Are you prepared for the end of the world?: "It's a disaster" (2012)

Director: Todd Berger
Writer: Todd Berger
Starring: Julia Stiles, America Ferrera, David Cross, Erinn Hayes, Jeff Grace, Rachel Boston, Kevin M. Brennan, Blaise Miller

Good question. More importantly, has anyone been prepared for the mass influx of apocalyptic films that seem to be appearing at an alarming rate over the last few years? It seems clear that the end of the world is nigh, for real. Simultaneously, and maybe with some relief, there appears to be a rise in comedy spoofs of the apocalyptic genre being produced. Released at the same time this year comes James Francos' "This is the End", along with the famous duo Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, reunited in "The worlds end"; two films that commercially, I am sure, will be massive hits at the cinema. The audience loves a good parody (just look at the success of the Scary movie saga) and recently the apocalyptic genre is being targeted. Personally, I couldn't be happier about this for two reasons, firstly: because the serious 'I'm-the-only-man-left-on-earth-and-will-fight-for-the-human-race' theme gets on my nerves- you are going to die, don't fight it and waste your time, and mine for an hour an a half of ridiculousness, and secondly: because brilliant films like Todd Berger's satire "It's a disaster" (2012) can be made.

In a similar way to Polanskis' film "Carnage" (2011) I wrote about in a previous blog post, the

setting of the film is simple: it is all set in one house where four couples who are all friends have gathered for a couples brunch. Unlike Polanski's "Carnage," the incident that happens off screen is more than just a kid hitting another kid with a stick- its lots of full blown dirty bomb explosions that are slowly spreading their toxic gasses all over the world and killing its inhabitants. Time to take out your HazMat suits guys, this is not your regular couples brunch that you will attend in Bergers apocalyptic satire.

The film opens with a perfect rendition of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture playing against a background of pictures in a slideshow of dated pictures of explosions. The camera then introduces the viewer to one of the couples as the Overture is coming to a close. As the couple walk up to the house it is clear that they are only on a second or third date as one is warning the other about the various friends and couples. A couples brunch is already an awkward situation, with people sitting around talking about their relationships and future plans, and it is clear that most of the characters don't want to be there on this particular occasion. They all have various issues: one is a serial dater, another has recently turned vegan so there is a massive problem on what food to make, one couple are getting a divorce, one couple can't set a date for a wedding, one couple are on drugs, some characters are having an affair, there are arguments about who paid the electricity bill, the men desperately wanting to find out the score of a sports game, an awkward interruption from a neighbor who is offended not to have been invited, one couple who turn up late for the whole party and finally, a surprising solution to the problem of the apocalypse from whom you least expect. This is no ordinary couples brunch- or at least- its definitely one of the most 'happening' that has ever gone down.

The ending of the film is dynamic in its execution- not in an action packed, final stand between the last man and zombies/aliens/natural causes in a demolished building, but rather in a more subdued way that the final, defying act of the characters doesn't actually seem to happen. The ending received a lot of criticism, it has been described as being 'unfinished' and leading the viewer to a massive anti-climax. Nothing is finalized, it is just left there in the open, but in reality who actually does know how the world is going to end- certainly not Berger that's for sure. In my opinion it is the perfect way to end a apocalyptic film. Throughout the movie you never see the destruction of the city, the bombs going off, people running and screaming; the only thing the viewer has been watching is the relationship between a group of  somewhat 'normal' people, in their final hours on earth. It is somewhat refreshing, thus making the satire, ironically, more in tune with reality than the more serious apocalyptic genre films themselves. Simply brilliant.

Verdict: Excellent film. Watch it.

The British guide to maintaining the romance on a Caravan holiday: "Sightseers" (2012)

Director: Ben Wheatley

Writers: Amy Jump, Alice Lowe, Steve Oram

Actors: Alice Lowe, Steve Oram, Eileen Davis, John Hurt

Are you one of the 54% of holidaymakers who opted to embark on a Caravan holiday in the UK last year, instead of joining the other thousands of Brits on their annual pilgrimage to Majorca or Benidorm? Do you like to keep your vacations low cost? Maybe your an environmental aficionado who likes to maintain a low carbon footprint and/or just incredibly passionate about everything that the great country of the United Kingdom has to offer- so then you’d probably enjoy a classic British Caravan holiday: spending quality time with your loved ones. Moving on- however do you often find your Caravan to be to cramped, and the sight of your (hypothetical) partner after a week of living in such conditions makes you cringe at the sight of them? Well Ben Wheatleys 2012 film “Sightseers” will help you keep the romance alive on all your caravan travels. It is a British, very serious guide, to cohabiting in a caravan. The best part is it gives you extreme examples so you know how to handle everything (including what lingerie to pack, ladies) for your trip. Read on…

So Wheatleys protagonists include a travel virgin (who has never left the comfort of home), a professional serial killer (the word professional is the important part- obviously there’s no way you could travel with an amateur- as you will later discover), and a dog. Literally, what Ben Wheatley has done is taken all the possible issues one could face when setting out on or mid way through a Caravan holiday and shown an audience how to deal with them. I must warn you however, about 95% of the time the answer is to kill the person who has been a nuisance to you; so if you are not comfortable with this, then this is not the guidance you need.

Lets start at the beginning.

“Mint me”

-       Chris, ‘Sightseers’ (2012)

Step 1) Be prepared to leave family behind.

Wheatleys example: Tina is going on her first ever holiday with her boyfriend, Chris. Her mum, is a doting mother, very over protective and is totally right (as mothers generally tend to be) when she calls Chris a murderer outright- no mother wants to see there baby go off with a killer. But the first step of setting out on your perfect holiday is risking this. you should take a leap, and defend the rumours, remember you are in love. As Tina says, the murder Chris committed was  only an accident.

Step 2) Pack the essentials for that romantic trip.

Wheatleys example: Tina knows what to pack. Chris has clearly been on Caravan holidays before so tells her to pack all the boring stuff, food, waterproofs etc. Tina adds one more, paving the way to any mans heart- knitted lingerie with easy access. Sexy. Ladies make sure you pack your best.

Step 3) Enjoy the scenery.

Wheatleys example: Tina and Chris had meticulously planned every stop of there trip and pin pointed all the places on a map, including some very exciting activities such as the Pencil museum. So I suppose step 3a is to make sure you organise exciting activities otherwise you’ll just get bored. Step 3b ENJOY IT. There is nothing worse than people who do not respect English heritage sites. There are several rules that you need to follow: do not litter, otherwise Chris will kill you; do not be overly pretentious about your caravan (some people may not have as much money as you) and if you do, Chris will kill you. Lastly, do not lecture Chris on how to respect English heritage sites; otherwise, he will kill you.

Step 4) Take inspiring photos.

This is the holiday you have been dreaming about so take good snaps to remind you of it. Wheatleys example: Chris steals an other persons memory card. This is so he can look through the photos and see what kind of angles they are using also for all kind of pictures, landscapes, romantic, sometimes you have to document these things. Use all your resources.

Step 5) Defend your partners honour.

On your journey you will meet a lot of people, some will be nice and pleasant who share the same interests as you and others will be dickheads. Wheatleys example: Chris kills for Tinas honour, he was defending her, obviously. Tina becomes Chris muse for his novel, this is a sign of respect in a relationship your partner should always be your muse, your inspiration  In addition Chris is helping the carbon footprint by getting rid of people and therefore lowering emissions. As a part b to step 5 make sure your partner is enjoying there holiday at all times ie Tina and Chris both ask each other at the end: “Have you had a good holiday?” thus making sure the experience is not to overwhelming and they have both had a good time. It's not so romantic if your other half is thinking about back home.

In conclusion Tina and Chris are pioneers of true love. If you follow all the examples above and watch Wheatleys film, you too, could have the perfect romantic British Caravan holiday. Good luck.

Verdict: watch this film. It’s a great black comedy and a barrel of awkward laughs.

 

This is definitely not 40: "This is 40" (2012) Review

So Apatow is on the scene again trying to tell everyone what life is like being 40 years old and after watching "This is 40"(2012) I would have to completely disagree with his whole perspective. I'm not a massive fan of his films anyway but thought 'hey, I'll give this one a chance, it might actually be funny' but ooooh I was so wrong. Then again what did I expect form a director whos filmography includes some of my least favourite films like "Pineapple express"(2008) and "Funny People" (2009)- I know these are films that people describe as brilliant comedies but they are just not for me, sorry. However Apatows filmography is so diverse that some of his films I quite enjoyed like "Bridesmaids" (2011) and "Knocked up" (2007). In my opinion "This is 40" completely missed the boat and overall the film drew out various emotions but mainly: disappointment, anger and the total disbelief that the film encompasses what it actually means to be 40.

The first annoying thing about this film: talk about keeping it in the bloody family! Apatow has cast his wife, Leslie Mann, and their two biological children in "This is 40" replacing himself (the father figure) with Paul Rudd- not quite sure what he is implying in doing so. Rudd really adds the only comedy in the film. Leslie Manns acting is fairly minimal, considering she is so upset about hitting 40. The eldest daughter is given random scenes throughout the film, that do not follow any continuous editing and seem quite out of place but yet all illustrating that she is going through a 'teenage crisis' and the youngest daughter just plays herself really, prancing around annoying everyone else.

"Knocked up" (2007) was praised for it's ability to convey real life issues focusing on the modern day relationship and single parenthood. The concept behind "This is 40" is very relative to modern life as most people think they are 'passed it' by age 30. Society dictates they should have already settled down, bought a house, maybe had/ having kids and in a well paid job- however this is no longer the reality and people are marrying later (if at all), and thus hitting 40 should not seem that old- I mean the retirement age has increased to 75! (In England). Unfortunately Apatow does not execute this concept well at all.

One of the most frustrating things about this film is that it is like a two hour long Apple product advert- the kids watch endless hours of 'Lost' on ipads, iphones, iMacs and other ishit products. Yet the viewer is supposed to believe that the family are 'poor' as they are having money problems. Seriously, just stop buying Apple! Idiots! Also they somehow can still can afford to pay an accountant (maybe its just my family but what normal person can afford to hire there own permanent personal accountant and still try and convince an audience that they are 'poor'?) In addition the father is a record label owner and the mother owns a shop supposedly giving them this modern 'bohemian' appeal and conveying them as down to earth people- Just, please, no, stop it.

There is nothing much else to add about this film. The story and the narrative flow like a bunch of shots shoddingly held together with moments of absolute disbelief in the characters and their lifestyle. This is definitely not 40 at all.

Verdict: Lousy.

"The Brass Teapot" (2012): What's your favorite cup of tea?

*Not an Oscar film

Director: Ramaa Mosley

Writer: Tim Macy

Starring: Juno Temple, Michael Angarano, Alexis Biedel

Whats your favourite cup of tea? a refreshing Earl Grey? detoxing Green tea? fresh and fruity cranberry and sanguinello orange? or maybe a classic cup of tetly tea? With so many options the possibility of a good cuppa is granteed, at least 99% of the time. To keep you all up to date on the world of tea, here is my review on a new flavour that has been released in 2013- Money. It’s not everyones ‘cup of tea’ (wink) but those who have tried it lap it up in large quantities. Warning: after drinking large quantities of aforementioned its classically sweet taste can turn sour. Or at least that's whats happens in one of the most random films I seemed to have watched lately.

The plot: a recently married couple are having money troubles. The wife, Alice, struggles to find a job whereas husband, John, gets fired at the start of the story. One fine day, driving along a road, the couple are in a car crash. Whilst John is talking to the police about the incident, Alice spots an antique shop across the road and sees a lady carrying a teapot inside. Alice feels drawn in, obviously by some intense craving for tea, and tells John she is going into the shop ‘to see if there is anything worth buying that will get them on tv, on a show like ‘Antiques Roadshow’ where they can get money for an item. She finds the brass teapot in a random room and steals it, running back to the car and telling John to drive off as fast as he can. The next day, Alice accidentally hurts herself and notices that the teapot rattles. Lifting the lid she finds some money inside. She soon realises that every time she inflicts pain on herself the teapot gives her money- that's right folks, that's how ‘money tea’ is generally brewed. Soon the couple are ignoring all the usual advice on ‘treating your body like a temple’ and trying to make as much money as possible, doing everything they can to reach their target of a million dollars. The worst the pain caused, the more money they make- its all relative, like the more water you boil, the more tea you can make. The big question in the film is: how far will they go/ how much tea can they handle?

In actuality the biggest question should be: why a teapot? Out of all the objects in the world- why a teapot? I suppose it gives the film an alternative, sort of bohemian feel (especially as it was made of brass with some pretty engravings) and maybe, by closely relating the teapot to genie lamps, the prop is trying to attach certain myths to the tale. The opening credits of the film show old tapestries and portraits of kings/queens/ various other important figures holding ‘the’ teapot, hinting that this money brewing kettle has got around and has played a dominant yet subtle part in history. All fairy tales have a dark side, most of them never have a happy ending, and this new tale is no different. Naturally, the film progresses to show the evil side of human nature emerging as the more money they brew,  the greedier they get; it changes their physical appearance, affects their social life, and alters their relationships with family and friends. Eventually they realise the teapot is becoming more demanding in what it classifies as ‘pain.’ Thus bringing us back to the original big question: How far will the characters go?

Well, with boring (sorry) character names such as ‘Alice’ and ‘John’ they are not exactly going to be the most adventurous of people. This is also emphasised in the way they spend their money: they buy a nice house and eat at fancy restaurants with drab, stuck up rich people (oooo crazay!). So really, the audience already knows their limits and what the outcome is going to be, thus bursting the bubble of suspense I assume the film was trying to create. The best part of this film is the beginning, as although the plot seems a bit ‘out there,’ it makes for easy viewing. The worst part of this film is the end; in fact, by the time you get half way through, the story feels so drawn out and stretched it loses its original flavour- you can just about watch until the credits, but you’ll completely mentally shut down before they roll.

Verdict: Indifferent. Watch if you have absolutely nothing else to do.

Oscars 2013: "Kon-Tiki" (2012)

Some films, like Tarantino's Django and Hooper's Les Mis, do not really need an Oscar to increase peoples awareness of their existence as they have sufficient marketing funds. On the other hand, some films need that Oscar to give them a helping hand in getting the word out. Last year, the only way I heard about Asghar Farhadi's brilliant Iranian film, "A Separation" (2011) was due to its Oscar win. Foreign films (and by foreign, I mean films that are not directed, produced and written by America or Britain) always seem to be on a different emotional level compared to the standard Hollywood blockbuster- so this year I decided to focus some more attention on the Best Foreign language section of the Academy Awards.

Doing this has brought my attention to Max Manus's Norwegian film, "Kon-Tiki" (2012).The narrative tells a story that I was previously unfamiliar with: the 1947 expedition of the explorer Thor Heyerdahl from Peru to the Polynesian Islands across the Pacific Ocean. He did so in a mission to prove his scientific theory (that has since been proved incorrect) that South Americans travelled across the Pacific and settled on the Polynesian islands over 1,500 years ago. Heyerdahl and five other crew members built a raft out of natural resources, loaded it with basic essentials such as food and water, in the same way they believed the Southern Americans would of done those many years ago. In addition they brought modern technology like a radio, a film camera, a life boat and various other objects used to document the journey, items that undoubtedly never existed when the original travellers embarked on their travels. He named the raft the 'Kon-Tiki' after the Inca sun God, Viracocha-said to be the idol of the original settlers and whose face, painted on the rafts sail, looms over the new explorers as they take their deathly voyage across the Pacific.

But that's quite enough Wikipedia.

The trailer for the film is immense (watch below) and the story is one that definitely needs to be told. But broken down- five men, one raft...could get a bit like 'Open water', where the viewer gets bored and seasick just from watching two people bob around the ocean for what seems like an eternity, before they eventually get eaten by sharks. Then I remembered, this film not only has a point, but was written by someone with actual intelligence with a real story that's second to none. The film manages to paint a true portrayal of the struggles and mysteries of sea life. It is a film of substance rather than trying to turn the voyage into a cheap 'scary' horror film.

Even so, the audience still fears for the explorers life every second. It is a tense viewing experience. From the opening sequence when the protagonist falls into frozen water, right until the end when the raft just doesn't quite dock onto the islands as smoothly as planned. Whilst the audience watches every shot of the film thinking how insane these people must of been, the characters themselves seem to lead a very bohemian lifestyle on this raft. They all grow manly beards, get fantastic tans, play tunes on a guitar, write novels on typewriters and take lots of artistic film shots of the raft sailing, of them catching different types of fish and smoking tobacco (lets say it is, just for the kids). After all that, eventually Heyerdahl manages to prove the cynics wrong, and demonstrates that it is possible to sail from South America to the Polynesian Islands on a hand made raft, even if the Southern Americans never made this actual voyage in the first place. In any case, Heyerdahl came out with only a couple of scratches and an amazing story to tell the grandchildren. The actual Kon-Tiki raft can now be found in a museum in Oslo, if you were wondering.

Verdict: WATCH THIS FILM. TAKK (cheers).

There's nothing dark lurking in these shadows

Tim Burtons latest directing project “Dark Shadows” (2012) seems to have failed to win over viewers. This is due to two reasons: firstly, people seem to be getting tired of seeing Johnny Depp in Tim Burton films and secondly, avid viewers of the television series from the 1970s that the film is based on, are disappointed in Burtons’ lighthearted take on the supposedly dark tale. Nevertheless with a star studded cast and Burton being in his cinematographic comfort zone surely the film can’t all be that bad?

So here’s the basic plot: Johnny Depp plays Baranabas Collins, the son of a wealthy family who move from England to America to make their fortune. The Collins family set up a small fishing village called Collinsport in Maine where they also build the family home, Collinwood. Barnabas initiates a relationship with the enchanting maid Angelique (Eva Green) who unfortunately turns out to be a witch.  Baranabas falls in love with another woman, Josette. Angelique, in a jealous rage, puts a curse on the Collins family that turns Baranabas into a vampire, imprisons him in a coffin and forces him to live with losing his true love, Josette, for all eternity. A century passes, it's 1972, the Collins family has lost their power in Collinsport and Angelique is now running the town. 

There are some strange characters now residing in Collinswood: Michelle Pfeiffer plays Elizabeth Collins Stoddard who is having trouble maintaining her grip on the family, Chloë Mortez plays her daughter Carolyn Stoddard, and Helena Boham Carter plays the resident psychiatrist Dr. Julia Hoffman.  There are some other characters, but all in all the family is dysfunctional and ‘quirky’. Meanwhile some construction workers accidently stumble on Baranabas’ coffin and free him. On his return to Collinwood, Barnabas is on a mission to return the Collin’s family business to its former glory whilst trying to bring down Angelique. Depp, Pfeiffer, Green and Boham-Carter do a fantastic job playing their assigned characters, but I wouldn’t have expected anything different, and Chloë Mortez does a questionable portrayal of a 1970s teenager who seems to be constantly stoned without smoking anything.  Yet it is clear why Burton choose these high profile actors, as without them the film would have probably flopped completely.

The plot is weak, in no way ‘dark’, and falls down some obvious pitfalls that have led the film to receive only two or three stars on review sites. The narrative does, sort of, start off bleak and mysterious like the television series; there’s tragedy, death, murder, black magic and the viewer feels Baranabas’ pain as his world crumbles around him. However once the story moves into 1972, the serious tone projected in the television series is forgotten and the film becomes lighthearted with the viewer being subjected to hearing script lines that are silly and moronic, written by John August and Seth Grahame-Smith.  

The change to the light hearted tone could be due to Grahame-Smith not wanting “Dark Shadows” to compete with the other ridiculous vampire film released this year, “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”. Safe to say the witty lines, mainly used in the trailer, are spread thinly over the course of the film.  Another pitfall is the use of the very obvious choice of 1970s tracks in the soundtrack mixed with a score composed by the Grammy Award winning, Danny Elfman, who took inspiration from the original television score, and 1970s jukebox classics. The outcome is an omnipresent cheesy mash-up that contradicts the dark vampire tale of blood thirsty love and revenge. The songs chosen are songs that are too obvious and even an appearance from Alice Cooper doesn’t seem to add any vibes to the film, apart from begging the question: when will this film end?

Nevertheless, the main reason “Dark Shadows” fails to make any impressions is because it is not memorable. Overall, it is a boring film and followers of Tim Burton’s work will not see anything new. I myself, am usually a fan of Tim Burton’s directing exploits but even for Burton standards “Dark Shadows”, I’m sorry to say, fails to deliver. So, in the words spoken by Johnny Depp in the film: “I’m terribly sorry, you cannot imagine how thirsty I am”, well, I’m thirsty for Tim Burton to sink his teeth into something fresh that will astonish me. However with the announcement of a production of “Beetlejuice 2” on the cards, it seems Burton is going back to his roots and proves that he is not ready to leave his comfort zone, just yet. 

Julie Delpy's “2 days in New York” (2012)

Julie Delpy’s quirky and incredibly French alter ego, Marion, invites an audience to New York City to spend another two hectic days with her and her wacky relatives in her new film “2 Days in New York” (2012). This film is the sequel to “2 Days in Paris” (2007) starring Julie Delpy and Adam Goldberg.  Julie Delpy not only stars in both films but also directed and wrote the scripts; and it is safe to say that Delpy does not write your average rom-com. After experiencing “2 Days in Paris” I knew that the two-day madness in New York I was going to witness after pressing that play button, was going to be full of witty lines, French banter and awkward real life scenarios.

Even if you haven’t seen the prequel, the plot of “2 days in New York” is fairly easy to follow. The audience is invited into Marion’s apartment in New York where she is now living with her son from ex-boyfriend Jack, Lulu, her new boyfriend, Mingus (played by Chris Rock), and his daughter from a previous marriage, Willow. Into this full house, Marion invites her father and sister over from Paris to spend a few days together.  

The screws begin to loosen as soon as Marion’s father lands in New York and he gets detained for four hours after trying to smuggle in thirty pounds of sausage. In addition, Marion’s sister Rose, is now dating Marion’s ex-boyfriend Manu, and has brought him on this holiday without thinking of the consequences. Marion describes Rose to Mingus as an ‘ex-nympho,’ and Mingus is subjected to Rose’s charms as she struts around the house naked within seconds of meeting him.  Obviously with an unconventional family like this, problems soon arise, and the tension between Marion and Mingus grows as he becomes more frustrated with the frankness of Marion’s family. The film contains: open conversations about sex, an art show about fading relationships, Marion selling her soul and a few Thai massages to try and relax everyone.

Delpy is a great storyteller, mainly because she focuses on two themes that the audience can relate to: love and family relationships.  In “2 Days in Paris” the viewer meets her parents for the first time and Marion speaks about the success of her two-year relationship with Jack but she has problems committing. Jack describes Marion in Paris like a hamster, 'collecting men like nuts'. 

In “2 days in New York” the audience can see the development of Marion’s character, who is now thirty-eight, and in a more mature relationship with Mingus, possibly inspired by her parents’ many years of marriage. In New York the audience sees more of a glimpse of the troubles of family life, as Marion is dealing with the death of her mother.  Moreover, anyone who has grown up in an international family with different languages and cultures will relate to the perfect, although sometimes clichéd, representations that Delpy has written in.  

Delpy’s films work because they run at the pace of life and awkward conversations take place over the most mundane tasks, like making a cup of coffee or picking up breakfast.  Julie Delpy proves that a film does not always need to contain epic, action sequences with special effects or scary dragons as she states, that sometimes, “life is way harder to handle than any dragon.” “2 Days in New York” definitely confirms this statement, and is just as action packed with doses of explosive reality as any Hollywood action movie. 

*note: I originally wrote this article for an online publication but as it has been taken down there I decided to post here, so apologies if you have already read it!