"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: "Silver Linings Playbook"

Director: David O. Russell

Screenplay: David O. Russell, Matthew Quick (novel)

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawerence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker and Julia Stiles.

I don’t really know just where to begin on explaining this film. In all sincerity- from someone who generally hates romance films- I absolutely loved it.  Originally I thought is was about two people with mental health problems who fall in love inside a mental home in some indie ‘quirky cute’ fashion, in a sort of annoying Zooey Deschanel kind of way- so it took me a while to sit down and watch it. Another reason I thought I would not enjoy this film was because of Bradley Cooper, I’m not his biggest fan, as you can probably detect from my rather negative rant on his film “Limitless” (2010). In actuality, it is about two people who have psychiatric issues but the meet and develop a relationship in the outside world and certainly not in an

annoying 'quirky' fashion. It is a black comedy, mixed with a type of coming of age film as the characters leave their negative pasts behind and look for a brighter, happier future. Excelsior!

This film just proves the point that to be a critic on film I need to keep an open mind to various other films rather than dismissing them straight away- message loudly received, thanks. Bradley Cooper was actually great in this film. His subtle style of acting worked well for a character who spends the duration of the film in a rather subdued state, trying hard to suppress any past feelings of anger and aggression having been released from a psychiatric unit at the start of the film. The real star however, or starlet, of the film is Jennifer Lawrence. Maybe you were expecting me to add something new compared to all the other reviews out there who praise her but um nope, nothing negative to say. I’ve not read the Hunger Games books and went to watch the film to see what all the fuss was about- I did enjoy it, but didn’t really think Lawrence was anything spectacular. So really, her Oscar win should read ‘Best emerging Actress’ rather than just ‘Best Actress’ as I don’t think anyone was expecting her talent to stretch thus far. Talk about Excelsior.

The story is loosely based on the authors, Matthew Quick, own experiences in dealing with depression. He has a lot in common with Cooper’s character, Pat Solatano. As Lawrence’s character, Tiffany, bluntly points out, Pat has ‘poor social skills’. He interups his parents sleep by storming into their room to discuss a book he finished reading at 4am or because he can’t find his wedding video; he asks inappropiate questions about peoples private lives; he goes back to the school where he has a restraing order and asks for his job back and all because his main focus is to try and win back his ex-wife Nikki, no matter how early in the morning- he will try everything to get her back. He uses the word ‘Excelsior’ to invoke inspiration in getting his life back on track or back how it was.  

It was the director, David O. Russell who decided to divulge deeper into the fragile relationship between Pat and his family. Robert De Niro plays Pat’s gambling ‘but most definitely not a bookie’ father who blames Pat if his team, the Philadelphia Eagles, lose a match. He refers to Pat as his lucky charm but yet maintains a distance in getting emotionally involed with Pats ‘crazy’ episode. The fact that Pats portrait is not hanging by his brothers on the wall but left on the shelf is a clear indication that the other brother is the ‘golden’ child. Jacki Weaver plays the doting mother who goes to fetch Pat from the unit as soon as the doctos say he is eligible to be released. She is very understanding of Pat’s condition, even if she can at times be too overbering, its clear that she loves her family and does her best to try and help. Safe to say the relationships expressed in this film are less than ordinary but at the same time can be seen as a magnified view of some peoples family life- especially those dealing with a member who has depression.

The film has helped a lot of people to recognise or aid with mental health issues and the impact it can have on someones life and people around them- even in the smallest of cases. The story brings to light the fact that not all people who have depressive tendencies are completly ‘insane’ and can lead normal lives. The film forces people to see the silver lining in all situations and that life may not always go as planned. All in all, a great film and defintely worth adding it to your ‘must-watch’ list.

Oscars 2013: "Argo"

Director: Ben Affleck

Writer: Chris Terrio, Tony Mendez and Joshuah Bearman

Producer: George Clooney

Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman

So the Oscars happened, but you probably knew this already- not exactly flashing news. And now we are moving into this years summer releases- finally we can watch “The Great Gatsby”, which will be a highlight,  for me anyway.The fact that the Oscars are over, however is not going to stop me continuing to write about the films that were nominated and now may or may not have won a golden statue. Lets proceed.

Had I organised my life and written this entry before the Award ceremony on the 24th of Feb 2013, I would of definitely predicted that “Argo” (2012) would win at least one Oscar. Instead it won three: Best Motion picture (Grant Heslov, Ben Affleck and George Clooney), Best Screenplay (Chris Terrio) and Best Achievement in Editing (William Goldenberg). Ben Affleck was not nominated for Best Director at the Academy Awards however he did win a BAFTA for his directing capabilities; so as they say win some, lose some.

Regardless of the fact that the film is now Oscar certified and it comes adorned with 57 other wins from various Award ceremonies the film should not be cast aside as pretentious. It is still, most definitely, worth a watch. The narrative itself seems ludacris: revolving around CIA agent, Tony Mendez (played by Affleck) who devices a plot in attempt to rescue 6 other American ambassadors, who are in hiding in Iran after a raid on the US embassy during the revolution of 1980. The plan is they are going to be ‘smuggled’ out of Iran by obtaining fake Canadian identities and pretending to be part of a film crew searching for locations to shoot a new up and coming Sci-fi movie. A script is chosen, there are storyboards drawn up, costume designs- the works. Mendez travels to Iran and encounters countless problems in trying to extradite the fugitives back to the US safetly. This type of plot, one would think, could only be drawn up in Hollywoodland but what makes the story even more unbelievable is that the film is actually based on real life events.

This is not just your average Hollywood action movie. In fact, there is very little action at all, but tonnes of suspense. The film starts of as a documentary of the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and then, using a graphic match, the shot moves from documentary footage continuing the image of the revolution into the film shot. Overall the film can be classified as historical drama. Affleck has been criticised for his falsification of the events- new characters invented, scenes and facts added etc. But, in all honesty, what historical representation or even documentary is completely factually accurate? They all get edited in some way or another- the main objections are that they provide good entertainment to capture an audiences attention for the films duration and perhaps provide a starting point/ alternative information for the viewer who may want to research deeper into the subject in question.

Thus ‘historically’ Affleck neglected to mention the full aid provided from various goverments and give credit to the principle historical players such as Ken Taylor- the Canadian Ambassador who originally (supposedly) devised the whole plan- and completely dismissing the aid given by the British embassy to the fugitives.  It can be argued, however, that due to the mise-en-abyme effect created by focusing on the making of a film within a film, Affleck’s objective was not to support any particular government at all (the American government is not represented very well yet it does play a bigger part in getting the hostages to safetly) but rather Affleck pays the highest credit to the role of Hollywood in the missions success- as any good little Hollywood boy would, when having to premier his film infront of Tinstletowns elite. Essentially the film acts as a reminder to the audience that Affleck has still got some talent since his last Oscar nominated directing project, “Gone Baby Gone” (2007).

Regardless of whatever point, historical fact, myth, story, low budget sci-fi drama the film was trying to fabricate or recreate- the point is YOU need to watch it.

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).

Oscars 2013: "It's me baby"- If you haven't heard, Django is unchained...

...and he is not dragging around a coffin this year.

*WARNING: THIS FILM IS VIOLENT. IT IS A MEAN, CRUDE, GUT WRENCHING, TOMATO KETCHUP SPILLING, FIST FIGHTING, ALL GUNS BLAZING, WESTERN. NOT FOR THE FAINT HEARTED.

I knew I would like this film. I mentioned it as one of the films I was most excited to watch in 2013, and discussed the origins of the original 'Django' here. Tarantino, for me, can really do no wrong. He essentially draws his influences from forgotten, lets face it, shit films of the 70s, predominantly from Italian cinema and passes them off as new masterpieces. He is an artist, with Django being one of his best yet most controversial pieces to date.

'Django Unchained' focuses on a  subject that has become almost a taboo to discuss in England, Racism, more specifically racism against blacks. If anyone comes out with the N word, the response is usually 'oh no you can't say that it's racist!' Well Tarantino does say it, he lays the word on so thick and fast throughout the film that it almost becomes acceptable to use it, and if it makes one feel uncomfortable they will just have to evacuate the cinema. The film deals with the tricky issue of the slave trade from many different angles and in ways that people (black or white) may not want to face in present day but the film should definitely not be taken as a true historical portrayal of the trade.

If the viewer is concerned about the 'racism' in the film they must remember that Westerns have never been the most PC of films anyway; think of the original Django with Mexicans being exploited and treated like bait used in a game as they ran away from a shotgun or having their ears cut off and being made to eat them. So expect Tarantino's Django to be explicit. As I previously said, Tarantino uses different ways to exploit the slave trade- one way is through the use of comedy, where the viewer is forced to laugh at a scene which really is PC at all for example the scene with the KKK trying to fix their hoods. The other is fear. No one expresses the fear quite as well as Samuel L Jackson does in his character. He hit the nail on the head when he stated in a recent interview that predominantly "slavery was perpetuated through fear and intimidation"- Tarantino certainly uses 'fear and intimidation' to ensure that none of his characters are ever safe from getting their insides splatted across a wall or eaten by a vicious dog. Before going to see it I was discussing with a friend just how violent Tarantino would go- we referred to "Inglorious Bastards" and the carving on the Nazi swastika on the scalps- but Django does not even compare. Even I, myself found one scene particularly difficult to watch, as it seemed to be a never ending fist fight with sound effects and extreme close ups, making the scene so uncomfortable. Although it might of been distressing to watch, this scene does well in illustrating the exceptional cinematography used throughout the film.

A lot of critics are focusing on the film as a Blaxploitation film. I don't believe it is. It is first and foremost a sort of Western, with side elements of comedy and romance. I describe it as a sort of Western because it does not technically adhere to the most fundamental requirement of the Western genre. The cowboy always has to be a figure who walks alone. Having lost his one true love he may find women along the duration of the film but the closing shot is usually of him riding of into the distance solo- he cannot be tied down. Tarantino's Django is a free man, free slave as they say, but he is most certainly tied down. He gets his revenge, but he is married and rides of with his wife at the end of the film- so independent lone cowboy he is not. Thus the film is more of a crossover of various genres rather than just one.

With the film being one of Trantino's best box office films to date and two Golden globes under his belt, time will only tell whether Django will receive any of those Oscar's. The film is up for:

• Best picture;
• Best supporting actor, Christopher Waltz;
• Best cinematography, Robert Richardson;
• Best sound editing, Wylie Stateman;
• and Best original screenplay, Tarantino.

Weinstein has already stated that his lack of publicity for Django may have lost Tarantino a Best director nomination, but regardless of this, Django is sure to pull at least one award. Best original screenplay for one and maybe best picture/ or best cinematography since Christopher Waltz already won Best supporting actor at the Golden Globes this year. Then again even if Tarantino doesn't win any more awards one thing is for sure, Django Unchained has definitely caught some attention.

Patiently waiting for those awkward speeches...

New Year, new start as they say- and in my case: It's a new year so let's try and publish at least one new blog post this year. New Years resolution. And here it is:

The months of January and Feburary are always an exciting time for film buffs and buffettes- why? because of all the lovely, polished and always (always) well deserved multiple award statues that are going to be handed out to a small collection of the same actors and actresses for a tiny selection of films which have been released from October untill January.

Thanks to the Guardian,* I have been able to compile a list of the six popular films, which have been nominated for all (okay, most) of the categories running in all the award ceremonies:

1. "Django Unchained"
2. "Skyfall"
3. "Life of Pi"
4. "The Hobit: An unexpected journey"
5. "Lincoln"
6. "Les Miserables"

Now, two important questions: Is anyone really surprised about the selected nominees? NO: and er would anyone like to bet that if Baz Lurhman had released his upcoming masterpeice adaptation "The Great Gatsby" (2012) now instead of Summer 2013 that he would also be in for the running? It is as if, as soon as these films were released they were automatically propelled into award winning status.

The lack of surprise continues as the Oscar Nominees are being released this very second. See Telegraphs live feed update. Don't get me wrong- I am very excited for the release/ going to see all of the films mentioned/ going to be nominated, but it has to be said- the whole 2013 season is, so far, very predictable.

*Names of nominees may change (unlikely)

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.