Soylent Red

I didn't get around to reviewing this before I headed off to Millstreet last week for the European Juggling Convention. I guess you've all since seen it so I don't expect a review would be particularly enlightening at this point. Anyway I expect that approximately everyone was planning to see this film and nothing I can say is going to change that.

The simple fact is that the two coolest elements any movie can contain right now are Johnny Depp and pirates. Captain Jack Sparrow is the icon of this decade and anyone who regards this particular cultural bandwagon as optional is sadly removing themselves from society for the foreseeable future (i.e., until the next in the series manages against all the odds to be a disappointment, at which point those people will gloat at length while everyone else moves silently onwards and tries to forget the whole thing).

• Permanent Link
• Toggle Comments [5]

Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), lobbyist for the American tobacco industry, a fast- and smooth-talking professional arguer, goes to hollywood to improve smoking's image and at the same time tries to protect his industry from an ambitious anti-smoking senator who wants to put a skull and crossbones on every packet of cigarettes. He represents an industry that kills 1200 people a day, a fact which he presents with pride to his fellow MODs (merchants of death), the representatives of the alcohol and firearms industries whose death tolls are (for them) disappointingly smaller. And this seemingly amoral yuppie is a character that the audience is supposed to like. Thank You for Smoking has a premise that should guarantee a good movie.

And yet it doesn't entirely live up to its potential. I have to confess that I can't quite tell what it was about the film that wasn't up to scratch for me. Not terribly helpful in a review, I know, but that's the way it is. There is one particularly bad actor, Cameron Bright (Leech in X-Men 3) who plays Naylor's son, but I don't think he really had that much of a negative impact on the film despite his "I'm reading this off a teleprompter, badly" delivery. I suspect that it's just a case of too-high expectations on my part. Thankfully that's not something you should have to deal with now that I've told you it's not that good.

I'll be fair; it isn't actually bad. It's actually quite good, and still in my top five new movies from this year so far. There are a few great scenes and a number of very entertaining supporting characters. It just never goes beyond what the trailer presents. There's nothing in the whole film funnier than Rob Lowe's "thank God we invented the, you know, whatever device" to explain the fact that cigarettes don't explode in an all-oxygen environment in sci-fi movies.

If the concept appeals to you then you probably won't be let down, but you won't be wowed either. On the other hand if the premise leaves you cold then there's no reason to think that the film will do anything to change your mind.

• Permanent Link

I've been sitting here with my laptop for the last few hours, and every time I get my browser's tab count down to one there's something new in Bloglines for me to look at. This can be an almost unending process sometimes, so I've pushed that temptation aside in order to get this review written. I want to have made at least some cursory observations about Hard Candy while it's still on general release.

I want to start by saying that it was a very good film. The subject matter—a fourteen-year-old girl (Ellen Page, X-Men 3) who's brought home by a thirty-something paedophile (Patrick Wilson, The Phanton of the Opera apparently) turns the tables on him and goes a little psycho—might sound heavy. But it's actually very entertaining. This isn't one of those depressing or preachy "issues" films that people watch out of a misplaced sense of moral duty. It's slick, stylish and well paced. Every part of it is of an unusually polished quality.

The film's visuals are very artsy. Several shots or even whole scenes look like thay started life as music videos or car ads. Almost the whole film is cast in a subdued blue, except for Page's Little Red Riding Hood hoody (clearly she's the Little Red Riding Hood from Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes). It just plain looks cool. Not that it's all style and no substance. The visual design is clearly in service of the mood, with the colour, for example, reflecting the artificiality of the situation that Page's character has engineered. But mainly it just looks cool.

Everything is in close up or extreme close up, always giving the viewer the opportunity to get as much from the actors' performances as was put in. Which is a lot. Wilson is excellent. But Page is astounding. I was honestly a little scared by how well she played that role. When I raved about her being the best thing in X-Men 3 I didn't realise she was that good. For a seventeen-year-old (as she was at the time of filming) to carry the majority of such a performance-driven film so well is really very impressive.

There were moments when I suspected I was being preached at. There's one scene that has Page sermonising almost directly to the camera. But overall, in retrospect, there doesn't appear to be any siding with either character. So you'll be relieved to know that you're not expected to take the side of either the paedophile or the torturer. Incidentally, I read an interview with Page that suggested that she completely agreed with her character's position. If I ever get the opportunity to meet her I'll make sure to wear a cup. And to mix my own drink.

With all of this said, you won't be surprised that I recommend that you see Hard Candy. However, you might want to bear the following in mind. Guys, you know when you see someone else getting hit in the balls and you can almost feel it yourself? Well in that regard, Hard Candy is the most disturbing film for a man to watch since Springfield Film Festival winner Football in the Groin. One guy actually left the cinema during what I will only describe as a crucial scene. You don't see anything but, let's face it, you don't really have to. Painful viewing. But totally worth it.

• Permanent Link

X-Men: The Last Stand is fast, explosive, exciting and thoroughly Marvel-ous (I'm sorry). It excells as a comic-book movie. The action is bigger and deeper than in the other X-Men films. The fight scenes nicely showcase the mutant abilities of everyone present, including Kelsey Grammer (Down Periscope)'s Beast, Shadowcat and several new badguys. Thankfully director Brett Ratner doesn't continue Brian Singer's habit of showcasing each mutant in turn, as if they were queueing up to take part in the fight like bond villain henchmen.

But action, even in an action movie, is not enough to make a film. The Last Stand's plot has a stronger foundation than the previous films too. For people who don't live in the centre of the Hollywood hype machine as I do, the basis of the film is that the American government has developed a cure for mutancy. Some mutants who want to fit in welcome the cure. Others who define themselves by their mutation are opposed to the idea of a cure. Think of the outcry if someone was to develop a 'cure' for homosexuality and you get some idea of Magneto (Ian McKellen, Last Action Hero)'s position in this film. So there's definitely a challenging issue to deal with in this plot.

Unfortunately the focus of the film is split. Partly it tries to tackle the ethical issues surrounding the cure, in particular the divergence in the stances of Magneto and Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart, Death Train). But much of the film's length is devoted to the second story of Phoenix, the personification of Jean Grey (Famke Janssen, I Spy)'s subconcious. An attempt is made to promote Phoenix as the big threat of the film, and the emotional climax does revolve around her. But for me it fell flat. For whatever reason I just couldn't bring myself to care about that character, because I never cared about Jean.

That unsympathetic central character aside, X3 is brilliant. It's so good that I'm going to see it again tomorrow. It lives up to the expectations set by the first two, and it goes in some daring directions. (This is the bit where I don't tell you about the fact that *spoiler*, *spoiler* and *spoiler* are *spoiler*ed, and *spoiler* and *spoiler* get *spoiler*ed).

If you just want the one-line review: Beast == teh cool.

• Permanent Link
• Toggle Comments [4]