Battle Royale (2000)

Genre: Drama, Action/Adventure

Cast: Takeshi Kitano, Tatsuya Fujiwara, Aki Maeda

Synopsis: A class of teenagers are abducted and forced to take part in a military exercise where they must kill each other on a deserted island until only one is left…..so kind of like the hipster Hunger Games.

I remember when I was in high school, this was the cult film that everyone had to watch. I had managed to get my hands on a copy of the film and it ultimately got passed around the class like a soggy biscuit at Eton. At the time this film was released, it was shocking, harrowing, polarising, but unquestionably brilliant. After re-watching the film, I’ve come to the conclusion that it still is. It’s not brilliant solely because of its action, or its beauty, or its twisted sense humour. Battle Royale is brilliant because it manages to combine all these and turn a story about basic characters senselessly killing one another into a moving coming of age tale.

I think that the thing that gives Battle Royale its power is its characters. In total, there are about 43 that appear throughout the course of the movie. Creating a movie with that number of characters is a daunting task but the makers Battle Royale rose to the challenge admirably. Of course, many of the characters are killed off quickly but even characters that appear for one extended scene only are given their own unique personalities and quirks and histories. This is best seen with the character of Chigusa. In one scene the film establishes that she is an athlete, proud, fearless, and that she will kick the ass (and knife the balls) of anyone who attempts to rape her. The audience barely knows her and yet we end up respecting and liking her immensely, which makes her exit from the film all the more tragic and beautiful.

RIP you super fierce bi-atch

Of course there are other characters that are wonderful. Takeshi Kitano’s character adds depth and a much needed adult perspective. I have the biggest crush on Hiroki and, when commenting on the characters, it’s hard not to give attention to Mitsuko Souma, the school hussy. In short, the film presents a myriad of complex characters and it makes you feel for them even though not a lot time is dedicated to them. One character in particular only gets a couple of minutes of screen time but she is easily one of the best in the whole film.

“You’ve been selected to kill each other. CONGRATULATIONS!”

One of the other brilliant things about this film is that it encourages its audience to engage their imagination and ponder about what they would do if they were forced to enter into a fight to the death. What would you do? Would you hide or would you play the game? What sort of weapon would you want to get? A gun or something like a tracking device that allows you to avoid the competition? Very few films manage to draw in their audiences in such a way right off the bat but Battle Royale manages to do it without even trying. Maybe it’s because the general premise of the film is so fucked up or maybe the film appeals to some innate competitive survival instinct in every human. Whatever the reason, this is one film you will not stop watching halfway through. You will force yourself to watch it all the way to the end.

In recent years some people have debated whether The Hunger Games is a rip off of Battle Royale. For the record, I am going to say that I don’t think The Hunger Games is a rip off. Although I think the two share similarities, I think it would be fair to say that The Hunger Games has its own distinct features and themes. While Battle Royale is about growing up and leaving behind childhood friends, The Hunger Games is (I think) more of commentary on wealth inequality and reality television and it is enjoyable in its own way. Don’t get me wrong though, I think Battle Royale is 1000 times better and you would be a fool for thinking otherwise.

High-lights:

• Wonderful characters that are developed in a very small amount of time.
• Surprisingly good amount of humour.
• Great soundtrack.
• The lighthouse shoot out is one of the weirdest and most spectacularly perverse scenes in the history of film.
• RUN!

Downers:

• Kazuo Kiriyama is the only underdeveloped character and it’s a shame because in the novel his background is fascinating.

Summary:

I have no doubt that Battle Royale will continue to be a cult favourite for decades to come. It has all the ingredients needed to ensure its survival as a classic. If you haven’t seen it yet then hop to it. It’s on Netflix so there is no excuse.

10/10

The Prestige (2006)

Genre: Drama

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Scarlett Johansson

Synopsis: In Victorian England, two rival stage magicians compete to create the best illusion.

When I look at Christopher Nolan’s filmography, I am always surprised to find this film there. It’s not that I don’t know Christopher Nolan directed and wrote this movie, it’s that I always forget that he did those things. When I think of his films, humungous box office smashes such as the Dark Knight Trilogy and Inception come to mind. It’s never this film that I think about. Re-watching this movie, I kind of figured out why that was: it’s a lot less flashy than Nolan’s other work. I don’t mean that it’s less impressive in content. I mean that it’s got less of the stuff that audiences seem to like in his movies: fighting, explosions, and Joseph Gordon Levitt in a tailored suit…..drool. The Prestige is more of a stylish and moody analysis of revenge and rivalry. That may not sound overly exciting but this film as at its core something that wins audiences over: magic.

Everyone loves magic, I am sure of it. For me, I was always drawn to the magicians who understood that magic is as much about theatricality as it is about mystery and wowing audiences. Can you blame me for liking theatricality in my magic shows? I grew up watching this bad ass mo fo:

Look at his harem of super fine b*tches!

The great thing about The Prestige is that Nolan understands that style plays an important role in magic shows and performance art in general. As a result, the production design is top notch. It kind of has a “masked magician meets upscale Victorian whore house” vibe. Basically, it’s how I want my future bedroom to look. The film also manages to catch the beauty of the American west and there are some stunning shots of (what I assume is) Colorado. The result is that you can’t stop looking at the screen. However, when the movie ends, you might want to hide your wallet or credit card to avoid an online spending spree that results in you buying useless shit like ornate bird cages and devices invented by Nikola Tesla.

On the down side, this is a film that requires a lot of attention from the audience, which can be hard to give if you’re stoned. The film’s opening sentence (“Are you watching closely?”) essentially acts an invitation for the audience to try and figure out the twist before the end. All the clues are given away during the course of the movie but they’re hard to pick up on. Only the diligent will figure it out. If you haven’t figured the twist out by the time the film comes to an end, you might feel a little bit cheated because it’s actually brilliantly simple and kind of obvious. Then again, maybe that’s what is so good about it because mixed in with all the Tesla magic is a very simple and effective illusion.

Another downside to this movie is that none of the actors can seem to nail a British accent…even Christian Bale, who is practically English. It was so bad, I even started to have doubts about the authenticity of Michael Caine’s accent. I don’t know why the accents were so bad in this movie. I’ve seen some of the actors pull of good British accents in other movies (for example, Johansson in Under the Skin), but here it felt like they were doing some kind of parody. I’m fine with the idea of a parody of British people but The Prestige could not have been a parody because it didn’t have the teeth thing down.

Pictured: the brilliance of old Simpsons episodes

However, these criticisms don’t dull The Prestige’s positive aspects. At the end of the day, this is still a fun movie that keeps its audience on its toes thanks to a satisfying blend of style and mystery.

High-lights:

• Very stylish.
• Fascinating film for people who enjoy magic shows.
• DAVID BOWIE!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH. And this time he’s not wearing his codpiece.
• Eye candy for every kind of person.

Downers:

• The accents! They burn my ears!!!!
• A little too long and drawn out.
• Ending can feel a little flat.

Summary:

This is the sort of film made for people who like stylish noodle scratchers. In that sense, it was a very good film to watch while stoned as it satisfied my cravings for visual beauty and challenging narratives. While I don’t believe that this is Nolan’s best film, I must admit that it is still a very fine film and one he should be proud of.

7.5/10

Cruel Intentions (1999)

Genre: Drama

Cast: Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe, Reese Witherspoon

Synopsis: Two wealthy, spoilt, and morally corrupt teenagers enter into a wager in which Ryan Phillippe will seduce the headmaster’s virginal daughter. Things don’t go to plan, however, when he finds himself falling for her girl-next-door charm.

Sometimes I wonder why it is that I am such a ho bag. Seriously, I’ve lost count of all the individuals I have had trysts with…and I’m not including that homeless guy that grabbed my ass one time. I suppose it’s part of that nature vs. nurture debate and, if I were to pick a side, I would say that it was more of a nurture thing. Why do I say that? Well maybe it’s because, at the age of 10, I idolised Buffy the vampire slayer. I didn’t want to be with her; I wanted to BE her. I wanted to be Buffy so badly that I watched everything Sarah Michelle Gellar was in so I could learn her secrets. Eventually I found myself watching Cruel Intentions. With this in mind, is it really surprising that I turned out the way I did?

Let me explain, Cruel Intentions is all about Sarah Michelle Gellar getting in touch with her bad self. Up until this film, she had only played do-gooders and likeable characters. In Cruel Intentions, she lets out her inner bitch-whore from hell and has a bloody good time doing it. She makes being a slut look like fun. How slutty does she get? Well…she propositions her step brother with something no red-blooded male can refuse.

 

Yes, that’s right. She offers her brother anal sex. They’re not related by blood, you understand, but it’s still pretty scandalous. I don’t remember Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons offering John Malkovich entry to her back passage…although they may have had a different word for it in 18^th century France. So much of enjoyment can be had watching Gellar play the villain and it is obvious she really relished the opportunity to do it. She even looks as though she had fun making out in the park with Selma Blair.

It pains me to say, however, that aside from Gellar the film really doesn’t really offer much else in the way of brilliance. Despite having an impressive cast, none of them match Gellar’s ruthless charm (except maybe Christine Baranski who is brilliant in everything she is in purely because she is Christine Baranski). This is perhaps one of Witherspoon’s weakest roles and Phillippe doesn’t get naked nearly as much as he should. Moreover, the plot plods along at a rather slow pace and not enough is done at the outset of the movie to inspire empathy for Phillippe’s character. When the climax finally happened, I was rather underwhelmed. Having said that, the film does have a banging soundtrack and features instant 90s classics such as Every You Every Me, Coffee & TV, and Bitter Sweet Symphony.

All jokes about me being a ho aside, the film does offer one useful piece of advice to teenagers and young adults: it’s alright to get your baps out in private but for the love of God don’t take photos. Tara Reid learns the hard way in this movie….which is kind of ironic if you think about it….or maybe it’s just appropriate…

I’ll let you be the judge

High-lights:

• Sarah Michelle Gellar inspiring me to be a cunt and a slag. Although, I do draw the line at cocaine and incest.
• Brilliant soundtrack.
• IT’S SO 90s!!!!! So much nostalgia.
• Score one for the lesbians.

Downers:

• Boring and two-dimensional characters.
• Wealthy teenagers piss me off.
• Disappointing climax.

Summary:

Cruel Intentions is not the sort of film that will inspire admiration and it’s not the sort of film that will make anyone’s top 10 list. It’s clunky in places and, at times, improperly thought out and executed. However, I would advise you to watch this film purely for Sarah Michelle Gellar. Although she’s no Meryl Streep, Gellar has her own strengths and her own charm which are deployed in full force here and it’s always fun to watch a movie that has a brilliant villain.

5.5/10

The Tale of the Princess Kaguya (2013)

Genre: Animation, Drama

Cast: Aki Asakura, Kengo Kora, Takeo Chii

Synopsis: A bamboo cutter discovers a miniature girl inside a bamboo shoot. Believing her to be divine, he takes her home and raises the girl to be a princess.

Most people hate January. I, on the other hand, quite enjoy it because of one reason: Oscar season. This year I managed to see most of the big films that have been nominated. I have my favourites but I am of the opinion that certain mistakes were made by the academy. One big mistake was the failure to nominate The Lego Movie for best animated feature. However, the academy managed to get it right when it decided to nominate Song of the Sea and this Studio Ghibli film.

As you all know, I am a massive Ghibli fan. I love them so much I would marry Totoro if I could. So it comes a no surprise then that I thoroughly enjoyed this offering from Isao Takahata, who is responsible for other classics such as Pom Poko, Only Yesterday, and Grave of the Fireflies. Based on the Japanese folktale The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, the film is about the life of a girl found in a bamboo shoot who is raised to be a princess during the Heian period. Despite being a princess, she goes through all the troubles young girls face such as falling in love, learning to become a lady, and celebrating her first visit from Aunt Rose by throwing a party for all the horny gentlemen in the surrounding area.

The traditional period cake

First of all, let me just say that this is one of the most exquisitely animated films Studio Ghibli has ever produced. I wasn’t sure if a film with a watercolour aesthetic would work but I was pleasantly surprised. The watercolours not only give the film a delicate feel but also a fluidity and level of simplicity that was much appreciated. Every frame in this film could have been a painting, and the animators at the studio have again displayed their talents as well as added to the studio’s reputation as a heavy-hitter in animation world. Two scenes in particular that stand out are the scene where the princess visits the cherry tree and the scene where she runs out of her period party. Both scenes are so beautiful you will have to rewatch them.

Visual beauty is not the only strength to this film. As always, Joe Hisaishi hits the nail on the head with his beautiful score and the script is sharp and injects appropriate humour in all the right places. Moreover, the film is yet another example of why Studio Ghibli is one of the most revolutionary film studios out there for presenting strong female characters and advocating a feminist message. The Tale of the Princess Kaguya essentially functions as a feminist critique of traditional Japanese culture. As such, the movie belongs to be placed on the same shelf with other pro-feminism movies such as Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away. The film also examines another important theme: the burdens parents place on children and the transitory beauty of youth.

If I were to be completely objective, I would say that the film’s length is its downfall. Towards the end, the audience will begin to get twitchy and it doesn’t help that the last half gets pretty odd by Western standards. As much as I love ‘Japan WTF’ moments, even I found the kidnapping by Buddha weird.

Filthy bastard

However, these flaws don’t detract from the fact that this is a beautiful and moving work of art. I would like to see this win the Oscar for best animated feature, but it faces stiff competition.

High-lights:

• Spectacular animation and a well-formed script.
• “A girl needs to LOL every now and then.” You go girl! I want you as my future daughter.
• Beautiful and transfixing music and sound.
• I wish I were a Heian princess….only without the whole “YAY it’s your period” thing.

Downers:

• A bit too long.
• Gets weird in places.

Summary:

Another fine film for Studio Ghibli’s portfolio. While it isn’t the best film the studio’s produced, I am confident that it is one that will be fondly remembered in years to come and it will most definitely be one that I show my future daughter (assuming I have one). Do yourself a favour and watch this as soon as possible.

8/10

Jackie Brown (1997)

Genre: Drama, Thriller

Cast: Pam Grier, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Forster, Robert De Niro

Synopsis: An aging flight attendant gets caught smuggling money into the US for a gun-runner. Unfortunately, some coke was hidden with the money. She then becomes the central figure in a plot to deceive both the dealer and the cops.

I have a theory that you can instantly tell what a person is like based on what their favourite Tarantino movie is. After more than twenty years in the industry, Tarantino has produced a diverse filmography that not only caters to his own individual style but also to the varied tastes of his audience. For the aesthetes, you have the visual glory of Kill Bill. For the experimental, you have the intoxicating effect of Pulp Fiction. And for those who love boobs and cars, you have Death Proof. My favourite Tarantino movie, however, is one of his least well-received: Jackie Brown. This film is for those who love complex characters and those who give greater weight to substance as opposed to style.

That’s not to say that Jackie Brown is lacking in style because it’s not. On the contrary, the film is chock-full of gorgeous camera work and the hallmarks of a traditional Tarantino film (think rapid and sharp conversation, a soundtrack that is on point, and feet). What I mean to say is that Jackie Brown feels like a more mature and a more subdued version of a Tarantino film. It is a film that functions as a character study and, for the majority of its duration, the audience is left to observe the complexities the central characters. Other Tarantino staples, such as ultra-violence and general fucked-up-ness, take a back-seat.

It would be impossible to write this review without saying anything about Pam Grier. Let’s just get one thing straight: I love that girl with all my heart. I remember the first time I saw Coffy. I knew it was love right away. Any woman who dumps a salad bowl on a cracker bitch and is smart enough to hide razor blades in her weave automatically wins my respect.

In Jackie Brown, Grier delivers a nuanced performance and gives Jackie layers. We see her character’s strength, her intelligence, her wit, and also her vulnerability. As the film progresses, the audience’s affectation and admiration for her grows and, by the end, we are all rooting for her. She is a character we can all respect and one we can all identify with on some level. Grier is not the only one who delivers a stellar performance. Robert Forster and Samuel L. Jackson both give it their all, Forster as a love-struck bondsman and Jackson as the ruthless gun-runner Ordell. In fact, I would say that this is Jackson’s best performance ever. While some may prefer his role in Pulp Fiction, I think it’s this film that allows him to display his range: he’s funny, quick, and terrifying all at the same time. Plus, the man gets props for putting a bullet in one of the most annoying fuckers in the galaxy.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!

To be frank, you can’t go wrong with this movie. I’m having a difficult time picking out anything I actively disliked. This is simply Tarantino at his finest.

High-lights:

• Pam Grier kicking ass.
• Samuel L. Jackson with the rattiest looking weave I have ever seen.
• A well-paced and developed storyline that isn’t going to make you say: “say wut???”
• The hooker dancing to The Supremes was hysterical.
• A lovely ending: bitter-sweet with just the right amount of romance.
• Killer soundtrack.

Downers:

• Sharonda the rock ho is pretty depressing.

Summary:

If this is a Tarantino film you have yet to see then you are in for a treat my friend. It’s got top-notch characters, acting, writing, the whole shebang. Plus, it’s on Netflix. I’m almost tempted to give you my log in details just so you can watch it now.

10/10

Practical Magic (1998)

Genre: Romance, Comedy

Cast: Sandra Bullock, Nicole Kidman

Synopsis: Bullock and Kidman play two sister witches who are plagued by a curse: the men they fall in love with are doomed die early.

This must be one of the chickiest chick flicks to ever grace cinema. It’s got everything women love: sisterhood, sappy emotional drivel, and Wicca. Also, Sandra Bullock. She is like cat-nip for white women. Ordinarily these things combined would scare me off but, after having an American Horror Story: Coven marathon over the holiday season, I decided to give this a shot to see if it was just as good. Turns out it wasn’t. Surprise, surprise. However, as I always say, some of the worst films out there can become the best films with the aid of a little weed. While I wouldn’t say weed made this one of the best films, it certainly made it more enjoyable…most likely because it helped me to realise what this film is actually about.

Yes, that’s right. This film is all about Nicole Kidman’s character overcoming her addiction to blow. How do I know it’s about cocaine? Well, for starters Kidman runs away and becomes this groupie chick in the desert and then starts hanging around with a sordid crowd. She then goes into this house, kind of like the one in Boogie Nights, and then starts talking a lot about “Angel love” i.e. angel dust. Boom. She’s an addict. It’s hardly surprising really. Most films about witchcraft seem to have addiction as a central theme. Just look at The Craft, which was all about heroin addiction. I wonder why that is. It’s probably because performing magic would give you a power trip in the same way that doing drugs sends you on a trip. If you could alter the laws of the universe for personal gain, it would be hard to use that power responsibly. Willow from Buffy found out the hard way….and she was clearly on some strong shit.

My guess is that it’s meth

So, drug abuse aside, what is good about this movie. Well, it’s quite stylish for one thing. These women live in a gorgeous house. It’s a grand old wooden Victorian house next to the ocean. It also has a sick greenhouse. I would push my mother down the stairs if it meant I could live in a house like that. Also, the soundtrack is surprisingly good in places. It’s got that one Faith Hill song in it that everyone likes but no one can remember the words to. However, the film also has a song in it in which the artist rhymes the word ‘glove’ with ‘love.’ That’s pretty amateur.

Something else that’s pretty amateur in places is the writing. Whoever wrote this film clearly had no idea about police procedure. I can’t believe these women let the cop in without a warrant and he handles evidence without the proper equipment. Any hack could get his entire case thrown out. Seriously writers, if you are going to have a cop as a character in your work, whatever it may be, please learn about proper police protocol. It’s very easy and it is mistakes like these that threaten to derail an otherwise coherent movie.

High-lights:

• Stylish.
• No matter how you look at it, Sandra Bullock is still kind of a BAMF.
• It has the cat-faced lady who played Mona in the first Tales of the City series!
• The scene where Sandra Bullock hears the beetle is actually quite good.

Downers:

• It kind of skims over the Salem witch trials, which is one of the most interesting points in history. I would have preferred more detail on how idiotic people were back then….”My milk hath gone sour! It must be the doing of a witch!” No, it’s because your dumb-ass left the milk outside in 40 degree weather.
• It was sad how the kids stoned young Nicole. Kids are shits.

Summary:

This is one of those light, feel-good movies that will completely disappear from your mind a few days after watching it. That’s not a bad thing. Sometimes it’s good to watch these sorts of movies just to kill some time or to impress your girlfriend. From an objective point of view, Practical Magic is kind of mediocre. Let’s be honest, it was never going to light the world on fire. However, under the right circumstances (i.e. you must be blitzed) it can be a pretty enjoyable film if you let it be. It wins points from me because of that.

6.5/10

Collateral (2004)

Genre: Thriller

Cast: Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx, Mark Ruffalo, Jada Pinkett Smith

Synopsis: An unfortunate cabbie is forced to drive a hitman around LA so he can kill his targets.

A few days ago I noticed a post on Reddit that asked about good “unofficial trilogies.” The post that caught my eye was one in which someone suggested Collateral, Drive, and Nightcrawler. If you have been following my blog for a while, you will know that I love the last two movies. However, at the time I couldn’t confirm whether the suggestion was a good one because I hadn’t seen Collateral. I decided to change that and, after one of the most stressful work weeks of my life, I settled down for the night with my good friend Mary Jane, this film, and a bag of almonds because I had a wicked craving for almonds….not that that’s relevant.

Whenever I approach a Tom Cruise movie, I always worry it’s going to be terrible. I am not sure why that is exactly but it might have something to do with the Katie Holmes/Scientology affair. Whatever the reason, I am always forced to eat my words because the guy always manages to prove his worth. The same thing happened when I saw Edge of Tomorrow this year. In Collateral, he gives hitman Vincent a cool and steely demeanour but you can see that Cruise adds a hidden edge. You never know quite what to expect and the unpredictability of Cruise’s character heightens the film’s tension because anything could happen. This is perhaps best shown in the jazz club scene. The climax, although not entirely unexpected, was still a shock. Kind of like when my asshole colleague gives me Earl Grey tea when I ask for regular tea.

Me….every damn day

The rest of the cast put in solid performances too but, for me, the real star of the film is the camera work. The film is noted as being the first major motion picture that used the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera. Michael Mann’s decision to use a digital camera for some of the scenes was a stroke of genius because it allows the audience to witness the Los Angeles in its raw glory. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Los Angeles is a beautiful city but it’s not an obvious beauty. It’s not beautiful in the way that San Francisco or Paris is beautiful. Los Angeles has grit and, on first glance, you would probably dismiss the city. However, the city’s beauty comes from the small details injected into the dark corners. It’s stuff like seeing the Downtown skyline surrounded by oranges, reds, and indigos at sunset. It’s seeing the wind blowing through the palm trees and knowing that the rugged wilderness of the desert mountains is at your door step. At times it feels as if nature is reclaiming the city. Collateral captures those moments very well, as evidenced by this scene.

When I first watched this scene, I thought it was a bit cheesy but I found myself rewatching it and every time I saw it my appreciation grew. Any film that captures the duality of the city’s character immediately gets my approval and this film does it every bit as well as Drive and Nightcrawler. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to lump these films together as an unofficial trilogy. If I were to name the trilogy, it would be something along the lines of the “LA Traffic Light Trilogy.”

However, it is my personal belief that Collateral is the weakest of the three films. That’s not to say that it is bad. I just feel that the film didn’t do enough to push the envelope in the way that Drive and Nightcrawler did. Those two films delivered an emotional experience that hit a lot harder and ended on an ambiguous note, ensuring that the experience kept in the mind of the audience after they left their seats. Collateral is a very good film but it feels a little too clean-cut. The ambiguity isn’t there and it ends with a nice little bow on top. I would have preferred something a bit more complex.

High-lights:

• The beauty of Los Angeles is on full display here.
• KTOWN!!! My old hood!
• Solid performances, including a cameo from Javier Bardem.
• Astonishing camera work.

Downers:

• Why are these people still dancing in the club after some guy has been killed in front of them?
• You wouldn’t walk away from a car accident like that.

Summary:

Collateral is a very good Los Angeles neo-noire and I’m glad that I finally got around to watching it. If you’re a fan of the genre, as I am, then by all accounts you should see this movie. While it does have its flaws, they do not spoil the positives and the film may just encourage you to take that trip to LA….which is kind of weird because this movie is about people getting shot in LA.

7.5/10

The Girl Who Became Three Boys (2012)

Genre: Documentary, Comedy, Drama

Cast: Real people from the deepest and darkest corners of the British Isles.

Genre: A documentary about a psychopathic girl who used social media trickery to become three different boys and seduce two clueless friends.

I’m not the biggest documentary watcher. When I watch movies I like to enjoy a sense of escapism, which is something that is mostly absent from documentary films. However, I do like to break this rule every now and then. Considering it’s my first proper post of the new year, I thought I would break tradition by writing about my favourite documentary, which aired on the UK’s channel 4 in 2012. For those of you who do not live in the UK, channel 4 documentaries are legendary because more often than not they take the piss out the subjects of the film. Channel 4’s editors are true visionaries who seem to have adopted a motto that humour can be found in every story, even the most tragic. Plus, the documentaries often have ridiculous topics like dogging or children past the age of five who still breast-feed.

The Girl Who Became Three Boys is the tragic and (surprisingly) true story of Gemma Barker, a girl who managed to seduce two of her straight friends. In this day and age, a gay person seducing a straight person is hardly news-worthy. Hell, I did it once or twice in my college days. What is so shocking about the Gemma Barker case is the way she seduced her friends. There were no drugs involved thankfully. What she did instead was create three different boys using Facebook and social media and then used those boys to get close to the two girls in question. Basically, she was a catfish. But it gets even more twisted when you find out that the two girls actually met the ‘boys’ and started serious relationships with them. How did they not know they were dating their female friend? Lord knows because she adopted a disguise every bit as complicated and rigorous as the disguises used by Sailor Moon and the Sailor Scouts.

“These colourful and suggestive outfits will totally keep our identities hidden!”

Looking at it objectively, it is a really fucked up situation. This girl manipulated her friends, toyed with their emotions, and allegedly assaulted them. Then again the series of events is so bizarre and unusual, you would be forgiven for thinking it was the plot to a Shakespearian farce. The documentary capitalises on the inherent WTF-ness of the story and heightens it by using CGI re-enactments, the kind favoured by that Taiwanese news show, and also animated collage poster boards. You may think it was a dirty move on the part of the filmmakers to do this and to make light of a tragic situation but, after seeing interviews with the victims, you kind of feel as though it was actually the sensible thing to do.

The filmmakers manage to interview the two victims and one of them, very sensibly, decides to remain anonymous and her face is never shown. The other one…..well….let’s just say she wasn’t as smart. She comes on to the show and, bold as brass, details everything about the incident…and I mean EVERYTHING. The stuff she says is just unbelievable. Through gentle questioning from the filmmakers, you find out that she never actually saw the guy/girl’s full face because he/she always obscured it with a hat or a hoodie, and he/she never spoke to the victim. Instead, he/she used to type messages on his/her phone and then show the victim….while they were stood next to each other.

As the documentary progresses, you begin to question whether it is actually a piss-take but I assure you it is not. This is all true and there’s even a Wikipedia page dedicated to the case. I urge you to watch this documentary online (if you can find it) for two reasons. First, it’s a great example of how to make a documentary that entertains as much as it educates. Secondly, it’ll make you feel much better about yourself because you’ll come to realise that you will never be as clueless as the people in this documentary.

High-lights:

• So much WTF.
• “She was so clever!” No. She really wasn’t.
• Surprisingly quotable…”He gave me pleasure.”
• British humour at its finest…and most sardonic.

Downers:

• It must have been a very traumatic experience for the victims.

Summary:

If you watch one documentary this year, please let it be this one. It is so ridiculous and so memorable you will be talking about it for days. It is available in some corner of the internet so there is no excuse not to watch it.

10/10

High-lights of 2014

Happy new year everybody! I hope you all managed to celebrate the arrival of 2015 in a special way. As expected, I spent the evening baked out of my gourd and watching movies. All in all, a pretty successful evening for me.

Now, moving on to the important stuff, it’s time for me to deliver my opinion on what the best movies of the year were. Before I start, I should say that last year I failed to include some films I should have because they had not yet been released in England. Had I the ability to see them before New Year, 12 Years a Slave and Her would have definitely made the list. I was considering including them on this year’s list but I thought it would be unfair to prejudice the great films that were released in 2014. As such, this year’s list will only include film’s that were released this year. Fortunately, my sojourn to the US meant I was able to see all the Oscar-favourites before they came out here so my choices this year are fairly balanced.

I have picked these five films for a variety of reasons and, as you will see, it’s quite a diverse group. I picked some for entertainment value. Others I picked because of what they accomplished. All in all, I have to say it was an impressive year in cinema and I hope 2015 turns out to be just as eventful.

Boyhood

What is it about?

A young boy growing up in Texas.

Why is it one of the best films of the year?

How could it not be? It took 12 years to film and is one of the most audacious films to have ever been made. Boyhood packs and emotional punch but the surprising thing about it is that it’s a film that’s not really about anything. A lot of the drama actually happens off screen: the parents’ split, the domestic violence etc. What we see is the boys’ reaction to these events and how they shape his life with very little input from him. The audience is asked to relate to and forge a connection with the boy simply because we share one thing in common: we were once children ourselves. Boyhood delivers a message which is that childhood is a magical time, but one that ends very quickly. You blink, you miss it. Once it’s gone, you’ll never get it back. The movie made me, a young adult, reflect on my own childhood and appreciate any film that manages to evoke a sense of nostalgia.

Best thing about it?

The realism. The scene in which the boy gets given a gun and a bible on a birthday from his conservative grandparents is a brilliant example. He doesn’t get emotional, he just accepts the gifts politely and then saves his comments for later.

Dear White People

What is it about?

Race relations on a university campus in North America.

Why is it one of the best films of the year?

Because it manages to inject appropriate humour into a subject matter that is incredibly sensitive and complex and concerns an issue of the utmost relevance. I must admit, I was surprised by how much I loved this film. I went to see it at the London Film Festival because I had heard good things about it on the festival circuit. Now, as a white guy, race is something I don’t think about a lot largely because I don’t have to. When I lived in the US, it was the first time I experienced the race debate. It was a completely new experience for me but one that fascinated me. So much so in fact, that I took a course on critical race theory. This film dealt with a number of topics we looked at in class: intersectionality, racial identity among minorities, and the myth of a post-racial society. These issues are complex and emotional and to see them discussed thoughtfully and with well-scripted humour was very impressive.

Best thing about it?

Tyler James Williams. They guy has great timing and delivery.

Under the Skin

What is it about?

An alien in Glasgow who picks up men and devours their insides.

Why is it one of the best films of the year?

Because it is both beautiful and fucking weird. I remember leaving the cinema with an eerie sense of dread and discomfort, and I don’t mean that negatively. The film has very little dialogue, and when it does a lot of it is improvised, but it’s a great study of how images and sound effects can influence a person’s mood and emotions. Scarlett Johansson delivers one of her best performances as an alien in a ratty wig and fur coat, seducing men from depressing Glasgow council estates and leading them to their doom. Be warned, this isn’t the sort of film everyone will enjoy and I know people who hate this film. However, in my mind, it deserves to be on the list simply because it was the most unusual, interesting and creative film of the year.

Best thing about it?

Scarlett Johansson asking for directions to the motorway and shopping in Claire’s Accessories.

Nightcrawler

What is it about?

A freelance camera man records the aftermath of crimes and car crashes and then sells the footage to TV networks.

Why is it one of the best films of the year?

Because the film manages to be both entertaining and creepy, with Jake Gyllenhaal giving a wonderful performance as a career-obsessed sociopath in a fucked up profession. If I were to pick a group of people who are simply the worst, it would have to be real estate agents. However, Nightcrawler shines a light on an industry I didn’t even know existed and it is clearly full of douchebags. Nightcrawler is quite a slow film at first but the tension builds throughout. The ending is not a disappointment and the tension is released in an explosive and also really twisted way. This is a savvy and inventive little thriller that deserves recognition at awards ceremonies. Also, some beautiful shots of LA and it was filmed in my old neighbourhood….although I don’t remember it being that dangerous.

Best thing about it?

The film’s ability to build tension.

Gone Girl

What is it about?

A woman disappears and her husband becomes the prime suspect.

Why is it one of the best films of the year?

Because it’s a smart and stylish thriller with a great performance from Rosamund Pike and brilliant direction from David Fincher. I am a voracious reader; I get through at least 40 books a year. However, I tend to stay well away from ‘it books.’ The novel was certainly one of those and, because I hadn’t read it, I came to the cinema blind. I had no idea what would happen and thank god for that because it heightened the overall experience. During this movie I laughed, I was shocked, and I was thrilled. It’s a difficult thing to bring out a broad and contrasting range of emotions in an audience, but Fincher manages to do it with Gone Girl thereby securing his title as one of the best directors working today.

Best thing about it?

Honestly, I would say Pike. She’s not going to win an Oscar for her performance but a nomination is highly deserved. She manages to portray a very complex and interesting character with ease and she was a very pleasant surprise….as was Ben Affleck’s penis.

Downers of 2014

On the rare occasions my childhood friends and I get to celebrate New Year’s Eve with each other, we have a tradition. Before midnight we each do a shot of an alcohol mixed with cranberry juice. After midnight, we do another with some kind of alcohol paired with apple juice. As we do it, we say: “Bitter cranberry for the past and sweet apple for the future.” It sounds a lot more poignant than it actually is. The tradition started when my friend, who was royally pissed at the time, ran out of Malibu and coke and had to improvise.

At the end of 2013, I did a ‘year in review’ post where I listed my favourite and most hated movies released that year. I have decided to do the same this year but have approached the post differently. This year, I wanted to take inspiration from our tradition by doing two separate posts: one chronicling the bitter cranberry movies and another celebrating the sweet apples.

As a general rule, 2014 was quite a strong year for movies. Then again, there were some absolute shockers in the bunch. Some films, such as Transformers: Age of Extinction and A Million Ways to Die in the West, don’t make the list. That’s not because I liked them. It’s because I didn’t see them. Quite frankly, I don’t hate myself enough to watch these films. If I had seen these movies then they may have been included. The best I can do is include the shit films I have watched. Rest assured though, I did see quite a few. Without further ado, here are my picks for worst films of the year.

Maleficent

What is it about?

It’s a reinterpretation of Sleeping Beauty, only this time through the eyes of the villain who, apparently, is not a villain at all…she’s just a messed up woman who was physically abused and possibly date raped.

Why is it one of the worst films of the year?

Because it’s totally unnecessary! I must admit, I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to these sorts of things. I’m happy to label the villain as a villain and leave it at that without further question. Not everybody needs a back story, especially if it’s one that’s so saccharine and ham-fisted. The reason Maleficent was such a good villain in the original version was because she was a total drag-queen bitch. She didn’t need a reason to be evil. With cheekbones like hers, she doesn’t need a reason to do or be anything. In my eyes, this was just a waste of money and some of the CGI was pretty monstrous.

Worst thing about it?

Despite the attempts to give them more depth, the characters are really bland and uninspiring.

Grace of Monaco

What is it about?

Grace Kelly’s marriage to Prince Rainier and their efforts to keep Monaco a tax haven for corrupt officials and millionaires.

Why is it one of the worst films of the year?

Because everything about this steaming pile of crap was mistake. It’s hard for me to point out anything positive. If you were to put a gun to my head and make me say something nice it would probably be that the costume department did a good job. Everything else was a total misstep. The acting is hammy at best and none of the characters are sympathetic. Olivier Dahan, the director of the film, was the man behind La Vie en Rose, which is widely considered to be a great French movie. As such, it’s a little confusing to be presented with this abomination, which essentially functions as a two-hour Chanel commercial.

Worst thing about it?

It feels like a wildly inappropriate film to make. At a time when people are tightening their belts and trying to get by on what little money they are given, it seems tacky to make a film about how a screen goddess helped hide their wealth from the government. On top of that, the film ends with a message that it’s OK to be rich and superficial so long as you help the poor on one day of the year….by throwing a lavish ball.

Mood Indigo

What is it about?

It’s about weird French people living in a fantastical Paris and one gets sick when a lily starts growing in her lung.

Why is it one of the worst films of the year?

Because it is simply too weird. Don’t get me wrong, I love serious film’s that add a touch of the strange and fantastic. This film gets it all wrong, however, by having the weirdness eclipse the human drama to a point where nothing really makes sense. It feels like you’re watching street performers and mime-artists who managed to scrape together enough money to make a film with various political messages.

Worst thing about it?

I was so bored throughout this movie. Nothing really happens in it and the cutesy touches just become nauseating after a while.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

What is it about?

Life in a fictional city where crime lords and corrupt politicians run the show.

Why is it one of the worst films of the year?

Because it was mistimed. This film should have been released years ago, closer to when the first Sin City came out. Now that it’s 2014, the momentum of the first film has been lost and the film feels kind of irrelevant. On top of that, the quality of the individual stories in this film vary from dull to pointless. On a positive note, I will say that Eve Green’s boobs look magnificent in this film but I wish Joseph Gordon Levitt got his arse out.

Worst thing about it?

Replacing Devon Aoki and the scene in which Miho kills a bunch of guys….it just looked so sloppy.

Divergent

What is it about?

It’s about a really dull teenager who inadvertently sparks a revolution in a dystopian society simply because she a “balanced” personality.

Why is it one of the worst films of the year?

Because it’s angsty teenage trash with a crappy protagonist who likes to do the things all moronic teenage girls like to do, namely looking at herself in mirrors and fussing about boys. This film is essentially a boring version of The Hunger Games and the lead actress, Shailene Woodley, is fucking annoying. I don’t know what it is but something about her gets on my tits…maybe it’s the fact that she’s younger than me and more successful or maybe it’s that she eats clay. That’s something people in special-ed classes do. Maybe it’s to do with the fact she starred in a film this year in which two kids make out in Anne Frank’s house in Amsterdam. Who does that!? That place is a house of sombre remembrance and they decide to get busy there!!??

Worst thing about it?

The film lost me when the protagonist explains that society is split up into certain groups that match an individual’s personality type. At a certain age, kids get to choose where they want to be. As she’s explaining it all, she mentions there is a group called ‘Amity’ and that everyone there is happy. Why, then, does she decide to join the kids who all act as though they have ADHD!? Just pick the group where everyone is happy! Seems like an obvious choice.