Ugh. Not good. I know it’s nominated for more than one prestigious award, but I honestly am not sure why. I knew not to expect what I have come to know as a typical Coen Brothers film, but I did expect the typical Coen Brothers genius. I shouldn’t have. The plot is weak, and only loosely held together by fact that the same air-gun-wielding guy shows up everywhere.

In this modern take on a western, a man stumbles onto the remains of a drug run gone bad and, instead of doing what any decent person would do, he takes the guns and money he finds and goes on his merry way. The person who was supposed to end up with the money, Anton, wasn’t too happy about that. Surprise, surprise. Anton then proceeds to hunt down his money relentlessly, killing anyone who gets in his way, and sometimes simply because he wants to. Tommy Lee Jones plays a sheriff who tries to help, but really can’t. That’s honestly the whole movie right there.

The main question that sprung to mind over and over throughout this film was: Does forensic evidence not exist in Texas? Sure, the film takes place in 1980, but in 1980 I’m fairly sure the sciences of fingerprints, blood groups, and footprints were pretty well established – even in Texas. Oh, and I’m also thinking that border patrol between the United States and Mexico is just a tad tighter than this film suggests (i.e. if you were going to try and walk by the border patrol office covered in blood and carrying a suspicious, big black case, I doubt you’d make it very far).

There is also the issue that the film has no real ending. By that I mean there’s no resolution. Sometimes ambiguous endings can be fantastic – this one just made me more bitter about the two hours of life I had just spent and would never get back. If you’re in the mood for a Coen Brothers movie, my advice is to stay at home with a bottle of wine and watch O Brother, Where Art Thou?. If it’s the western outlaw thing you’re after, still stay home with a bottle of wine, but watch Stagecoach instead.

Rating:

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, arguably one of the most magical director/actor combinations in film history, come together yet again in Sweeney Todd. At this point, someone buying a ticket for a Burton film, especially one with Depp in it, should have a pretty good idea of what they’re about to see. Even the fact that Sweeney Todd is a musical shouldn’t be too much of a surprise – there are musical numbers in Monkey Bone, The Nightmare Before Christmas (which Burton wrote but didn’t direct), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the list goes on. It is a bit strange, then, to have all the usual components of a classic Burton film with the exception of a Danny Elfman score. I realise that the film is an adaptation of a play, and all of the music had already been written for it by Stephen Sondheim, but I was a little disappointed in the lack of Elfman nonetheless. That’s not to say the music was bad, it’s just that I am a die hard Burton fan and as such have come to expect certain things. No one likes change.

Depp plays a man once banished from London by a judge who sought only to steal his beautiful young wife and baby daughter. When he returns from his exile, Sweeney Todd is no longer the mild mannered barber he once was, but a broken man out for ultimate revenge. A visit to his old home and barber shop leads him to his accomplice, Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), who is the most entertaining character in the film. Together they form a thriving business which suits both of their needs until, of course, it all comes crashing down around them.

As I mentioned before, I am a big Tim Burton fan. I believe he will be remembered as an autour and master of his craft for his creativity and unique signature style. Maybe because all of that I was expecting too much. I won’t say I was disappointed in Sweeney Todd, but I was a bit underwhelmed. It just didn’t seem to reach its full potential. And perhaps it’s because this is an interpretation of a play and as such a little extra dramatic flair was in order, but the blood spewing forth from Todd’s victims was simply laughable. It was red-orange paint. Maybe that was intentional – maybe it was supposed to make the violent scenes more comical and easier to watch, but still. This is 2008 and horror movies are extremely popular. Realistic movie blood is not hard to come by.

Another problem I had with this film was the lack of a climax. When Todd isn’t plotting his revenge, he is mourning his long-lost daughter. Though she and her would-be suitor, a friend of Todd’s, are an important part of the plot, the film ends with that part of the story unresolved.

In its defence, though, Sweeney Todd does offer a dark film with not only murder and revenge central to its plot, but also voyeurism, incest, cannibalism, and perhaps just a touch of insinuated necrophilia. All of that, coupled with a good cast and a brilliant director, definitely redeems it a little. Though it could have been better, in someone else’s hands it almost certainly would have been worse.

Rating:

What begins as mainly innocent, if a bit rebellious, camaraderie between young 12 year old Shaun, who regularly gets bullied at school, and a group of older boys gradually becomes more sinister as they are presented with the realities of the skinhead movement of 1980’s England.

Though the friends Shaun initially makes are largely harmless, things change when an old member of the group, Combo, gets out of prison and takes the shaved head and preference for Doc Martens to another level. A line is drawn (literally) and Shaun’s sense of duty to his father, who died in the Falklands War, leaves him and Combo on one side and most of their friends on the other. What follows is an increasingly disturbing, yet realistic, account of racism and violence in the 1980’s.

Now, you may ask yourself, why are all of these teenagers and young adults hanging around with a 12 year old boy? Because Shane Meadows is a great screenwriter (and director), that’s why. Not only does it illustrate how the skinheads recruited the naive, but also how they themselves were just angry and immature, yet impotent in that they were unable to affect social change. Shaun is every kid in 1980’s England – scared, confused, hurt and angry. This provides and explanation for both the violence, as well as the great music, of the time. That’s another aspect Meadows didn’t skimp on – the soundtrack for this film is perfect. The performances of Thomas Turgoose as Shaun and Stephen Graham as Combo are equally amazing.

Thought provoking about the institutions of government, war, social unrest, and what happens when rebellion becomes as corrupt as its enemy, This Is England is truly a phenomenal piece of work. It’s the best I’ve seen since Amores Perros. This kind of film restores my faith in the medium as an art.

Rating:

The childhood memories of Nazneen (Tannishtha Chatterjee), a Bangladeshi woman living in London, haunt her as she goes through day to day life with her husband and two growing daughters. Her life is a classic/stereotypical story of a girl getting shipped off at the tender age of 17 in order to marry a man she has never met. Letters from her sister in Bangladesh and an insinuated case of chronic depression lead Nazneen through a myriad of emotions and different attempts to validate her existence. In the first 20 minutes of the film the audience is introduced to the strong bond between Nazneen and her younger sister and their mother’s severe depression that leads to her suicide.

While it’s not action-packed, Brick Lane manages to convey intense emotion and insight into womanhood, female sexuality, the Muslim community, and being a mother to children vastly different from oneself. Possibly the single most articulate scene in the film shows Nazneen coming home to a flat in an enormous run-down tower block; conveying both the typical living situation of Muslims in London, and that Nazneen is simply one of thousands in respect to her feelings of isolation and melancholy.

The film ends with Nazneen realising certain truths about her sister, love, and herself when she finally learns not only to ask for what she wants, but what exactly that is. Though it is a tad slow, I would certainly recommend this film to anyone up for an interesting story and maybe a good cry.

Rating: 7 hand-sewn saris out of 10

There are not enough positive adjectives for me to give Shaun of the Dead adequate praise. For lovers of horror, comedy, and romantic comedy alike this film delivers. The script and characters are all brilliantly and cleverly written. The lead character Shaun (Simon Pegg) goes from predictable underachiever to hero by trying to save his friends and mother (and some other people he doesn’t really like) when most of Britain is inexplicably turned to zombies. And oh, the references. Not only are there fantastic musical references, (and a wonderful scene including choreographed moves that can’t quite be called dancing, and Don’t Stop Me Now by Queen) but Shaun of the Dead also includes subtle jokes pertaining to other great zombie flicks, namely the recent 28 Days Later.

Hot Fuzz, however, is kind of a let down. Especially after being dazzled by the genius of Shaun of the Dead, which had the same writers, director, and lead cast members. That’s not to say it’s not funny; like its superior big brother, Hot Fuzz does have its moments of gratuitous gore and great film references (mostly to other cop buddy movies and to Shaun of the Dead) but the mystery in the plot just doesn’t work. Nick Angel (Pegg) is a no-nonsense London cop who gets transferred to a small village in the middle of nowhere. Before long Angel suspects an obvious culprit of being behind a string of mysterious deaths the townspeople are all too willing to write off as accidents. Without giving away the ending, as I said, the culprit and the ending are both fairly obvious. There’s just not a lot of fun in watching a film with no conflict. Also, Nick Frost’s character of Angel’s overzealous sidekick just isn’t believable after the spot-on acting he did as Ed in Shaun of the Dead. In its defence, though, it does offer some lighthearted yet good satire of rural towns and of English life in general. If you’re just going to watch one, make it Shaun of the Dead. But if, like me, you’re sad and like to do themed movie nights, take Hot Fuzz in stride as the one that’s not as great, but still deserves recognition and needs to be shown.

Rating:

Once this film is taken out of the cloud of mystery, debate and criticism that it was born into as an anticipated cinematic version of a very popular, yet very stigmatised, book, it’s not too bad. I must admit that despite the ethics involved in reviewing films for a public forum, I had my doubts. But as far as dramatic thrillers go, The Da Vinci Code works. Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou get caught up in the secrets of the Catholic church, which leads them on a wild goose chase around Europe trying to avoid the detection of authorities, an evil plotting monk, and the infamous ‘Teacher;’ the leader of a secret society dedicated to protecting the identity of Christ’s living relatives. The film is fast paced, and requires a strong willful suspension of disbelief (‘Wait a minute, how does that bishop’s mobile phone work on an airplane? And how did that guy get to point B-wasn’t he just at point A? Do professional academics really have the money to be flying around Europe at a moment’s notice?’ Best not to ask questions – just watch the movie). But ignoring such technical details is necessary for any film within this genre. The Da Vinci Code is no more or less believable than any thriller, but I would venture to say that it is more creative and generally entertaining than others. There is no dragging lull in the middle of the story, no annoyingly repetitive problems the characters have to face, and no point at which you just want the one guy to go do the thing so the movie can finally be over. That of course means there is no good time to go use the toilet or get more popcorn, but honestly, you may not even notice that you need to go or that you’re still hungry; it holds your attention that well. Direction by Ron Howard is of course fantastic, and the casting isn’t bad either. Audrey Tautou is just so cute I want to smack her a little bit, but she’s not the typical ineffectual female lead. Tom Hanks’ character may know all the background information, but Tautou’s character’s no idiot. And even though it’s a little hard to picture a monk driving a shiny car and using a mobile phone, Paul Bettany as the creepy monk is perfect. All in all, even though thrillers are not really my thing, I’d say The Da Vinci Code is pretty good. Definitely worth seeing at least once.

Rating: