I’m going to try and watch as much French cinema for the next week or so before a short and long overdue trip to Paris, mostly pulled from the recommendations of a fantastic podcast I found on iTunes called FrenchPodClass (seems not to have been updated in almost a year but there’s still plenty of free downloadable content). This was the first recommendation and appealed to me in particular as it’s only just over 75 minutes in length.

Well, I don’t think I’ve laughed so hard in a long time. This is a true comedy, truly simple, almost entirely set in one room and never actually getting to the dinner mentioned in its title (well, metaphorically notwithstanding). It reminded me of a play by John Godber I once saw (and, by connection I guess, just about all those class war plays) except that as opposed to wealth and status being the great divide here, the French version seems to be the war of intellects (of course, wealth and status come into this too). If you’ve read more than a handful of my reviews you might already know that I don’t usually go for pure comedy, nor do I often like movies about characters so mean as some of the protagonists here, but I guess for this I must make an exception. Though this does take a fairly melodramatic turn in the last act and I liked this part very much, I was still hoping that it was leading up to one final gutbusting gag, and I wasn’t let down. The movie, like those Northern British plays of old, has a very serious point to make on one level, but it’s also incredibly entertaining about it. I don’t know if it’s a movie I’d watch over and over, it really gives you its all in one sitting; but I’m very happy I took the short time required to see it. Highly recommended even if you never watched a foreign film before.

The bottom line on this one is, you have to come to it wanting to try to love it to even hope to come out of it half liking it, because it’s very easy to loathe, as the IMDb score reflects. I’m a Lindsay Lohan fan and I’ve been waiting to see this one for a while now, and I’m also a fan of a lot of the things it seems to be trying to be, so I gave it my best and I have to say that in the end it’s nowhere near as bad as I’d heard.

Plotwise it’s a mess, forcing you to concentrate in ways you should never need to concentrate in movies of this kind. One of the first things you find if you visit the movie’s IMDb message board are lists of plotholes. I’m never one to search for such things in a movie, if it makes sense then it makes sense, but this one really does feel like it was cut with boxing gloves. But when the movie works, it still works, at least for me: the nasty bits are genuinely quite grisly, perhaps more so as I didn’t see them coming. Be warned that this movie falls well under the questionable heading of “torture porn” with the likes of Saw, Hostel and Captivity, at least for a portion of its duration. What remains is a mix of David Lynch, Hitchcock and to my mind a little Vanilla Sky that I’m quick to point out never comes close to those influences but does warrant a little respect for trying.

What I did like – at least, I think I did, and it took me a while to decide – was the look of the movie. Colour features prominently and again the attempt mostly fails but if you notice it, it’s hard not to admire in some way. At least, for me it was (and no, I wasn’t just blinded by the “sexy” Lindsay stuff which I didn’t find very sexy lol). It’s an incredibly garish looking movie in the end but that somehow suits the b-movie guff it turns out to be in the end. It feels like one of those last few movies by Hitchcock, even more like the one he was working on when he died. A lot of the reviews I’ve glanced at call the movie sleazy like that’s a bad thing. What’s the film maker to do? It’s about sleazy people!

Maybe I’m just too kind to Lohan, but I don’t think that’s it. Though this movie may be a mess (seriously, I’m not even gonna try to deny that, lol – I think the editor was even more under the influence than Lindsay), I’d take that any day over the multitude of modern thrillers that simply go by the numbers and neither offer nor aspire to anything new or different. It’s simply not as bad as its reputation suggests.

This was a lot better than I expected and reading other people’s reviews of it proved very interesting indeed. One of the first bad reviews I found said the following:

“To me this movie felt like someone watched Donnie a few times, wrote down some key elements from the movie in a notebook and then tried to incorporate it into a new movie.”

What can I say but I’m glad if this was the way they approached it. I have no time for those who think they can fathom the mystery of the original movie. Richard Kelly ruined it with his own director’s cut in my opinion. The mystery was key for me. For me, the things you need to fairly compare this straight to video sequel to are not the original theatrical cut of Donnie Darko (which it could never match) but other straight to video sequels, Richard Kelly’s demented director’s cut of the original, and Kelly’s own output since his ingenius debut. On all those counts, this for me easily comes out on top.

If you had any great love for the director’s cut of Donnie Darko over the original, clearly, this is not for you. You probably love the abundance of exposition in The Da Vinci Code and (I’m told) its sequel. I’m personally a fan of abstract cinema, believe it’s something that cinema does particularly well in fact, and to find that in a movie like this which on the surface at times looks as shallow as The OC or something is a huge relief. Like I said, it’s no Donnie, it couldn’t be. But it is beautifully produced, even the music being impressive; it has many parallels to the original story without being 100% rehash; and for a moment or two at least it even took my breath away a little. The ending kind of fizzles rather than blazes as it should and it’s an homage to the original too far that just doesn’t work, but otherwise, for what it is, I was very impressed with this movie.

(PS. Another of the reviews I just read said it was ‘worse than Grease 2 …’ which to my ears is really counter-productive, lol)

I must say I was excited when I first heard about this as a reunion of Bryan Singer with his Usual Suspects screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie but moreso for John Ottman also joining them on both editing and music duties (which for me was one of the greatest aspects of Suspects) … my excitement ebbed significantly when I saw the trailer. Tom Cruise as a Nazi trying to assassinate Hitler … it just really didn’t seem like it could ever work.

The movie opens with Cruise speaking German in voiceover that quickly fades into the English we hear for the rest of the movie (the title does the same thing, incidentally). A lot of criticism of the movie revolved around this as a main issue but I have to say that by the time Cruise finished this opening narration, I was into the movie and it never struck me for the rest of the 2 hours that it might have been better in the native tongue (and I did think this of, for example, The Reader among others).

Perhaps it’s that this story, though based on truth, is such a wild one. It seems so much like it’s been ripped from the pages of a graphic novel than written as an original screenplay based on history that you almost expect a kind of B-movie, even grindhouse, approach to the film making. Though you know from the outset that their mission is going to fail, the tension comes (unless you’re familiar with the more detailed history, I guess) from wondering what happens to the other characters as it all goes more awry.

Underneath the shear thrill of the story, however (the 2 hours here never once felt to me like that long), there’s a surprising depth that reminded me of Defiance. (Again, unless you know the history, I guess) I found it kind of re-assuring to learn of these Nazis that showed a less robotic streak and considered a better, albeit risky, alternate path (“You did not bear the shame …”), just as I found it refreshing in Defiance to learn that some Jews weren’t entirely accepting of their destruction as we too often see on the big screen. They might make an interesting (though entirely contrasting in style) double bill … “WWII The Version You’ve Never Seen” or something.

I feel like I wanted to say more of this movie but I can’t find the words. I certainly haven’t conveyed yet quite how much I liked this movie in the end. There was something about the brazen anti-authoritarian stuff here (even though in the light of history it really just seems like brave common sense) that reminded me of V for Vendetta and as the movie ended I truly felt similarly stirred by the proceedings. There’s something here I’m sure that’s resonant, or should be resonant … or will be resonant, right now. It’s for that reason I can’t give it anything less than the rating I’m giving it.

I’m a very funny Neil Gaiman fan as I think I may have written here before, and I’m sure I’m probably not alone in this. I don’t hesitate to call myself a fan of his, I read his journal a lot and follow him on Twitter etc. I think he’s a fascinating person, yet I’ve actually read barely any of his books. Till now, my only experience of his actual work had been the movie adaptations of MirrorMask, Stardust and Beowulf; and of his written words, only the novel on which this movie is based, Coraline. I know, for shame!

What I loved about Coraline was how despite being a book for children it held none of its ideas down. It’s a genuinely creepy story that doesn’t entirely make a whole lot of sense, owing clear debts to Alice in Wonderland and Roald Dahl but with a quirkiness all its own. Henry Selick and his stop motion of The Nightmare Before Christmas, then, made it almost a certainty that this production really couldn’t fail, and it doesn’t. It’s a near flawless representation of the book, deliciously understated in its borderline insanity with a point to make that you wouldn’t generally expect to find in such a high profile children’s flick (the trailers that preceded this were for Night at the Museum 2, G-Force, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs and Ice Age 3: I rest my case).

The reason I skim over that part of the review is that I guess the real reason I’m here is for the 3D aspect of this release. This was my first experience of the new 3D technology (in a regular cinema, at least), my local multiplex only just having been equipped (I just missed out on Bolt and I wasn’t going to let a movie like Monsters vs. Aliens be my introduction to the format). I was far from excited by the claims that 3D was the future etc. that have been coming out in their droves this year, but I didn’t want to entirely knock it till I tried it, and I have to say that it wasn’t an entirely wasted experience (or even the extra £2 on the ticket price). Things have come a long way since Spy Kids 3. The first thing I noticed was the quality of the glasses I was handed; the second how wonderfully bright the screen was as the trailers (almost all of which in 3D) rolled. Another great thing about the new 3D is how the image can switch effortlessly between 3D and 2D footage (like, say, in the trailers) without one having to take glasses off and on. No more onscreen commands lol!

But is it the future? And I have to say, that’s really not the question. I think I’ve said even in one or two recent reviews how I’ve never been one to say any given movie “HAS TO” be seen on the big screen as some people are fond of saying, always believing that a truly great (in fact, even half-decent) movie will work no matter what size the screen and the same is true of 3D. It makes for a larger experience, that’s true, and for stuff like this where you really do want to scrutinize the artistry of the model making etc perhaps it is warranted at least for a first viewing. But Coraline will work just as well as intended on a regular 2D television screen if you’re gifted with that thing we all seem to be forgetting about lately in the cinema, imagination. It’s perhaps ironic that a movie concerned with the pitfalls of getting exactly what you want should be presented in such a lavish format, a ready popped pop-up book, entirely pre-conjured fantasy for the laziest of eyes and minds. But that’s being far too cynical. This is a gorgeous movie that will be particularly embraced by anybody who ever was or is still a lonely kid making up their own adventure on a rainy day. The production design is beautiful and the music is some of the best I’ve heard anywhere let alone in the movies. Some people will say think twice about taking younger kids but I say go for it; like Monster House this is a movie that believes in the value of a well-educated scare at that age and so do I.

This one comes with such good spirit that reviewing it is entirely a waste of time … but I’ll do my best to recount my experience as always. I came to this, the first midnight screening available locally, not quite knowing if it’d be the biggest cinematic misstep I could make in 2009 or if, in fact, I might actually be the ideal audience for JJ Abrams’ approach to resurrecting the franchise. I’ve never been a huge Trekkie by any stretch, always citing the over-attentiveness to the details the show and movies seemed to have compared to more frivolous sci-fi outings like Star Wars, for example; I never really watched any of the TV series for any great amount of time, but I have seen all of the movies, even on the big screen, and with the possible exception of Final Frontier, I enjoyed them.

The biggest barrier for me here from what I’d seen in the small clips that had been released to the public seemed to the cast, in particular the two most important characters Spock and Kirk played by Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine. What I’d seen made the new crew look horribly fratboy-ish and to my mind horribly unbelievable in terms of their becoming the Enterprise crew of the original series. To make a wild comparison, like the Tinkerbell movie of last year, it looked like it wouldn’t matter how great the movie looked, no matter how they served it up, and even though like I say I was never even a fan, I would just never buy this crew as that crew.

How unwarranted could my worries have been? Though I still have my misgivings about Quinto in the Spock role (I don’t know, there’s something about his face like Casey Affleck that makes me feel like he’s constantly making private mockery of the material), the character here I found more “fascinating” than ever. The emotional content of this movie absolutely bowled me over and a lot of it centers around Spock of all creatures. Add to that of course (I’m sure you’ve heard) the presence of Leonard Nimoy who lends the movie an all-important sense of authenticity (I won’t touch on the what-where-how of why he’s there except to say sequel-prequel-wise this movie is insanely clever) and I can easily forgive this piece of casting. Chris Pine along with the rest of the main crew are another story entirely. Simon Pegg’s accent notwithstanding, I adjusted to them all almost immediately. Pine almost weirdly channels Shatner at some points, and like a lot of the could-be-awfully-cringeworthy-but-we-have-to-do-it-anyway moments, the balance struck is near perfect.

One of the things I always did love about Star Trek was the music and it was always gonna be interesting to see what happened after Jerry Goldsmith’s death. I was surprised to find nary a hint (at least until the glorious end) of Star Trek music past in Michael Giacchino’s score here and he dives in boldly creating the kind of score that overhypes the imagery that I’m usually averse to, yet he somehow gets away with it so much does the imagery live up to his hype. The visuals here are stunning – I was so afraid I would come away from it saying something along the lines of, “it’s good, but it’s nothing I haven’t seen before,” but I think I can say for sure that there were things here I really hadn’t seen before.

In short, it’s a stunning creation. It stands alone and it fits in with what came before. I don’t know if it fits in enough for some fans, but then I wouldn’t know that, but they do a valiant job of showing they care a little about those fans. Again, I won’t hint at the plot and how it ties in etc, but I want to point out again how incredible this movie is in terms of being a part of everything that came before it. It is not another reboot (god, how I hate that word applied to cinema), it’s much more than that, it’s almost dare I say genius. Just in purely objective terms this must be one of the cleverest and smoothest continuations of a long-running franchise that has ever hit our screens. The more I think about it the more impressed I am. The Nimoy factor is the icing on the cake. At the risk of being corny, may it live long and prosper.

If you know me, you’ll know that I came to this wanting to love it and that there was a lot I hoped for from it. I’m a big fan of Hannah Montana, but I’m no dumb blind follower (well, maybe a little … hehe); I’m aware of the kinda massive problem that lies at the very heart of the concept and the reason why a lot of people are blindly agin it. When I saw the first trailer for the movie that flatly set up the movie’s central dilemma (She’s Always Had The Best of Both Worlds. Now She Has To Pick One), I got pretty darn excited. Could a live action Disney movie based on a TV show in this decade actually do the right thing by its target audience?

The movie begins perfectly, exploding the confines of the TV screen setting up the blonde wig as a fully fledged cinematic icon and a plot point as Robbie Ray stares in deep thought at it mounted on a static wig stand as Miley battles with security outside to get into her own concert. Within the movie’s first few minutes Miley/Hannah bonks her head a few times not to mention having a coconut fall on her head and a ball thrown at her. Any fears that as Miley grows she might leave her goofy streak behind are quickly brushed aside here.

My heart sank briefly at the introduction of our villain, a tubby British tabloid pap almost as cringeworthy as Richard O’Brien’s in Spiceworld (hmm, I liked that too, incidentally :)) but soon enough the real heart of the movie just started to get me and get me more. They sell Miley’s dilemma here almost shockingly well. It would be easy for the movie to sound as whiny as the show’s naysayers think it would be, “Oh it’s so hard being a megastar!” etc … but the real fight here is really about the wants of the masses vs. the higher needs of the few. When Hannah troops ahead into an impromptu concert at Miley’s best friend Lilly’s party because she’s not given the space to become the right person, the situation is entirely believable. You feel Lilly’s hurt off camera as you watch Hannah going through the motions, and you can see Miley’s eyes under that wig scanning the crowd torn over what to do: not just in the moment but with her whole life. All through the movie there’s a sense of pre-occupation about Miley – she’s really going through the decision of her life here.

There are lowlights, of course. The Tyra Banks shoe fight, Rico’s exploding cake, Jackson getting bitten on the butt by an alligator are among the flashes where I felt a little let down by the proceedings but I know you couldn’t really release this movie without them. Some of the slapstick stuff really had me laughing in spite of myself: the celebrity plate rack, for instance – you see it coming as gramma places Elvis in pride of place but I didn’t quite see it coming the way it ultimately does, lol.

Most of all it’s about Miley. Despite the title, there’s a lot more Miley here than there is Hannah, and I for one believe the things she’s been saying in interviews about the Miley in this movie being closer to the “real” Miley than we’ve ever seen. I say this in the best way possible, but this girl with all the gloss stripped away has a really funny face and some of the ways she twists it in this movie, combined with the time the camera spends on them (even in slow motion in parts) … they’re not the faces you generally get from a soulless megastar worth billions. They’re beautiful. It’s this goofy streak in Miley that always brings me back for more and its here, thank mercy, in spades.

Which I guess brings me to the ending which comes in two parts, neither of which I’ll entirely spoil for you because I had managed to avoid the details and I’m glad. I did not see the big moment on stage at the end coming at all here. It’s a moment I wanted to see in the movie right from the start but that I never once dreamed would actually be there. I had a lot of moments during the movie where I almost cried, but this was the moment where I really let it come. However. This is unfortunately followed by the real ending … which kind of, pretty much, actually entirely pushes the reset button TV style. I’m trying not to focus too much on this part of the ending because the rest of the movie just pleased me so much, also, I think if I think about it some more later on I might find a way to love it anyway (something to do with – the way the little girl says “Hannah is a part of you, don’t let her go,” which is something I hope the real Miley never does, ie, never speaking of it in 10 years time in an embarrassed way).

Anyway, in short, it was everything I hoped it would be and more – though some of the more was questionable. The songs are great, in fact, they’re growing on me (my first listen of the soundtrack a couple of weeks ago was a little disappointed), there’s more Lilly than I initially feared. Miley outdoes herself acting wise though the real performance I loved here was that of Margo Martindale as gramma. The director and cinematographer do a great job of keeping the screen alive right from the aforementioned wig moment onward and though there are the inevitable gags for less advanced pre-teens, they pass quickly enough as not to impact the larger experience.

This may be the only one of the originals to be shot in colour but I have to say I got almost nothing from it whatsoever. It irks me to say but here the kinky schoolgirl stuff evolves even further to the point where it is simply leery and smutty and not in the least bit sexy. To be honest, I’d kind of had my fill of the naughty schoolgirls by the time this one came around and I maybe didn’t give it a fair trial but it seems to me (if you’ll excuse the pun) the series had run out of steam too by this point. In 1966 cinema as a whole was on the verge of a giant tipping point that really blew up in 1967 and this whole concept is too much of the old world. I think there were still a couple of laughs to be had and if you like railways, particularly British ones, you’ll find plenty to behold – but it’s no Pure Hell.