a worthy (God I hate worthy movies) attempt to give audiences a first-person view of what poverty is. Except it isn’t really. It’s just a weirdly sadistic attempt to degrade a character just for the sake of it. The texture of the movie, the technical achievement, and Bardem’s stunning emotive work are all commendable, but this is nothing more than fibre for your brain’s bowels, with no intellectual-nutritional value added.

21. Devil

Some of us have taken to laughing at poor M. Night Shyamalan, mostly because no one likes a cocky jerk who loves to position himself as the greatest storyteller on the planet (even going so far as to cast himself as such in a particularly misguided movie), but it has to be said, even when the tales he tells are nowhere near as clever as he thinks they are, his attention to pace and composition — not to mention his use of silence — make his films worth catching. Devil shows this disparity between bone-headedness and base-line competence brilliantly. Conceived as the first Night Chronicle, Devil sees one of M. Night’s sub-Twilight-Zone scribblings fleshed out to almost feature length, taking a passable twist and surrounding it with histrionic performances and PG-13-friendly hints at nastiness. It could have been a lot of fun, as proved by its spiritual ancestor Phone Booth, especially as some smart people worked on it. Unfortunately this falls far, far short of its potential.

20. Clash of the Titans

It’s tempting to say that one day someone will make a good movie out of the entertaining core idea that mortals would rebel against the Gods, but for all we know, Louis Leterrier did make a good movie before it was edited down into this incoherent and contradictory mess. This Chud report on the original script lays bare the form the original version would have taken, and it seems like it could have been better. It would at least make sense, correct the madness that is the “romantic” sub-plot between Perseus and Io, and give Danny Huston some proper screentime as Poseidon: a fairly important change, seeing as how he gets namechecked in the pre-credit narration but only appears in the movie for three seconds. Sidelining the Gods in favour of choppily-edited quest gubbins with a cadre of unappealing and underwritten humans is a movie-killing disaster, and only a couple of bravura effects sequences lift this Olympian failure out of the mire of its own making.

19. The Last Airbender

This soporific adaptation of the beloved US anime-homage makes last year’s execrable Dragonball Evolution look like Zu Warriors of the Magic Mountain. For all his faults, Shyamalan is an expert at telling stories at a crawl: it’s one of the reasons why it’s hard to discount him as a filmmaker even as he makes one bad movie after another. However, handing him an entire TV season’s worth of story to boil down to a single movie was a dreadful mistake that cannot be fixed. It feels like days pass while badly sketched and poorly performed characters impart stilted exposition in an attempt to fill up the plot chasms that litter the narrative, though that is preferable to the numerous endless scenes in which a bunch of kids practise tai chi in front of a green screen. The leaden pace continues through the sporadic action, presented mostly in long slow-motion takes that lack the energy necessary to differentiate them from the rest of the movie. When it finally ends, the viewer can only thank the Gods that the studio would never have released anything that ran longer than this.

18. Jonah Hex

Josh Brolin is slowly becoming Old Dependable. He was the best thing about Oliver Stone’s woeful W and significantly better Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, and single-handedly keeps DC’s cobbled-together Western fantasy from being worse than Wild Wild West, though it’s a close call. He also seems to be the only person with a handle on what the character is meant to be, as writers Neveldine/Taylor and director Jimmy Hayward seem to think he has magical powers. Putting nerd-preciousness about this odd choice aside, blame should be pointed at whoever got cold feet midway through the making of this obviously unmarketable curio and went into a major panic in the editing room, because what ended up onscreen should never have been released. A hollow frame of a potentially more enjoyable movie, Jonah Hex becomes less and less bearable as it trudges toward an incoherent finale that screams reshoot.

17. Sex and the City 2

Michael Patrick King’s hedonistic fantasy is as unhinged as any David Lynch nightmare, portraying a baffling world of noise and colour filled with ghastly caricatures. Argument has raged about whether the movie is as insensitive as it initially seems, treating religion and gender issues as unwelcome distractions from the all-important act of converting the entire world into an vast mall for the benefit of the improbably wealthy. Criticism of the characters — now unrecognisable when compared to the versions in the TV series — has also raised hackles: to pass judgement on these almost comically self-absorbed monsters is to somehow pass judgement on all women everywhere, though it’s worth pointing out that this group of anti-empathic wire-frame maquettes masquerading as humans don’t even seem to be enjoying their profligate lifestyle any more than we are when watching, so emulation might not be such a good idea. So how about this, SotC2 defenders. Can I just hate the movie for being poorly told, ineptly shot, incomprehensibly edited, unfunny, dull, and a waste of Chris Noth? Please? Can I?

16. Twilight: Eclipse

The startlingly poor quality of the Twilight franchise has been almost forgivable thus far due to the unreliable nature of the directors: Catherine Hardwicke and Chris Weitz are hardly visionary filmmakers, and can only be blamed so much for failing to create life from such barren narrative ground. This time there was no excuse. David Slade’s previous movies – Hard Candy and 40 Days of Night – showed promise, but somehow he turned in the most tedious Twilight movie so far: some achievement. Then again, what could he do? Original author Stephenie Meyer and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable to break every rule of storytelling by barely even progressing the narrative forward. At the start of this interminable torture device the main characters are dealing with Edward’s proposal of marriage to Bella, and in the final scene they have returned to that starting point with almost nothing changed. A few minutes of vampire-on-vampire fight action and lots of chest-baring from poor Taylor Lautner do not count as a story. A truly unforgivable waste of time.

15. The Expendables

Sylvester Stallone’s horrid action epic could well be the misfire of the year, seemingly going out of its way to alienate the exact audience it seemed to be pandering to. How can you attract an action-movie cast of such perfection and then give them nothing interesting to do? How can you take the idea of a band of badass mammajammas going on a berserk killing spree to save a single damsel in distress from an entire army of ne’er-do-wells — headed up by ERIC ROBERTS for God’s sake – and make it so bland? How do you cast Shades of Caruso favourite Terry “President Dwayne Camacho” Crews and render him practically mute? The politics are marginally less unpleasant than Stallone’s last Rambo movie, and the action antics are arguably crazier, but even though this is meant to be more of a romp than Rambo – with its insane melange of rapings, baby-killings and pedophilia punished by lots and lots and lots of righteous American gunfire – it still manages to be far less fun. Of all the disappointments we had this year, this might be the most profound (which is more than can be said for the film. EY-YOOOO!).

14. Essential Killing

Hey, if you can’t stand to hear Vincent Gallo talk in his weird nasal voice about how much he hates black people or about how much his semen is worth because he’s a superior being, this is the movie for you! Reduced by filmmaker Jerzy Skolimowski into a mute figure struggling to get from one point to an indeterminate other over hills and trees and snow and more hills, Gallo manages to be the only interesting thing going on, his face a tornado of bewildered terror hidden behind an impressive Rasputin beard. Nothing else is happening here. Using a Taleban “soldier” as a protagonist might seem shocking, but as seen in the wake of Chris Morris’ excellent and empathic Four Lions, Skolimowski’s movie seems more like an act of defiant but empty provocation, the adolescent behaviour of someone who would probably think scrawling “BOOB SEX” on a church wall is the height of inflammatory protest. Uninteresting even as a survival tale, the meaning of the movie seems to be that there is no meaning, but this is a message that has been delivered many times before in far more affecting and profound ways.

13. The Bounty Hunter

One of the many dreadful things about this mechanical romactioncom is that someone, somewhere, watched Midnight Run and thought, “You know what would make this movie better? If Jack Walsh and Jonathan Mardukas were actually IN LOVE!” Though that’s better than the other inspiration: the thought that everyone will love to see a burly, malformed man dragging his recalcitrant shrew wife around like the pissy cavegirl she really is. Respect is due director Andy Tennant for making this wholly unappealing set-up much less disturbing than it could have been. Nevertheless, the entire misguided project deserves censure for playing to the demographic that thinks women need to be tamed by their hubby, and no amount of strong-headed behaviour from Jennifer Aniston is going to soften that message, especially when she pitches that behaviour as “bossy” instead — modulation of tone is not her strong suit, though admittedly she’s a hell of a lot more watchable than Gerard Butler. Compared to this farrago, even Killers – directed by no less than Shades of Caruso bête noire Robert Luketic — seems like a diverting romp. Still, at least Jason Sudeikis is funny here.

12. Piranha 3D

When making an exploitation flick it can be hard to make gratuitous sex and violence entertaining without crossing over into sleaziness, but it’s not impossible. Joe Dante’s original Piranha movie did a great job of staying classy even while catering to the baser instincts of the audience. Alexandre Aja’s miserable B-movie homage has neither class nor smarts, but it does have boobs and blood. Hilariously its main villain is a Joe-Francis-esque scumbag (a well-cast but inept Jerry O’Connell) who is punished for exploiting women by having his cock bitten off by a prehistoric carnivore. What dire fate awaits the filmmakers for also punishing almost every scantily clad woman in the film with grisly and explicitly gory death while the male characters are mostly killed off screen? The unapologetic fratboy misogyny is breathtaking, and calling it “ironic” when there is no evidence of that beggars belief. Shades of Caruso can enjoy a schlocky horror comedy as much as the next blog, but it actually has to contain a scintilla of entertainment value. This doesn’t. The critical free-pass it got for its humour (?!?!?!) is 2010′s most inexplicable event.

11. Valentine’s Day

According to Box Office Mojo, Garry Marshall’s criss-crossing rom-”com” made over $213m dollars worldwide. If you average out ticket prices at $10 each, that means approximately 21 million people developed diabetes in February this year. The DVDs for this (don’t bother with Blu-Ray, it won’t tax your TV) should come with a syringe and insulin, just in case. Coming off like Paul Haggis’ Crash as directed by Tommy Wiseau, this multi-strand ode to love seems to have been sponsored by the Valentine’s Day Corporation, considering how often the name of the day is invoked (it averages once every two minutes). It’s deliberately heightened and old-fashioned: heightened in that no one acts like a human being and old-fashioned because there is nothing here you haven’t seen before, except maybe Eric Dane’s sub-plot. It’s also unfeasibly twee, almost odiously so. The only fun to be had is to embrace the bewildering inclusion of Anne Hathaway’s character earning extra bucks as a phone-sex operative. Was this a homage to Jennifer Jason Leigh’s plot in Short Cuts? Would this mean her boyfriend Topher Grace would kill someone? Can I get away with referring to this movie as Shit Cuts?

10. Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief

Last year I asked if anyone could stop Chris Columbus making movies. I ask it again in 2010, but with greater urgency. The success of the Harry Potter book and film franchise makes it inevitable that others would seek to profit by something similar, but who would have guessed that Rick Riordan’s book series would be turned into a movie with Philosopher’s Stone director Columbus at the helm? Saying he phoned this one in is the understatement of the decade, but let’s give him his due: it would take someone with actual talent to breathe life into a screenplay this lazily derivative. The cynicism of the enterprise is matched only by its gallumphing appropriation of another country’s mythology, cynically stealing the Gods and monsters of Ancient Greece and “sassily” translating them into forms deemed appropriate for modern American audiences: Medusa comes out especially poorly, thanks to another excruciating performance from Uma Thurman. Still, at least it has Pierce Brosnan’s hysterical turn as a seemingly inebriated centaur to recommend it, for all the wrong reasons.

9. Chatroom

When Aaron “All Bloggers Are Idiots” Sorkin has made a more nuanced and sympathetic exploration of the Internet’s impact on today’s youth than you have, alarm bells should be ringing. Watching Hideo Nakata and Enda Walsh’s intellectually vacant psycho-drama is one of the more depressing experiences of the movie-going year, and not just because Nakata doesn’t get to use his incredible ability to create an atmosphere of choking dread. Chatroom‘s biggest crime is to dramatise — without any perceivable irony or counter-commentary — the kind of alarmist drivel spouted by the Luddite know-nothings infesting the pages of the Daily Mail. The Internet and the online society of chatroom denizens is depicted as a garish tumult of porn, inconsequentiality and lurking evil, with kids at the mercy of deranged predators who attempt to drive them to suicide. The Mail’s panic is ripe for adaptation, discussion and/or satire, but Chatroom merely re-enforces the fear. As Shades of Caruso was borne of a fortuitous online meeting, we’re bound to be less forgiving, especially when this movie is so poorly conceived, staged and acted.

8. Extraordinary Measures

CBS Films launched with this heavily-promoted true-story drama about a father’s fight for his children against the heartless medical establishment, and followed it up with insemination comedy The Back-Up Plan, which could count as the least auspicious launch of a production company since Hollywood Pictures released a roster of non-hits like Taking Care of Business and V.I. Warshawski. Produced by Harrison Ford in a rare burst of energy, this muddled TV movie-writ-not-much-larger — a Lorenzo’s Fail for our time — focuses on the father’s drearily-sketched battle against bureaucracy (yay!) and the scientific method (ya… whuh?) while sidelining the scientist who did all the actual research, a man who is dismissed as an “eccentric” but “lovable” curmudgeon, with his weirdness depicted as a bit of tetchiness (“I ALREADY WORK AROUND THE CLOCK!!!”) and a tendency to listen to The Band a little too loudly. Someone lock this maverick up before he hurts someone! Only a movie as anodyne as this could consider this the behaviour of an outsider. Ford escapes censure on old-school charisma alone: Brendan Fraser is not so lucky.

7. Knight and Day

When people accuse Hollywood of only making bland films with the edges shaved off, they forget that sometimes something perverse ends up on screen. How else to describe a movie where a woman ends up stalked, persecuted, Roofied, and abducted by what appears to be an elderly psychopath with a bad dye-job who at one point shoots her boyfriend. Perhaps the bad thing about this potentially subversive masterpiece is that it is actually meant to be a light-hearted spy romp with a bit of action for the boys, a bit of romance for the girls, and a bit of Rohypnol-assisted kidnap action for the serial killers. Therefore, the effect is a troubling disconnect between the tone and the onscreen events, such that you wonder who the hell thought it was a good idea to make it. James Mangold is usually fairly reliable, but nothing here works. No joke lands, no spark flies between its robotic leads, and no tension is generated. Even worse, the poorly utilised action scenes and shitty FX sequences are edited into an image-scramble that only tie your optic nerves into a knot. It stands as a catastrophic failure on every possible level.

6. It’s Kind of a Funny Story

Since writing this review of It’s Kind of a Funny Story — the tale of a young boy with suicidal tendencies who ends up in a mental institution alongside adults with mental health problems – I’ve been told by people who experienced similar problems during adolescence that Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden did a good job of capturing what it feels like to suffer depression as a teen. I bow to their better knowledge of this, and accept that the filmmakers have done their research. Sadly that doesn’t mean that their pandering filmmaking is any more tolerable, or their cutesy take on the mental illness of the older characters — who are depicted mostly as preternaturally wise due to their innocent wide-eyed view of life — is excusable. So many poor decisions have been made here that it is hard to catalogue them all, though the waste of a great cast is possibly the worst crime, with the exception of the magnificent Zach Galafianakis. Despite his considerable efforts, this is One Flew Over The Neutered Cuckoo’s Nest, hermetically sealed in pink-tinged plastic to make sure nothing even vaguely troubling leaks out.

5. The Switch

Some movies fail when they don’t achieve what they set out to do, others when they were misconceived in the first place. The Switch should now be considered the archetypal example of the second kind of bad movie. Taking a short story by Jeffrey Eugenides as its starting point, this non-comedy non-drama sits flatly on the screen, with formerly likeable performers moving from one position to another, honking noises at each other that pass as communication. If that description lacks detail, it’s because the movie lacks definition too. The synopsis states that Jason Bateman’s emotional cripple substitutes Handsome-But-Horrid Patrick Wilson’s semen for his own, which is then used by Jennifer Aniston to create a mini-Bateman who is just as unpleasant as his father. Hijinks resolutely refuse to ensue. The entire enterprise misses so many of its expected marks that it becomes a completely mystifying experience. It’s so anti-funny — while bearing all of the markings and pace of a comedy — that it almost becomes a curio worthy of recommendation. If you’re watching movies on a regular basis, The Switch should be essential viewing, much like it’s essential to see the world’s biggest ball of twine when travelling through Missouri. However this doesn’t make it any less terrible and depressing.

4. Cop Out

Kevin Smith has a skill worth celebrating: he can throw together rambling jumbles of perfunctory plot and scatalogical dialogue in such an endearing way that – with his best movies — the shaky direction cannot prevent audience goodwill from forming. So why oh why oh why would he volunteer to direct a script by someone else that’s of such amateurish quality? It’s like condensing a negative into a supernegative against all the laws of mathematics. Smith might argue — vehemently, and with ever-growing fury, if you follow him on Twitter — that the movie is a homage to the buddy cop movies of the 80s and 90s, but putting a faux-Faltermeyer soundtrack over the leaden action and ill-timed comedy is not enough. The majority of the movie is tough to watch, with Bruce Willis’ nap being continually interrupted by Tracy Morgan’s incessant shrieking, but things get worse with a mechanical and unconvincing shift into dramatic territory in the final act. The killing blow is Smith’s decision to edit the movie: it’s such a shoddy job that the studio should have wrested it from Smith’s hands and finished it themselves. Let’s hope Smith’s next movie – Red State — is better than this. Or at least competently made.

3. Eat, Pray, Love

Perhaps not the best movie to appear during these times of cutbacks and sacrifice. There’s an argument that movies like this are a nice way to escape reality, but perhaps only if there is an element of genuine humility present, some sense that the subject of the movie is aware of their good fortune. Instead, Ryan “Glee” Murphy’s vacuous travelogue presents the trivial concerns of a privileged narcissist as worthy of pity and emulation, even going so far as to remove mention of Elizabeth Gilbert’s fortuitous book deal – which funded her trips around the world – and act as if she was broke the whole time, thus turning her adventure into some kind of indulgent fairytale populated by caricatured foreigners and airbrushed poverty. With this and Sex and the City 2 it’s possible there is a terrible disconnect forming as Hollywood realises it is wrong to assume that the only way to relate to women is to celebrate conspicuous consumption, and so tries to dress up the lifestyle-porn with spiritual and political frills, but at its heart, it remains cynical, patronising, and empty. It makes Somewhere – Sofia Coppola’s similarly troublesome snapshot of the woes of the rich and lazy — look like 8 ½. Avoid as if t’were plague-ridden.

2. Resident Evil: Afterlife

The AV Club ends every year with a Least Essential Album list, where the writers pick over the kind of records you might find it hard to imagine could possibly exist. This year Paul W.S. Anderson – now officially the British incarnation of Dr. Uwe Boll – made the least essential film. Did we really need another 90 minutes of Milla “Frown” Jovovich firing two guns in slow motion at poorly made-up zombies? What story was told here? The opening fifteen minutes retcon the third movie out of existence (especially egregious as Russell Mulcahy’s attempt at breathing life into the franchise was the only halfway decent Resident Evil movie to date), and then we plod through a siege plot we’ve seen countless times before, without bringing anything fresh to the scenario. Anderson is quite simply the worst storyteller on the planet, someone who has no idea of how the mechanics of a plot are meant to work, or how to play with narrative expectations to create new forms or even entertainment on the most basic level. He can only steal from better movies, and then corrupt those ideas by using them without understanding why they worked in the first place. He seems pleased with this low-effort plagiarism, but that’s no reason to let him off the hook.

1. Alice in Wonderland

Was Hook not a lesson to us all not to tamper with works of wonder? Tim Burton’s mystifyingly successful re-imagining of Lewis Carroll’s Alice stories does many things wrong even just on a surface level: that tedious Danny Elfman score; the weird obsession with violence against eyes; the torpor that infects everyone as they stand stiffly in front of green screens; the lazy cribbing from the Lord of the Rings films; introducing the amazing Mia Wazikowska to a wider audience with such an unchallenging role, etc. Most egregious, though, is the decision to treat the original stories as prequel to a standard Chosen-One-against-the-Evil-Empire fantasy plot that ran out of juice years ago. All Burton can bring to this overused plot is the heinous reappropriation of Carroll’s characters, hacking at their personalities so that they fit into slots in the mechanical narrative machine, with the Mad Hatter as Morpheus, the Caterpillar as the Oracle, and the Jabberwocky as Agent Smith. Alice in Wonderland (and no, NOT Underland) would be on this list already for the lack of effort expended, but this feeble, energy-sapping exercise in monetising the magical earns my eternal hate for corrupting books of true poetry and mind-expanding eccentricity, debasing Carroll’s delightful imaginative flourishes by transforming them into base elements in a rote plot. It’s a cause for concern that this flaccid monstrosity will fool new readers into mistaking Carroll’s fantasy for a mere forerunner to this “spectacular” “epic”, but hopefully new readers will still derive pleasure and insight into Carroll’s wondrous imagination, and forget that Tim Burton and Disney ever embarked on this unforgivable act of mindless cultural vandalism.

Dishonorable Mentions:

Boogie Woogie: A movie about art that is thoroughly artless. Duncan Ward and Danny Moynihan’s art-world satire is hideously ugly and only sporadically amusing, with the acting split between very entertaining and thoroughly dreadful. Farce should be lively, but the only thing with any energy here is the devilish laugh of the ever-wonderful Danny Huston. Sadly it merely echoes off the barren walls of the cavernous warehouse sets.

The Infidel: Ostensibly an irreverent take on Middle-Eastern identity politics played out in culturally diverse London, David Baddiel’s script and Josh Appapignesi’s 80′s-esque direction instead smacks of toothless sitcom laziness, relying on the usual jokes about Jewish culture and the inevitable frisson of the sight of an Iranian in a yarmulke. Not as daring as it thinks it is. Or as funny. Omid Djalili gives it his all, though.

Gentleman Broncos: Released in the US last year, this latest curio from Jared and Jerusha Hess features their signature blend of idiot-mocking and more idiot-mocking, this time with a touch of sci-fi fan-mocking. Treading similarly mean-spirited ground as their breakout hit Napoleon Dynamite, Broncos at least has a funny turn from Jermaine Clement, and some defiantly crazed work from SoC heartthrob Hott Sam Rockwell.

Killers: A Robert Luketic movie that didn’t make my bottom 25? Can it be? Well, yes, but with caveats. Perhaps this would have been a contender were it not for Knight and Day resetting the bar so low, but even so, this has more life than anything else by SoC’s least favourite director. Which doesn’t mean it’s not terrible. The Demon Heigl is her usual unlikeable self, but somehow Tom Selleck sucked too! Bah!

The Wolfman: After years of wrangles with directors and script rewrites, Joe Johnston finally brought Universal’s lycanthrope to the big screen with some truly beautiful photography, production design and effects, but absolutely zero emotional charge. Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins sleepwalk through the disappointing carnage while superstar Emily Blunt does all the heavy work. As usual.

Soon to come: performances and crew contributions of the year, and my desperate attempt not to give almost every bit of praise to just one movie.

Oh… Oh… Oh… The Summertime Polls…

Seems we skipped spring and jumped straight from winter to summer, which means I haven’t had time to get properly excited for the summer movie season, which — as I have explained many times before — is my Christmas, birthday, and Hallowe’en rolled into a single ball of concentrated superdense JOY. I’m making up for lost time by getting psyched right now, and part of that process involves this poll. Every summer I do a survey of which movies readers of Shades of Caruso are looking forward to most, safe in the knowledge that there are usually a number of movies that look like they will provide a decent afternoon of entertainment and a few good trailers before that which we can pick apart and get all excited about.

However, this year? Much as I’d like to pretend it isn’t the case, I strongly suspect everyone hopes Iron Man 2 and Inception will be great, and the rest can go hang. How did this happen? Are we still experiencing aftershocks from the writers’ strike? Last year was the worst year I can remember for lacklustre popcorn crowd-pleasers, though that might have been the execrable Wolverine dragging down the average. This year there are certainly some movies I’m looking forward to, but they all seem to be in the shadow of Robert Downey Jr. being cocky in a metal suit and Joseph Gordon-Levitt doing gravity-defying flips in a corridor or something. Jake Gyllenhaal with his magic sand and Liam Neeson with white hair just isn’t cutting it.

Nevertheless, even with this miserable roster of summer flicks to choose from, I still managed 21 options, covering all of the bases from kids films to moody historical epics, horror movies to sci-fi blowouts, action movies to “chick flicks” (sorry for using that phrase), and a Western featuring a disfigured DC Comics anti-hero who has Gatling Guns attached to his saddle (pardon me for thinking that is TOTES SICK). And yet I will be absolutely amazed if Iron Man 2 doesn’t walk it, with the only competition coming from Christopher Nolan’s cerebral sci-fi headfuck. Yes, I think Piranha 3D will somehow fail to triumph against that competition.

Here are the options, with handy linkage to some of the movies I’ve decided upon just in case you were unaware they existed: something which is entirely possible considering the utter lack of buzz for, say, the Mr.-and-Mrs.-Smith-alike Knight and Day, or Katherine Heigl’s latest cinematic torture instrument, Killers (directed by long-time Shades of Caruso bête noire Robert Luketic). Anyway, here are the twenty-one choices:

Let me know what you think in comments, if you’re as disappointed by this summer schedule as I am, though if you want to argue for Katherine Heigl’s immense talent, please don’t, as your entreaties will fall on deaf ears. In the meantime, check out this awesome promotional event for Iron Man 2, which had better be amazing or I’ll aim several angry tweets at Jon Favreau.

If that’s not your speed, here’s Christopher Nolan researching dreams n’ stuff for Inception.

If that sucks, Nolan’s not on Twitter, so I won’t know what to do. Ideas welcome.

The Top One Hundred and Six Movies of the Oughts (30-16)

As I approach the end of this project that was meant to be over in a day (it kinda ran out of control), I find that more and more of my choices are populist crowdpleasers, mostly because I’ve watched them with greater frequency and taken them into my heart. Nevertheless, even though they’re frowned upon, I don’t think they should be missed off lists like this. It’s no easy feat to create movies that can entertain large groups of people without heading for the bottom of the barrel, and in fact, I’d argue that aiming for the lowest common denominator fails to please crowds any way. G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra was meant to be a big dumb action flick for big crowds of hooting boys of all ages, but it didn’t set the world alight. I’d like to think it was because people have more discerning tastes than they’re credited with. And now, someone somewhere is thinking, “But what about the success of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen?” I got nothing. [/sheepish]

And now, the movies I missed off part of this list business. Yes, I didn’t put Pan’s Labyrinth in the list. It honestly left me cold first time I saw it, though I did like it a lot, and thought Ivana Baquero and Sergi López were excellent. For the record, Daisyhellcakes loved it enough for both of us. My reservations were the same as I always have for Guillermo Del Toro’s movies, that for all his incredible flights of fantasy and attention to detail, they often feel like the work of a very talented adolescent who has not quite reached maturity. Pan’s Labyrinth is the closest he has come to this, but still it struck me that maybe Del Toro had bitten off more than he could chew. He also has terrible problems with pacing, choosing slow and steady but occasionally shooting off on tangents that make his movies grind to a frustrating halt.

That said, his eye is incredible, and all of the movies he has made this decade are staggeringly beautiful. For that alone I should give him some list props, but if I was honest, the movie I would choose would either be Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (which I praised here), or Blade 2. Both of them were more fun and filled with memorable images, but lacking the critical cachet that his homage to Spirit of the Beehive did. No matter. They both rocked my socks off. Consider them honorary mentions. And if I get to see Pan’s Labyrinth again, there’s always the chance that it will win me over. I hope so.

That brings me to the penultimate part of this list. Hopefully I can finish it all off today just so I can chill out over the weekend.

30. The Bourne Ultimatum

There is no slack in the rousing conclusion to the Bourne trilogy. Has there ever been a movie this propulsive, this energetic, this exhausting? Paul Greengrass strips every shot down to its essence, his camera focusing on every salient detail like a laser. Even better, he brings Bourne’s story to a satisfying close, turning the deadly assassin into a Spy Jesus who “dies” for the sins of his brothers. Arguably the best action movie since Die Hard.

29. The Insider

Featuring Russell Crowe’s first great US performance and Al Pacino’s last, Michael Mann’s 21st Century masterpiece pitches two men on the side of truth against the unfeeling machine of modern capitalism. As thrilling as the most hectic action movie you can imagine, and beautifully shot by Dante Spinotti, it’s also the best corporate thriller of recent times.

28. Unbreakable

M. Night Shyamalan’s best movie was treated like a failure upon release, but as his work becomes more erratic with every year, we can now look back on this love letter to comics with clearer eyes. His stately aesthetic was never used better than in telling the tale of a reluctant superhero and his hidden nemesis, and he deserves praise for extracting such a sensitive and quiet performance from Bruce Willis.

27. Magnolia

Paul Thomas Anderson’s sprawling patchwork might be self-indulgent, but it was also playful, emotional, and performed to perfection by a magnificent cast. Anderson has always been confident, but here he found a vehicle for his storytelling ideas that matched that ambition, something loose enough to allow for all the meta-narrative trickery. It also featured this jarring but unforgettable moment:

26. The Fountain

On first viewing, Darren Aronofsky’s meditation on life and death seems like an over-ambitious but impressive failure. Repeated viewings reveal its depth, its thematic strength, its perfect fusion of sound and image, building to a finale of terrifying and humbling power. In decades to come, it will be rightly hailed as a masterpiece.

25. Kung Fu Panda

An exhilarating rush of lovable enthusiasm from a company who had previously made nothing but forgettable chaff. Dreamworks Animation paid homage to Chinese culture with respect and style, aided by a never-better Jack Black playing a fanboy given a chance to live his dream. It’s pure escapist joy from start to finish.

24. Rushmore

Wes Anderson’s second movie was the one that turned his name into a adjective used to describe whimsical, cutesy indie nonsense. Thankfully his movies are cleverer than most, plus he has a weapon that many critics ignore in favour of whining about his formalism: crackerjack comic timing. Though I love all of Anderson’s movies, this was my introduction to that skewed universe, delivering the Shock of the New with a smirk and discerning use of Who songs.

23. Three Kings

David O. Russell manages to capture some of the genius of Catch-22 in his tale of soldiers hustling to steal Saddam’s gold as the first Gulf War winds down. It’s also a work of almost avant-garde oddness that bends cinema convention while providing laughs, pathos and action. A near-miraculous mixture of genres and tones.

22. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Ignored on first release, Shane Black’s hard-boiled detective homage is slowly gathering a following of fans in love with its word games and playful distortion of genre expectations. It’s also a perfect showcase for the talents of Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer, who prove to be one of the great movie double-acts.

21. Galaxy Quest

Half satire of genre convention, half love letter to the genre and its fanbase, Dean Parisot, David Howard, and Robert Gordon’s hybrid of Star Trek and The Magnificent Seven is quite possibly a perfect movie, and qualifies as the best work many of its cast has ever done. For example, is this moment Alan Rickman’s finest?

20. X2: X-Men United

Bryan Singer’s first X-Men movie was good enough to kickstart the superhero genre’s domination of the decade’s box office, but his sequel was on a whole new level. The satisfyingly complex narrative is a great starting point, but Singer then adds a series of bravura action setpieces that would only fail to melt the heart of the most obstinate and aggrieved fanboy. I may have yelped like a joyful puppy more than once during my first viewing.

19. Rachel Getting Married

The triumphant return of Jonathan Demme to filmmaking greatness. Even though he had not used it in a mainstream movie for a while, his loose aesthetic proved to be a perfect fit for Jenny Lumet’s piercing script about a family trying to enjoy a wedding while Anne Hathaway’s Kym — the living reminder of an awful tragedy — shows up and tries to bring everyone down.

18. Zodiac

David Fincher’s movie about the San Francisco Zodiac killings pretty much ate itself here, as he turned his obsession with the case into an exploration of how it possessed all those who tried to solve it. Is this as close as we’ll get to a personal movie from this impersonal perfectionist? No matter. What counts is his total mastery of mood and mise en scene, and his ability to make crowd-pleasing entertainment out of such dark material.

17. Memento

This mindbending crime thriller had a brilliant conceit that attracted all of the attention. The tale of vengeance-seeking Leonard (Guy Pierce) cleverly mimics his neurological disorder, and is told backwards and forwards simultaneously, meeting in the middle. Nevertheless, as with Christopher Nolan’s Prestige, it’s really a tragic story of how a man’s dark heart will bring him to destroy himself and others for the stupidest reasons.

16. Elephant

The award-winning centrepiece of Gus Van Sant’s Béla-Tarr-period is a hypnotic and gut-wrenching cinematic experience, and the best depiction of youthful nihilism since Tim Hunter’s River’s Edge. Harnessing long tracking shots, a fractured narrative, and the amazing soundwork of Leslie Shatz to discombobulate the viewer, Van Sant’s movie captures only a fraction of the horror of the Columbine school shootings, but that fraction is enough to chill the blood.

And now I embark on the final leg of this journey, with exhaustion gripping my branes. Wish me luck.

Hancock Defeated By Wuxi Finger Hold And Awesomeness

I was really really rooting for Hancock. Shades of Caruso loves Peter Berg, and wants his movies to make enough money that he can salvage the many box office disappointments from his back catalogue. We also wanted Hancock to be good enough to silence the doubters who have been complaining about it since it was announced, and, possibly most of all, wanted to see Will Smith being generally excellent. Well, it’s made a boatload of money (and its overseas gross is big too), and Will Smith was great, but his performance was not what we expected. In fact, the film is not what anyone would have expected, and for that, we have to blame the marketers for making this look like a funny film about a self-loathing superhero when it mostly isn’t, and also we need to point a finger at writers Vincent Ngo and X-Files ace Vince Gilligan, and director Peter Berg, for not knowing how to make the material they had work.

I’ll go into details after the spoiler marker, but consider this my capsule review. John Dykstra’s effects are pretty undistinguished and messy. Berg’s decision to film this the same way he filmed Friday Night Lights and The Kingdom might have made some sense thematically, but it’s a horribly ugly film with a sickeningly grey palette that made my head hurt (not helped by seeing the jawdroppingly beautiful Kung Fu Panda first).


I didn’t totally hate it, though. The three leads are great, which is a big deal for me as I’m not a fan of Charlize Theron but was impressed by her in this (Canyon was less impressed). Jason Bateman is so likeable in this he steals the film, adds a lot of emotion that would otherwise be lacking, and though he at first seems to be nothing more than Michael Bluth after marrying Rita, comes good in the otherwise frustrating final act. His dramatic role in The Kingdom was no fluke, it seems. Will Smith comes out okay too, and the box office gross suggests we are still on our way to renaming the next thousand years the Willennium. That said, in terms of his career, he just made his Golden Child, or Far and Away. I hope his next project is a 100% success. FYI, I will never apologise for being a Will Smith fan. Get used to it.

Even better than those little pleasures, my personal superhero movie bugbear didn’t come into play; Hancock might start the film as an asshole, but he is really a hero, a proper hero who helps people and doesn’t just fight supervillains with whom he has a personal connection. One of the main themes of the movie is about wanting to do the right thing even though it doesn’t seem to be worthwhile. That character trait really pleased me, and made up for a lot of the unfocused events in the latter half of the movie.


Anyway, time to carp. Kung Fu Panda praise follows later.

————–Hancock spoilers follow————-

The biggest problem in Hancock is the mid-movie twist, which, after we left the cinema and discussed it, isn’t really a twist, more a shift in story perspective that makes the first half of the film seem like a pre-inciting incident sequence stretched to 45 minutes. That section of the movie, concerning Hancock’s depression and attempts to better himself and become a beloved hero, contains many funny moments and unexpected pathos, but if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen a lot of the best parts. However, the trailers will make you think this is the whole point of the film, and give no hints as to what it really is. The depression and bad behaviour of Hancock are the set-up for the big reveal later in the movie, and if you thought you were going to see a superhero spoof, you’re wrong. It’s a straight superhero movie with a mythology that might have made more sense in the first draft (though some people are not too keen even on that), that has been mistakenly seen as a twist movie whereas it is a story different than the one we were sold, one which has its emotional centre buried in the final moments of the film, which then crawls over the finish line with zero energy and a frustrating lack of resonance. That’s a problem with the script, but also with the handling of it. It’s fair to say that Berg, who re-edited the finale several times in order to beat the bad feedback from test screenings, had to change even more than just the underwhelming ending, considering how the original script featured Hancock having ejaculation issues, something that is totally absent from the movie.

Too much of the movie is lying on an editing room floor for it to make any sense. Perhaps a two hour version would work better. This ninety minute version feels like two episodes of a TV show called Hancock shmushed together to make a feature film (just like in the 70s when Glen A. Larson was trying to squeeze more money out of his creations), but sadly the Hancock showrunners have ineptly combined a mid-season comedy episode and an end-of-season high drama episode, not realising they don’t quite go together. With two halves battling against each other, what’s the story it’s trying to tell? Even once we had picked it over while eating an excellent burger just off Abbey Road neither of us had a clue, and after tinkering with it for a long time, I doubt Berg knew either.


The second half of the movie concerns Hancock discovering that he is one of many millennia-old heroes created by the Gods to protect humanity, but forced to be apart from them due to his immense power. Luckily, the Gods knew that their minions were bound to want to settle down eventually, and so created them in pairs, where each one of them acts as a power dampener for the other, allowing them to live as a human couple if they so wanted. That’s happened to every other hero on the planet, except for Hancock and his opposite, Charlize Theron. All of the others are now dead, for reasons not clearly explained. It’s either old age, accidents, or “Them” that have picked them off. Who are “Them”? You’ve got me. Neither of us could understand that plot point, or if the evil Red, played by Eddie Marsan, is one of these “Them”s that are important enough to be referred to but not important enough to be explained. One thing that is stressed very late in the film, however, is that proximity to each other sets off the power drain, and only living as far apart as possible allows them to remain super.

I can get behind the idea of a mythology not being fully explained, so as to generate some mystery (as in Unbreakable), but if the events of a movie make no sense (as the actions of the main characters seem completely mysterious without a full explanation), you cannot connect with the events on the screen. One gets the idea that editing the movie into this empty mush has taken out a lot of exposition that might have helped. To make things worse, a lot of the information I explained above is all delivered just moments before it becomes relevant in the last five minutes of the movie, so you spend the majority of the movie not really understanding what the hell is going on, or why you should care.


It’s like the latter hour of Atonement, with a lot of things happening for no explicable reason, and then the final scene comes along to straighten everything out, except that here, nothing really gets explained properly. Again, it might have been in order to generate mystery, and curiosity about the mythology, and in that sense it works, as I’m inspired enough by the vagueness to want to read the previous drafts, and hopefully see a longer DVD cut to find out more about these individuals, but as it stands, the film falls completely apart at the end of the second act, and the third act did nothing more than annoy me greatly. Contrary to the marketing, the movie is not just about a drunken hero, but with a second half as ill-formed and messy as this, I guess it might as well have been.

Even worse, some iconic moments in the trailer are either omitted or just breeze by, so badly edited is the film. It felt like every decision made in post-production was a mistake. John Dykstra’s effects are rushed and unappealing, the action scenes have no oomph as the editing obscures events, and the soundtrack is horribly misjudged, either trying to generate the emotional connection that is missing onscreen, or being brassy comedy plinky-plonks you’d expect on NCIS or something equally silly. As for the leads, I liked them, but their efforts often make no sense at all. The best thing I can say about it is that I went along with it simply because they obviously believed in what they were doing, but I have no idea what that thing they were doing was. Is Hancock about loneliness? About responsibility? Does Hancock do the right thing at the end to save Theron? Or is he still out for himself? I can imagine we’re meant to think of his actions as selfless, but that’s just because we expect the film to follow certain conventions. As it stands, the movie doesn’t make it clear enough on its own. When it was over, we were approximately this nonplussed.

———————Spoilers Over——————

I think I liked it more than Wanted, and probably less than Jumper, another compromised movie from a director I like from a concept I loved, but it didn’t help that prior to that we saw the eagerly awaited (by me) Kung Fu Panda, which was not only way better than anything else I’ve seen this year, but thousands and thousands of times better than I had hoped it would be. The opening scene alone was better than I thought Dreamworks/PDI would ever aspire to, the sequence so funny and clever and eye-blisteringly beautiful that I was helpless in the storytellers’ grip. The voice casting is spot-on (especially my main man Jables, who is utterly sincere and hysterically funny), the direction perfectly judged, the action more exciting than most action films I can name, and the emotional arcs totally satisfying. The showdown between Shifu and Tai Lung was a magnificently cinematic moment, with genuinely resonant power. Make no mistake, the studio might not have made anything worthwhile before, but this is Pixar-good. I’d even put it above Cars, Finding Nemo, and maybe A Bug’s Life, and possibly on a par with Toy Story 2, it’s that good.


Some UK critics have treated it as a mildly amusing spoof of Hong Kong cinema (the increasingly off-target Peter Bradshaw reckoned it was dumbed-down and less sophisticated than the first two Shreks!!?!?!!!). However, the majority of critics got what it was aiming for. Even the perenially grouchy Cosmo Landesman loved it, which means we have seen eye-to-eye twice this year. The other time was Speed Racer; he was pretty much the only UK critic to like it, though the Times website has decided not to reprint it, thus making me seem delusional.


It’s no wonder even critics who often turn a blind eye to genre movies understand the ambition of Kung Fu Panda. the opening ten minutes of Kung Fu Panda should have clued any viewer in to its utter sincerity. This is a real movie, a simple tale beautifully told by people who understand not only the conventions of the genre and the signifying details that make it distinct (watch the wonderful Master Oogway’s final scene under a peach tree and tell me they don’t love the genre and want to do right by it), but they also understand how to tell a story. Perhaps this story is less complex than what I assume the makers of Hancock were aiming for, and perhaps it is more straightforward than Wanted (a movie with a similar character arc involving destiny and self-belief), but it is almost infinitely better than either of them for one simple reason; everyone involved in the making of this film knew how to tell a story, knew what worked and what didn’t, and just made it knowing the audience would be right there with them. Sometimes that’s all it takes.


So yes, I recommend Kung Fu Panda with every fibre of my being. And Canyon’s too! We loved it so much we’re hoping to see it again this week, this time on IMAX. Something this beautifully crafted and sumptuous to look at needs to be seen on as big and clear a screen as possible. If I could describe its level of quality in one sentence while resisting the urge to just wail nonsense sounds of joy, that sentence would be, “It does everything right.” It really, really does. If you’ve ever enjoyed a martial arts movie, you must not miss it.

Gaia Preserve Us, It’s Still Happening!


Thanks to the miraculous nature of the internet, with its digital doohickeys and quantum doodads that I have no way of understanding due to being about 89 years old, a copy of the original draft of M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening (at that time called The Green Effect) has fallen into my hands. I was looking for clarification on a line of dialogue from the film that I have been making fun of, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered, having heard that they were very similar and therefore there would be very little point in reading something that has already appalled and amused me earlier this week. However, I was in for a shock. The original script, and original vision of Shyamalan’s, is simultaneously even more silly and yet more coherent from a storytelling standpoint, and therefore a far more satisfying project. However, instead of cheering me up, knowing that my suspicions that there was a potentially interesting approach to the story were well-founded, I’m actually angry. We were sold a lemon from a guy who had promised us a sleek supercar, and yet actually had that supercar lying around spare and ready to give us but figured we would prefer the lemon instead. No, Mr. Shyamalan, I wanted the supercar! You can keep your citrus fruits, thank you very much. Anyway, here is a description of the supercar, and why it is better than the lemon. (I’ll stop with that stretched metaphor now.)

————-More spoilers right here—————–

In my previous post I railed against a lot of things, such as the weird negativity of some of the characters, the cutesy character quirks, the unsatisfying ending, etc. etc. I’m not kidding when I say the film just seems to stop, with the Happening coming to an end at a specific time, just as Elliot (Wahlberg) and Alma (Deschanel) walk out into a field with an innocent young girl just so they can get a hug. Such nonsense. In the sense that Shyamalan seems to be mimicking Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, with global events being shown through the eyes of a bystander who gets lucky (though Tom Cruise’s character still gets to be a hero at the end, one of the many things I don’t like about the final act of that film), I get that ending, but it still feels like a cop-out.


Now I find that for some inexplicable reason, Shyamalan has ditched the original ending, which might have made audiences laugh, but would have at least been coherent. In The Green Effect, Elliot’s ruminations on the mood ring that connects him and his wife are absent for the majority of the film, though he throws it out at the end, while talking to her through the slavepipe (I don’t know what else to call it). Again they are hiding from the Gaia-toxins, but in this version of the film, in addition to the plants being triggered at first by huge groups of humans and then by smaller and smaller groups as the film progresses, it now gets triggered by other things. At one point it seems that Gaia might be angry at someone for using an electric saw, though it’s unclear what Shyamalan is getting at; a shame as otherwise it’s a very well-written piece of work.

Trapped in separate houses, Elliot re-woos his wife, who has been trying to divorce him throughout the film (because he feels too much and seems to be reckless whereas she is panicky and unable to open herself up), and upon mentioning the mood ring and how he can’t remember the colour of love, he realises that the last trigger for the toxins is individual moods. The crazy lady – who is not as batshit in this version, sadly, though she does have a cool-sounding Room of Crazy filled with Revelations-style nonsense – has just been affected and is wandering around stabbing herself with a crucifix (seriously), and Elliot realises she was targeted as she is filled with negative energy, whereas he is filled with love, and would therefore not be targeted by the plants. He gambles on this by walking out, and Alma, now convinced by his display, walks out as well, and is not killed either. There is a suspenseful moment where Elliot seems to walk backwards, but he is just thinking, apparently, which makes me think the whole walking backwards thing is just there to make this moment work as a shock event. Unfortunately, any horror created by this moment would be utterly destroyed by the big reveal moments later, as he realises what the mood ring colour of love is; green! Gaia is love! ::hugs tree::


Okay, so that sounds increeeeedibly goofy, but if that had been included in the final film, it would explain the inclusion of a lot of weird stuff that makes no sense. The random hostility of some of the characters, Alma’s isolation, Elliot’s optimism, the insertion of a really horrible woman at the end, that bloody mood ring; it’s all there to justify the final scene, with Elliot and Alma becoming reconciled, and that reconciliation being the thing that saves their lives. While I can imagine audiences all over the world throwing their hands up and screaming, “You’ve got to be kidding!”, at least it’s an ending. The one that got filmed is utterly unsatisfying. We get to see Alma and Elliot reconciled, but we get no idea why. Because they got lucky and she thinks they have a second chance? It just isn’t convincing. The original ending, for all of its outrageous wishy-washy New Age sentiment, at least makes sense thematically. It was a huge mistake taking it out. Though really, all you need is love? That shit only passes muster in Ghostbusters II, and that’s only because the Statue of Liberty walks around after being filled with Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis’ lovegoop (if you’ll forgive the confusing visual that conjures up). Otherwise, having your heroes prevail because Gaia likes the colour of their auras and is a bit sentimental about wuv (despite killing nearly six billion people) is pretty hard to take.

To make things worse, there are other changes that ruin the film, and suggest that despite Shyamalan’s insistence on final cut, his vision was altered due to pressure from the studio. As the final budget was something like $60m, I get the sense that he had to take a big cut from what he originally wanted to spend, which would account for the localised nature of the Happening. In the original script, it happens globally, at the same time, which is far scarier. As some of the lines hinting at this are left in the film, it makes me wonder if those awful TV inserts of newscasters ineptly discussing the Happening were done later, as they are not well made and contradict some of the dialogue about the march of events (especially the train driver saying he can’t contact anyone).


That also makes the finale more effective. In The Green Effect Elliot is seemingly a history teacher (or anthropology teacher; I was unsure) instead of a science teacher, but has read a paper on plants responding to the threat of nearby ant populations by releasing ant-killing toxins, which seems to be the inspiration for the whole movie. The plants stopped once the ants population had shrunk to .00006% of its original size, which suggests that the shots at the end of The Green Effect, of shiny happy people around the world venturing out into a now toxin-free environment, means that Gaia feels it is no longer threatened by humans. I guess that means there’s only about a million people left on the planet. That makes a sobering kind of sense, not the vague ending with the first Happening being a warning that humans happily ignore, prior to Paris getting targeted, which leads to all sorts of confused guesses about the messgae of the movie. Perhaps Gaia thought Europeans would be more receptive to large-scale death; a comment on America being more steadfast in the face of threats, as opposed to France being more likely to surrender, according to silly insulting beliefs? I hope not. Stay classy, Shyamalan.

The Green Effect is also much more straightforward than the filmed script. No hotdogs, no “Use science, douchebag!” or whatever the line was, no calculus calculus calculus. I’m on the fence about whether that’s a good thing or not. I’ve got nothing against quirk, but this stuff, when delivered in the super-serious Shyamalan style, just seems risible. The only real character quirks featured in the original script make the main couple more likeable, such as Elliot’s insistence on carrying a guitar everywhere so he can chase his dream of becoming a musician, even though Alma thinks he’s being silly (Shyamalan makes sure to paint him as a pretty bad songwriter, a touch I respected). In The Green Effect, motivations that were mysterious now make sense, such as Julian’s (Leguizamo’s) bitchy comments to Alma, and if it had been filmed like that, it might still have been utterly goofy, but it would have been consistent. I just cannot imagine why the finished version had to be made the way it did, removing motivation and logic and replacing it with whimsy, obfuscation, exposition, and happenstance.


I guess Shyamalan was trying to make a movie that had a mystery to it, that didn’t hew so closely to potentially nuance-free McKee-style story mechanics, but what he created wasn’t a 2001-style curio that inspires reappraisal and alternate interpretations. It’s still pretty straightforward, but just has bits missing, bits that would add to the power of the story, not detract from it. It’s bad storytelling, and the only reasons for these odd decisions that I can think of are that Shyamalan was annoyed at executive suggestions aimed at him and his vision, and decided to arbitrarily excise relevant scenes and neuter the script in order to wreck his film as a fuck you, which really doesn’t sound like him, or he doesn’t have a good sense of what he is doing anymore, and got too close to the film to see the error of his ways. Either suggestion saddens me.

I’m not saying The Green Effect would definitely have been a better movie than The Happening, as we would probably still have had the bizarre performances of the leads, performances so odd that I wondered if they had been hypnotised the way Bernard Rose hypnotised Virginia Madsen on the set of Candyman (as shown on the excellent documentary included on the DVD). We would still have had the unscary shots of grass swaying; the script features funny directions such as “THE GRASS OBSERVES THE HOUSE”, which you just can’t film without it looking like you’re just filming a house in a field. We would still have the occasional outbreak of clumsy exposition. We would still have had the perplexing inability to generate suspense from a man who once seemed to be able to do it without effort. We would still have the awkward hypothesising of Elliot, which is awfully accurate considering he doesn’t really have any way to evaluate his suspicions. We would still have the walking backwards, which looks dopey. We would probably not have any gore. The original script is much harsher than the finished film, with more death, and more cinematic and brutal death at that (people packing their mouths and noses with dirt, or crashing their cars on a busy expressway, for example). The original vision for the movie was obviously one of a really gruelling emotional experience, one that would really hammer home the crisis facing humanity, thus strengthening Shyamalan’s message, but for some inexplicable reason he backed away from that. Studio interference? Or loss of nerve? Will we ever know?


Even after pondering it today I’m still not sure if reading the original script makes me feel better or worse about Shyamalan. I kinda liked it, and the movie that played out in my head could have been good, though with an ending that would have polarised the audience in much the same way as the end of Signs. I also don’t know if I would rather have had the possibly merely average and forgettable Green Effect, or the accidentally entertaining failure that was The Happening. I’d like to think I can get more pleasure from an average movie than a ridiculous disaster, but then I think about calculus, and about hotdogs, and about Betty Buckley losing her shit right into the camera, and I think, you know, pleasure is pleasure. I’m glad The Happening exists, and I’m glad that I’ve seen it.

And anyway, it’s not like it’s the worst film of the year. Cassandra’s Dream wins that particular award. Compared to that, The Happening is just fine. What’s more worrying is that Shyamalan had something promising in his hands, and squandered it. Will there ever be a moment where he takes stock of himself, listens to the advice of those around him, and sees that perhaps he can profit from the experience of others? I truly hope so, and look forward to a great Shyamalan movie further down the line or something even more bonkers and misjudged, just to be a dick.

Did You See That? That. Just. Happened.(ing)


On Saturday a group of intrepid cinemagoers, comprising myself, Canyon, baggylettuce and decca (these are all our real names, btw), risked brain death by seeing The Happening, the last installment in M. Night Shyamalan’s Career Destruction trilogy. If I had to judge between them, it was not as horrible as Lady In The Water, which was deranged and mean and vindictive and crushingly stupid, whereas The Happening was just bad and silly. As a former fan of Shyamalan, it was kinda bittersweet to see this nonsense play out in such an insipid, half-hearted fashion, and I have to admit I’m worried that my feelings about it have been coloured by the outpouring of negative reviews since its release (I gather press screenings were rare to non-existent). I mean, I really liked the premise, and remember getting excited about it a while back even though I had recently seen Lady In The Water and had been appalled. Sadly, that premise might be great, but really it’s only as good as the execution, and that is where the pain comes in. Pain like this.


I’ll be going into spoiler territory from now on, so back away if you don’t want to know what happens, but believe me, the movie doesn’t actually go anywhere. Here’s a quick unspoilery wrap up. The principals are all terrible. There’s less blood than in most 12/PG-rated movies. It’s short but feels long. Nothing much happens. Tak Fujimoto takes some nice shots of trees under an oppressive pale sky. Respected Broadway actress Betty Buckley turns up in the final couple of reels and gives a memorable performance with almost Fiona-Shaw-in-The-Black-Dahlia levels of WTF. It’s great. Nothing else is. It just sort of runs out of energy at about the 80 minute mark, and wraps up not long after that.

———Here be spoilers————

So why does it go wrong? It’s mostly the direction, though the script squanders that terrific premise at every opportunity. I’m not a knee-jerk hater of Shyamalan, though. I have greatly enjoyed some of his movies, and even his failures often have something to like (Lady In The Water‘s photography by Christopher Doyle is stunning, and Shyamalan’s compositions are lovely). He can do mood very well, and he can do suspense, and he can do dread. In fact, at some points of The Sixth Sense, Signs, and Unbreakable (my personal favourite Shyamalan movie, a film I absolutely adore), there are moments that are as creepy and unsettling as anything Hideo Nakata has put on film.

I think even The Village approached that kind of calm fear, but sadly by then he has begun to drag the timing of those moments out too far. It’s all in the amount of time you leave the audience dangling, and while comic timing relies on microseconds of pause, horror deals in seconds approaching minutes, and Shyamalan started making the audience wait way too long for release. The longer you have to look at people standing stock still with a goofy look on their face while a man in a red cloak with twigs for fingers wanders around in the background (for example), the fear turns to laughter, and by now Shyamalan has accidentally reset the timer in his head so that he can’t judge where the horror/accidental humour line is.


In The Happening, nothing is scary. The timing is utterly haywire, and even if it was working, the scary elements are already too dumb to work with. I salute the man for being willing to risk ridicule to create his weird vision, but sadly it can go horribly wrong. The doofy looking alien getting killed with water and baseball bats at the end of Signs, the Menacing Cloakman from The Village, and my favourite of all, Freddy Rodriguez With A Rubber Arm in Lady In The Water; they all go just a little too far and end up looking silly. Add to that the unfortunate slow pace, which also makes Shyamalan’s movies look pretentious and self-important, and it’s impossible to take them seriously, especially when he seems to give his characters Stephen-King-style mannerisms and phrases, of which the best has to be Wahlberg’s self-immolating “Be scientific, douchebag!”

While Lady In The Water is worse because it is also a temper-tantrum disguised as a kid’s movie, The Happening is sillier and funnier because Shyamalan has created a movie where the characters are scared of the wind, and where 20% of the movie is shots of trees being as threatening as, well, trees. And not even creepy trees, just normal trees. It’s just not scary. I live near trees and a large patch of grass (which is apparently endangered, so we’re talking about potentially angry grass), and yesterday it was windy. I walked to the shops yesterday, and did I suddenly think, “Oh God, please don’t kill me, foliage!”? Nope. Litmus test failed.


Yes, if you’ve not heard already, the central idea is that Gaia is pissed at humans, and its minions, aka plants, are trying to send a warning to us to straighten-up and fly right by using deadly suicide-inducing toxins to kill off large groups of people in order to make us think twice about polluting the planet. Or something. As the toxins only appear on the US East Coast and, at the end of the movie, Paris, it’s possible they also hate liberals, museum-goers, and people who eat croissants. Does this mean that people living in desert countries are safe? Considering how bad the pollution in Texas is, it’s not the most verdant of states, and so it might be left off the hook. And what if Al Gore was visiting New York? Stupid plants!

As we’re talking about a completely different species here, one that cannot communicate with us, the motivations are unclear, which works on one level, and fails on another, namely that the film seems to think that because science cannot answer everything, it’s not really the answer to our problems, that some things are bigger than us. I’m not sure that was Shyamalan’s goal, though his reliance on wishy-washy spiritualism tends to suggest he does. The finale, which features a scientist on TV having his theories of deadly plants dismissed by some gobshite pundit, was especially annoying. It’s fair to say that it would be pretty easy to prove plants did it, but instead Shyamalan has a heavy-handed point to be make about post-9/11 paranoia and how it is making people irrational (a point made with much greater effect in The Mist).

So, that’s silly, but what about the chilling effects of the toxin? There was real potential there for some creepy moments, but they only work once or twice (the weird headbutting attacks of the crazy old lady at the end of the film were half-horrible, half-hilarious). Some have asked why the toxins make people kill themselves and not just go on a rampage, which is more dramatic, but Shyamalan has to maintain that deathly pace, and 28 Days Later-style chaos would not work (plus we’ve seen stuff like that before, as far back as early Cronenberg and Romero films). The very very slow suicides we see here are in keeping with his usual style, even though his much-vaunted R-rated horror events translate into a bit of blood-spurting and quick cuts away from the actual moment of death, just in case we get mortally upset by the sight of nasty things. While I’m not saying the movie would have been improved by gore dripping from the lens, the cowardice of it seems to hint that Shyamalan has lost the ability to deal with adults and adult themes.


Compare the squeamishness here with Unbreakable, which featured a violent, murdering sadist, as well as a nausea-inducing scene with Samuel L. Jackson breaking most of his bones as he falls down a flight of stairs. That moment, with the brittle-boned Mr. Glass tumbling down an endlessly long staircase, was preceded by a shot of his glass cane hitting the floor and breaking into hundreds of pieces, and I suspect the current Shyamalan would have just shown that. An admittedly elegant way to avoid nastiness, but the original scene is incredible, horrifying, utterly visceral. Going with the single shot of his cane might let the scene work on the nerves of the audience by making them imagine it, but could they come up with anything as horrifying as what actually happens in the scene? It’s something that critics agonise about, whether it’s right to show the horror or not, but certainly in the case of The Happening, it really needs something more than the vanilla violence we get. Without a frisson of menace in the movie, a sense of the scale of what is happening and the toll it is taking on everyone, there is no movie there. The odd shot of corpses dangling from trees aside, it’s devoid of power. Plus, the sight of groups of people walking slowly backwards would destroy even Hitchcock-level suspense.

Unbreakable also featured moments of relationship drama that seemed kinda stilted (in the way that Shyamalan’s conversation scenes often do) and yet still real, as Bruce Willis’ superheroic character tries to reconnect with his son and wife. The new Shyamalan now has Zooey Deschanel inexplicably being seemingly autistic, and having a torrid affair behind Mark Wahlberg’s back with someone called Joey that drives her almost insane with guilt. Well, I say “torrid affair”, when actually I mean “innocent meeting which involved eating some tiramisu”. That’s the extent of her infidelity. Oh, and who plays Joey? His one word of dialogue, on the phone, is spoken by Shyamalan himself. So, not only is he the most important writer who ever lived in Lady In The Water, he’s also hott enough to make Zooey “Blank” Deschanel consider straying from Mark Wahlberg. Mark Wahlberg, people! That’s some hottness Shyamalan’s got right there.


So it’s bad. It’s really really bad. But I still like that central idea, and think it could, somehow, have been turned into a better movie if not held back by the hubris and self-regarding idiocy of its creator. After seeing it, we ate some sausage and mash and came up with some ways in which it would have been a better movie, and this is what we reckon.

  • At several stages throughout the movie, Mark Wahlberg rattles on and on about his mood ring, which is what he used to woo Zooey all those years before. It goes nowhere, except to give them something to talk about later when reconciling. Instead, considering the plants are silently trying to kill humanity, Wahlberg could try to communicate with them by putting the ring on a tree branch and asking it what it wants, with the colours of the ring being the responses. (I actually thought this would happen, so clearly was it telegraphed).
  • When people get encrazied by the toxins, they sometimes repeat things or say nonsensical phrases, of which my favourite was, “Calculus! Calculus!” At the end, I was really hoping the French crazies would refer to, “Le Calculus!” Instead, Shyamalan uses his first grade French to have the guy say, “Mon bicyclette”, which is not as surreal, and not in keeping with the film’s peculiar anti-science slant (ironic considering Wahlberg saves everyone by using science, the douchebag).
  • Only one plant wants to help humanity; marijuana! The crazy old lady is growing it under hot lamps in her basement, and our heroes smoke up a big bag of it, thus making them immune to the toxins.
  • The weird hotdog man has hotdog trees in his greenhouse, like in Pee-Wee’s Big Top.
  • Change the title to “Did Gaia Just Fart On My Face?”
  • As soon as Wahlberg has decided it really is the plants killing humans with deathcooties, he should liberally use the word “Grassassins”.
  • Trees and shrubs = boring. Ents and triffids = awesome. More of that, please.
  • Zooey Deschanel’s reveal of her “torrid affair” with Joey and his elaborate desserts is obviously meant to be a big deal, though all it does show is that our heroes have the emotional maturity of Smurfs. Wahlberg’s response to her reveal, that he had recently bought cough syrup from an attractive woman in a pharmacy even though he didn’t even have a cough, is cloyingly vanilla (certainly in the middle of a ZOMG R-Rated movie!!!), so it might have worked better if, when Zooey Deschanel asks, “Is that true?” Wahlberg said, “No. Actually I went back behind the counter and banged the shit out of her for three hours straight, and it was awesome, and then we covered ourselves with cough syrup, and we was humping and just rollin’ around in ‘Tussin! It was so much better than all that cuddling we do. However, ironically, I’ve had a cough ever since.”
  • Most importantly, what about explaining why John Lequizamo hates Zooey Deschanel so much. He’s relentlessly nasty and hostile just because she’s a bit distant? I can agree, it annoyed us a lot, but still, we wouldn’t be nasty to her. She has such a lovely singing voice, after all.
  • That said, why were her pupils so small? Canyon wondered if she has glaucoma or something. Hopefully she’ll have that seen to.
  • The actual Happening itself ends with the plants deciding to stop being deadly at a specific time, thus making the events of the movie nothing more than a warning, a prelude to another, deadlier attack. That only even slightly works because our heroes, who are separated from each other in different buildings but able to communicate thanks to a tube running between them (a tube that is mentioned earlier with the clumsiest exposition of the year), decide to end it all by walking out into the deadly grass, even though they have an innocent child with them, only for the Happening to stop happening, thus saving them at the last second. Bullshit. If I’d made this movie, an enormous rock head would have risen from the ground, a manifestation of Gaia that just happens to look exactly like James Lovelock, and as our heroes watch, terrified, its huge stony mouth opens, and says, “Don’t tread on me, man!’ Whoa.
  • I also thought about creating a Happening drinking game, but it seems Film School Rejects has beaten me to it, but there is scope to expand it a bit. Take a gulp of booze whenever:

  • Tree moves (two gulps if it is plastic and inside a house with no visible draft).
  • Someone is improbably mean to someone else for no reason (two gulps if no one does anything about it). This includes Deschanel’s relentless snippiness towards Wahlberg.
  • A vaguely scary moment gets dragged out too long and ruins the suspense (two gulps if someone half opens a door and waits to open it the rest of the way, just to drag it out longer).
  • Someone unleashes a stream of ugly exposition because the writer/director has forgotten how to tell a story visually.
  • Mark Wahlberg uses science like a douchebag (two gulps if no one listens to him).
  • Someone is about to die horribly, and the shot cuts away right at the last second (four gulps if you actually see something unpleasant).
  • Someone says they can’t contact anyone anywhere, which is a great trailer shot that makes it seem like the world is ending, but in actual fact the majority of the world is just fine and contact is re-established in the next scene.
  • Mark Wahlberg says, “Event,” or, “Happening” in a sentence (this might actually overload your liver).
  • Three gulps if:

  • Mark Wahlberg’s voice goes weirdly high for no reason.
  • Hotdogs are mentioned.
  • John Leguizamo uses math, douchebag.
  • A child talks like an adult.
  • Someone on TV overacts terribly.
  • Finish your drink if:

  • Someone screams at the camera and waves their fist at it.
  • You realise you could be watching The Birds or Spielberg’s War of the Worlds instead, as this is practically the same film, except neutered and stupid.
  • A character, who knows plants are deadly, has plants in her house just so there can be some contrived tension in the final scene.
  • You realise Stephen King has written a dozen books that are just like this, but you enjoyed those even with his weird authorial quirks.
  • You expect that the negativity surrounding this film severely dents the chances of Fernando Meirelles’ adaptation of the novel Blindness making money in the US as it’s kinda similar.
  • Finish all the drinks in your house if:

  • You find out that even though it has a terrible reputation, and people thought it would fail horribly, it’s actually well on its way to becoming profitable, mostly because it’s relatively cheap for a summer film and groups of people are going to see it because they heard it was this year’s Wicker Man. Which it almost is. Though there are a notable absence of BEES! BEES IN MY EYES! GRARGLE BLURG FLUMF!
  • That’s right, people. Looks like we’ll still be getting a very very slow-moving version of Avatar: The Last Airbender after all.

    Introducing The Wahlberg Awards

    I recently wrote about forthcoming summer movies, many of which were high on my own list of highly anticipated events though I foolishly missed off the Ferrell/McKay comedy Step Brothers. That should be a punishable offence, though it’s nowhere near as egregious a sin as releasing it in the UK two months after the US GAH!

    Anyway, since then I have been haunted by an image from the trailer for M. Night Shyamalan’s It’s My Happening, Baby, And It Freaks Me Out (as Canyon has retitled it). If you’re a regular reader, you know the one.


    It definitely ruins that trailer, and I’m looking forward to seeing it on the big screen, in the hope that the audience will react in the same way. That said, it struck me that Mark Wahlberg has an amazing face for selling “OH SHIT!” moments, and it occurred to me that I need to lavish praise on those moments in film in which an actor memorably conveys the feeling of pooping their pants with shock and sudden realisation. And so, I present to you the inaugural Wahlberg Award, for Best Response To Global Ecological Catastrophe.



    The statuette’s in the post, Marky Mark. Okay, it’s not an Academy Award, but it’s better than not winning one for The Departed and then having to put up with Ellen DeGeneres trying to involve you in an unfunny joke during the Oscar broadcast last year.

    Further To Previous Summer Movie Filibuster

    The first actual real proper trailer for El Hombre Incredible has arrived, and sadly it’s apparent that the rumours that Edward Norton and Marvel are fighting over final cut are true. Those of us waiting to see a proper Hulk movie will be very disappointed by this new light comedic take, with Norton now playing Banner as a Catholic priest, Tim Roth playing a Rabbi instead of a gamma-irradiated monster, and both of them fighting over a recast Jenna Elfman who converts to Judaism at the end of the film. Lots of spirited discussion about religion, not so much with the Hulk Smash. See for yourself.

    Okay, so it’s only a teaser, but I really doubt this will interest many but the most excitable fanboys. That said, it’s opening the same week as The Happening, which also might not interest audiences, driving everyone to see the green priest movie in the hopes that someone will get hit in the head with a car. That theory depends on the oft-unquestioned belief that every weekend during summer millions of people will always feel compelled to go to the cinema. For all we know they’ll just stay home, crank up the A/C, and rewatch either Signs or the Ang Lee Hulk. Either way, it’s cheaper than a trip to the local multiplex.

    I’m on the fence about Ed Norton. I appreciate he is obviously very talented, but for some inexplicable reason I can’t muster the enthusiasm for him that other people seem to. The two performances I like most by him are Fight Club (where his face is obscured by blood and scars for a lot of the film) and Kingdom of Heaven (where his face is obscured by a big mask for all of the film), so perhaps I just have a problem with his face, which is my failing and shame on me. I also get the blues thinking about his habit of fiddling with the films he appears in. Dude, if you want to be a perfectionist, hurry up and get Motherless Brooklyn going. Leave everyone else alone.

    He’s also producing a documentary about Barack Obama right now, which will either be a historical document of immense import or a depressing curio, depending on how America votes. Normally I’d keep my cards close to my chest and not talk about politics, but earlier this week, after I discovered the Amazon tag system, looked at the scary covers of several books that are Amazon tagged as “editor promised cake”, and I suddenly realised that I was wrong all along. Liberals are desperately eager for dirty bombs to blow up right in our faces because they hate life and money and want us all dead and poor, in that order, which leads me to unhitch myself from the Obamanon wagon and put my support behind the hot independent duo of Rufus T. Firefly and Dickie Pilager on the “Wait ‘Til I Get Through With It” ticket. (Sorry Canyon, I know your political heart lies elsewhere!)


    Enough with the politics. I may have been severely underwhelmed by that trailer, but just to prove I was on the right tracks, the latest trailers for Speed Racer and Wall*E appear to have made some of the internet doubters rethink their annoying hatery. I’m not 100% crazy about the Wall*E trailer, thinking the propulsive music doesn’t go well with some of the comedy asides shoved in towards the end, but visually it’s still astonishing, and it shows some of the reportedly enormous scope of the film. Speed Racer, on the other hand, looks better than ever. That trailer is already one of my favourites of the year, and features the phrase, “Cool beans!”, which makes me love it even more. Hopefully all of the fanboys who have been crying about it being a “kids” movie (ugh) will cease their yappeting and get onboard now.

    ETA: Speed Racer trailer!

    Speed seems like a young Ricky Bobby at the start.