A VERY IMPORTANT NOTICE

PLEASE NOTICE THIS IMPORTANT NOTICE. WILL WATCHES FILMS, YOUR FAVOURITE MOVIE [OCCASIONAL] REVIEW BLOG HAS BEEN MOVED TO HIPSTER CENTRAL (AKA. TUMBLR) IN A HOPE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO FOLLOW AND APPRECIATE.

PLEASE CHECK OUT ALL THE OLD POSTS, AND NEW ONES, HERE:

WWW.WILLWATCHESFILMS.TUMBLR.COM

INCEPTION (Dir. Christopher Nolan)
Perhaps it’s a little brash, with such a small review blog as this, to so many movies full-marks. Then again, it’s brash to do it with even a well-established blog (see: Pitchfork giving Kanye West a 10), but what point is there in having a top rating if you’re only going to tip-toe around it? And what if the movie is worth full marks? Because I believe Inception is. I admit: I am, deep down, a diehard sci-fi fan, and Inception ticks all my boxes. So what if you don’t understand it? Does that make you enjoy it less? With other films, that may be the case, but I haven’t met anyone who’s watched this film and said they didn’t enjoy it (apart from the usual ‘wait, what? So they’re in whose dream now?’ comment). I admit, I’m a fan, and I love it.

Of course, Christopher Nolan’s greatest work (erm, so far) is not without its flaws, so I suppose rather than this review being a balance of good and bad, it instead needs to be a justification of its 10/10 rating. So we start with the flaws. Really, the only ‘big’ flaw for me is Inception’s Hollywood-ness; maybe I’m just being a stubborn hipster but some of the film’s best parts are hindered by its need to pander to the box office. This is true in some of the casting; Michael Caine is totally out of place, and quite how he’s Marion Cottilard’s father is as confusing a matter as the dreams themselves. A lot of overexplanation and generalization is involved to make sure the film is suitable for all IQs (or, well, most). While I don’t want to complain about the film’s confusing storyline and its attempts to explain itself – because they helped me as well as everyone else – it would be nice if they were a little more subtle.

But really, I’m just plucking at straws, because Inception is pretty much fully brilliant. I’m not too big a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, but he holds the movie rather well as its protagonist, and around him Ellen Page and Tom Hardy do even better in supporting parts. Even Ken Watanabe does well. The only person I really have a problem with is Marion Cotillard, who I fear is fast becoming typecast as ‘the evil bitch’ after this film. Why does she have to be so goddamn evil in this? I know she’s the ‘baddie’, but Nolan takes it a little too far.

I won’t talk too much about the effects, cinematography and production, because they were all fantastic – from the different ‘feels’ of the different dream layers, the changing-gravity bit in the hotel and the superreal chase sequences. Inception is one of those films that takes a few watches for it to make sense, but not one of those films that takes a few watches for you to appreciate it. Because, dreams within dreams aside, Inception is simply a well-directed Hollywood sci-fi adrenalin rush.


★★★★★

WILD CHILD (Dir. Nick Moore)
So, I’m on holiday in Cornwall and I’m stuck with my sisters and they were watching this so I watched it too and it’s shit and I regret it. There is nothing about this film I can say I liked, other than the main actress looked kinda hot in some scenes and it wasn’t too long.

Maybe you don’t know what this film is. Good; it’s not something we all need to know about. I actually feel that watching it has had a detrimental effect on my life, but if you want to know, here’s the basic story. OK: there’s this spoilt tween girl (aka. Lindsay Lohan post-Parent Trap) who lives in LA or something, she’s a real bitch [because her mom died boo hoo] and has bitch friends. Her dad is the good guy, or the distraught parent at any rate, and he reminded me a bit of Sam Neill crossed with Colin Firth, but he’s not either. Anyway, he sends her to boarding school in England, which is a bit like St Trinian’s but without Talulah Riley, so it pretty much sucks. There, our little American bitch meets some unlikely outcast girlfriends, Shirley whatshername from those Northern films, and the headmistress’ ‘hot son’ Alex Pettyfer, who tries his best to act but completely fails because he’s shit at it and should fuck off back to the discontinued Alex Rider franchise he ruined. So, the girl realizes she doesn’t have to be a bitch, and plays lacrosse a lot (which I think is a stupid sport) – and sorry, forgot to mention, there’s also this big blonde girl who’s the ‘bad guy’. She looks a bit like a man.

Back at the ranch, ol’ bitchface gets a makeover in one of the most puke-worthy scenes I’ve ever watched in my short life, and it turns out she was that girl from Hotel for Dogs all along. Which made me feel guilty for thinking she was kinda hot earlier on in the film, because it turns out she’s actually the same age as her awful British friends. Anywho, she wins at lacrosse (however that’s done), helps Alex wotshisname to act a tiny bit (mostly unsuccessful), burns down the school, has a fucking amazing fun girly time with her new British friends, and something about her mom. Alex Pettyfer drives her around in this great retro car he has (clearly all that sitting round winking at schoolgirls through his golden locks pays pretty well), and that he probably doesn’t know how to drive because that was one of the things he didn’t need to know for the Alex Rider film. I can’t remember what happens to him in the end of Wild Child but I don’t think I care. Anyway, Sam Neill/Colin Firth dude comes over from the US of A and says some sentimental shit, everything’s fuckin amaking, and suffice to say they all live happily ever after (apart from the man-girl bad guy and, hopefully, Labrador boy).

Unless you happen to be, like my sister, an easily distracted 12-year-old girl, Wild Child isn’t going to be your sort of film. Don’t go near it; or you’ll end up regretting watching it as much as I did. But at least we got a funny blog post out of it.


★☆☆☆☆

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (Dir. Christopher Nolan)
First off, I'm quite amazed I even enjoyed a 'superhero movie'. And yeah, I know, nowadays they're different, more serious, more exciting, yada yada. Batman's come a long way since that old, cringey TV series with Adam West. And I've tried; I tried to watch Batman Begins one time, but it got to that awful bit with Liam Neeson being a ninja/samurai, and I gave up on it. Too much 'mentor' and 'become fear' shit. But The Dark Knight Rises? Well fuck, that was on a whole other level.

I'm not going to pretend I like superhero movies now - because it's just not my scene - but I did enjoy this film. Christopher Nolan once again waved his magic filmmaking wand and I was more than happy to sit through a long-ass film with big-ass explosions and not shout "fuck off Michael Bay!" at it. The film was just, consistently, brilliantly, well-made. The effects were spotless (I'm guessing it was ILM, but you can call me out on that one), the script bearable for a blockbuster like this, and the cinematography beautiful.

Nolan also called in a few favours for this 'final' Batman film's cast. Notably, Tom Hardy as Bane, whose personality both helped and hindered his performance - he's tough and edgy, and that worked with the brute-lie bulk of Bane; but his shouty British voice and not-so-tough eyes took the edge off some of the grittier scenes. Nonetheless he was the best in it. Christian Bale annoyed me with that growly Batman voice he puts on, Michael Caine was Michael Caine, Anne Hathaway played the stereotypical catwoman character, Joseph Gordon-Levitt did his norm and Marion Cotillard seems like she's fast becoming typecast (spoilerz!). It was Nolan's handpicked faves at their finest.

Honestly, the only real thing that let the film down for me was simply that it was a Batman film. There was no escaping that stupid outfit, the bat logo and the preposterous heroics. But, if you're into that sort of thing, you can't do much better than this.

★★★☆☆

PROMETHEUS (Dir. Ridley Scott)
Ridley Scott said from the start that you shouldn't talk about Prometheus in relation to Alien. Yes, it's a prequel, and yes, it's 'in the same universe' or 'in the same timeline', but it most certainly isn't set on the same planet, and don't expect any xenomorphs. Sincerely, Ridley Scott. ps. I lied. On both counts.

Prometheus was an enjoyable watch and I loved it as a film, but as a long-time fan of Alien I couldn't help noticing how, essentially, it was a remake - or an update. Same director, same idea. Sure, some plotlines were different, but it had the same elements of horror and gore that with Alien birthed a whole new subgenre of sci-fi. Prometheus (similarly) is not shocking but rather horrifying - and kinda disgusting in parts. It pushes this sci-fi realism to its edges, much like Alien did. And Noomi Rapace, fantastic in the main role as Dr. Elizabeth Shaw, is pretty much 2012's answer to Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley. She's tense, she's edgy, and yet still kinda sexy. There are throwbacks to Alien all through Prometheus, from the crew smoking and drinking on the ship, to Rapace's end monologue voiceover (and her final scene smacks of ol' Sigourney's revealing escape pod scene, too). I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying Scott isn't trying to be subtle.

Visually, the film was amazing - almost faultless. And the CGI is accompanied by an oddly orchestral score, which, when it gets a chance, soars over the visuals but luckily for the film's tone it doesn't do this too often. In terms of acting, performances are quite split down the middle; those that are exceptional and those that are quite commonplace. What makes the difference is the opportunities a certain character brings: Michael Fassbender excels as the android David, going above and beyond what Ian Holm did in 1979. He almost stole the show if it weren't for all Noomi Rapace's airtime. Behind them, Charlize Theron plays a heartless bitch (again) and Guy Pearce plays old man Weyland as convincingly as a young man can.

So, ultimately, the question to ask is 'which is better: Prometheus or Alien?', but I don't know the answer. They're both appropriate for their time - but there was something intangible, so subtle, about Alien's casual tone that is lost in today's sci-fi blockbuster. Perhaps it just had a little too much Hollywood sheen to it.

 ★★★★☆

TRANSFORMERS (Dir. Michael Bay)
I've been feeling ill recently. 'Under the weather', as those of you who don't want to make things obvious may put it. But Michael Bay loves making things obvious. It's totally his favourite thing to do, like, ever. He makes things so bloody obvious that you practically wonder why he's pointing them out at all. Let's take an example: in his 2007 film Transformers, one of the 'Autobots' is a poorly disguised, almost offensive Afro-American stereotype, fo' shizzle. There's no doubting it. When Shia LaBeouf (probably the only person I enjoyed watching in the movie, other than that Australian girl) asks him how he learned to speak like that, he states 'the Internet'. Well, what I learnt from the internet is how to be overcritical and think I have a valid opinion, so I'll practice that here.

Transformers is an action film, yes. It's a popular film, yes. It's by no means my type of film. But I watched it all the way through. Why? Because it's an adrenalin rush of a flick, it's fast-paced and you somehow can sit through all 144 minutes of it. And yes, the Australian girl. But it's so deeply submerged in immoral, super-obvious postmodern masochism that it's hard to see its immediate virtues. I don't mean to take a feminist stance here (believe me, I'm not one), but Megan Fox is treated like shit by both LaBeouf's character and Michael Bay. It's amazing that this sort of female character is still apparent in modern cinema. Combine this with the African-American stereotype (akin to the two black passengers in Airplane, but that was 1980) and a plotline dumb enough to be comprehended by a brick with a fetish for explosions, robot sounds and oversaturated cinematography, and you have a movie set to gross $700m.

This film has no modern significance, will probably fade away in about ten years' time and will never stand as an example of anything other than 00s shit filmmaking. I'm pretty glad about that. Of course, it's silly to even discuss such a film as being on the same level as 'important cinema', but as a reviewer I'm afforded this irrelevant snobbishness so I'm going to damn well use it. The effects are good, the cinematography is exciting, and the ambition of the writers to include every 21st century American cliché possible (hot girlfriend, embarrassing parents, Chihuahua, deep-voiced wise guy, something about the president) is admirable. But it's still not a good movie. If I could say only one thing to Michael Bay (and I have many things), it would probably be "stop being so ignorant and make films that have some character development, racial decency, and emotional depth to them."

Either that or "you're an asshole."

★★☆☆☆

SUBMARINE (Dir. Richard Ayoade)
Remember a few weeks ago I reviewed 500 Days of Summer, and I ripped into it, concluding that it was a 'glorified hipster wank'? Well, I think I just found a film made in the same vein of filmmaking, yet one that's enjoyable and really does touch you.

OK, forgive me some sentimentality and adoration with this film (it's not even a Wes Anderson film); I've just watched it and I was hooked. Slowly my evening turned from 'let's watch the start of Submarine then do some homework' to 'erm, wow... hold on, another ten minutes...' And why? Because Submarine is (ironically) immersive and beautiful. Pure contemporary filmmaking at its finest - from the custom-made font in the titles to the brilliant awkwardness of it all. It's the story of young love, and first love, from the perspective of the intelligent yet witless Oliver, a teenager caught up in the throes of teenagehood.

It's important to note that neither Oliver nor his girlfriend ever say 'I love you' to each other, and herein lies Submarine's genius, telling a love story without telling a complete love story - and by that I don't mean telling it backwards starring Zooey Deschanel. Submarine is effortlessly acted, or so we see in the few scenes the characters get a chance to show anything other than awkwardness; and its setting - a remote Welsh coastal village - is core to its message and its vintage atmosphere. There's even a touch of the classic French romantic film near the start, but unfortunately it doesn't last the course of the movie as the plot dips temporarily into that thoroughly British 'family issues' cliché I had hoped we'd shaken off in the 70s with Mike Leigh.

Nonetheless, the film endures to its sweet, almost-but-not-quite happy ending, leaving us with that little sliver of final footage missed out so we can come to our own assumptions. Ayoade, in his directorial debut,  leaves a lot unsaid, creating a beautiful lightness and subtlety to the film's quirks and tropes. Submarine is really nothing like 500 Days, and I feel almost stupid comparing the two, but I want to show this blog's hipster readership that if you want to tell a good story, you don't need Joseph Gordon-Levitt and dozens of sickening character quirks to do so. All you need is a charming script and a couple of bashful Welsh teenagers.

★★★★★

FANTASTIC MR. FOX (Dir. Wes Anderson)
I'm one of a large-ish group of filmophiles that wants Wes Anderson's babies. There's no denying it - we're not indie, or hipsters, we just want his children to be our children. Such dramatic fanhood is not unfounded - Wes Anderson's films are 'well, you know, just really Wes Anderson-y', full of his unique style and clever dialogue and clever direction. I'd even let him name our kids.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is an unusual film is Anderson's portfolio because he's had to restrain his style partially - it's nowhere near the control he had over, say, The Life Aquatic. And good thing too, because though myself and my fellow Andersonites may love him at 100%, but others - and kids, Fantastic's target audience (erm, somehow) - need him with a little pinch of salt. Even his trademark Futura Bold titles are missing here.

Nonetheless, his adaption of Roald Dahl's classic is modern and immersive. What I really love is the choice of voice actors - George Clooney leads a group of fantastic voices, many not of the type usually used in animated films, bringing a different texture to this one (including Bill Murray and Owen Wilson, surprise surprise). The animation itself is not your usual stop-motion, at times realistic and at times comically fabricated. It's easy to see how much work has gone into it, so it's not hard to be blown away by the ambition of it all.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is not really a children's film, sorry kids. It's sometimes dark and sometimes irritatingly quirky (eg. using 'cuss' instead of swear words). But, for the mature adult/teenage viewer, it offers a beautiful cinematic experience and a curious one-off departure from some of Anderson's norms. Suffice to say I still want his kids.

★★★★☆

BRICK (Dir. Rian Johnson)
When it comes to film noir - cum - high school detective movies, it doesn't getter much stranger than Brick. There aren't many films in the category, sure, but Brick is certainly an unusual film. Set in the dry suburbs of California, the film follows a teenage detective (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as he finds out who's responsible for the murder of his ex-girlfriend, dragging him into the high school drug underworld.

It's a difficult sell, and the script is thick, quick and full of detective slang that makes the film harder to understand than Inception but without all those dreams-within-dreams. Nonetheless, if you follow the gist of Brick, it's a rewarding watch. It's stylish - almost too much so, as the film often drags and catches on its own stylings. Nonetheless, the cinematography is excellent and the minimalist music is - erm - fitting. That's the nice way of saying it.

The genius of Brick comes in its throwbacks to film noir classics of the 50s, with all the key characters - the nerdy informant, the dangerous femme fatale, the mob boss, and of course the outsider detective - represented by teenagers at the school. There's even a smattering of West Side Story-esque gang wars near the end. The American high school is the perfect location to recreate all these stereotypes in a controlled, smaller environment, but throughout the film I couldn't help thinking that it was trying to be more serious than it could ever be with quirks like 'who's eating lunch with who' being the high school equivalent of 'who's in with who'. There's also a certain monotony and predictability in the format, in Gordon-Levitt's stoïc acting, and in the improbability of it all.

If you're a fan of film noir, and willing to take Brick's twists and turns, give it a go. As a stylistic exercise, it's spot-on.

 ★★★★☆

TWILIGHT (Dir. Catherine Hardwicke)
Yeah, it's shit.

★☆☆☆☆