Yet Another Disappointment

As you will have perhaps come to realise by now, to me, actors and actresses aren't just that; they're not just people doing their job. Nor are they to many people I'm sure. They're men and women who through the nature of their career put themselves up for ridicule and idolisation. The actors I admire the most, are the ones who most frequently disappoint me as I attempt to rationalise their questionable project choices.

This week, Patrick Wilson has become offender #1. You will know him as the creepy sleaze bag who Juno/Ariadne may or may not castrates in Hard Candy and the owner of the best backside in Hollywood, as exemplified in his marvelous thrusting skills in Little Children and Watchmen. He's geeky without trying to be trendy, suave without becoming either cocky or George Clooney and looks great with Kate Winslet or Malin Akerman's legs wrapped round him (though he would of course look better with mine....NO I will not go there).

He has however decided recently to sully his good name by associating himself with not only The Switch but now this monstrosity, Morning Glory.

Will all of you up there on that pedestal please stop giving me more and more things I have to sidestep in my constant adoring of you? BAD Michael Fassbender (Centurion, Jonah Hex etc.et.c). BAD Carey Mulligan (Wall Street 2: Money Never Sleeps). BAD Sir Ben Kinglsey (Prince of Persia.) BAD Patrick Wilson. There are other offenders, of course, but these are all I can be bothered to list. It's too depressing otherwise.

I'd love to say I had hope for this film, but the inclusion of a Natasha Bedingfield song in the trailer has destroyed that.

5 Reasons Why You Should See Vampires

1. It's better than Twilight
2. It does not rely on good looking cast members to carry the film.
3. You get to see a Vampire try and commit suicide the human way in quite entertaining ways.
4. It's one of the best mockumentaries not to feature glam-rock/heavy-metal bands, dog shows or award ceremony buzz.
5. Never before has so much thought and plot-hole avoidance been put into a Vampire chronicling release.

Mostly you should see it because I came up with these reasons less than half an hour into the film. I was going to put a 6th reason as "There are no fucking werewolves" but I suppose I could still be disappointed. I shall report back with a full verdict.

CENTURION

When this hit cinemas back in April, I was spectacularly uninterested. Yes my Fassbender obsession was well under way, but as a rule I tend to steer clear of Classics related films due to how much they always anger me with their gross inaccuracies and stereotyping. Yes I sound pedantic in my picking at the seemingly minor details, but I see no reason at all for a film to be made if the writers can't even look up a date. If you're so afraid of books, or even the fucking internet, I have to question why you're a writer in the first place.
Anyway, I recently bothered to find out that Olga Kurylenko, Imogen Poots, Riz Ahmed and Noel Clarke also starred, and suddenly I was a bit more keen to see the film - I'm a sucker for a good looking, multi-ethnic cast. And this particular penchant will be the death of me. Or at least the death of my well-honed taste in film. (Insert pretentious snort here.)
The film falls victim to pretty much every cliché associated with films representing antiquity there is. Michael Fassbender manages to look amazing despite being bloodied and whatnot, but his Queen's English narration (because you know, Romans DEFINITELY were all posh pricks) is very confused with his natural Irish accent which he eventually resigns himself to within the narrative itself. Olga Kurylenko is possibly the best I've ever seen her, mostly because she never has to utter a line of dialogue thanks to Etain's (her character) loss of a tongue at the hands of those brutal Romans. This is in itself a feature of the plot which confuses everything. Who are we supposed to sympathise with? The Romans? The Picts who are hunting the Romans down? This isn't done in an interesting way where the viewer is supposed to be impartial. More in a "oops we shouldn't have added in that element because now you won't want Michael Fassbender and his chronies to make it". Oops indeed.
What really annoyed me, though, was the inclusion of Agricola in the film. Largely because they decided he was going to be one of the "bad Romans". I spent a good few months of my life studying the man and the biography of him by Tacitus, (obviously written from a different viewpoint but hey) and I therefore find it difficult to view him as a conspiring fiend who would try to kill Michael Fassbender. Additionally, the film clearly states at the beginning that it is set in A.D 117 when Agricola actually died in A.D. 93. That's not even taking into consideration the fact he returned to Rome from governing Britain in A.D. 62. Why, then, did the writers not just set the film when he was actually alive if they were so keen to sully Agricola's good name? Your guess is as good as mine. Great job at not even being bothered to look on Wikipedia there.
Essentially, then, the film misses the mark on a coherent narrative, coherent development of characters (English/Irish Fassbender + the Romans vs. Picts aside, the 'love' affair between The Fass and Imogen Poots is entirely rushed and entirely unbelievable) and any shred of historical awareness. Riz Ahmed was probably the best thing about the film, and he's criminally killed within 10 minutes of him appearing.

SOME FILMS AT RAINDANCE WHICH YOU SHOULD PROBABLY SEE

Avoiding today's trend to report which films at London Film Festival look good and should be watched (as excited as I am about 99% of the films showing there...you probably would have known to see them anyway) I have decided what would be far more useful is to tell you about Raindance's top picks. Which is in fact a far more arduous task.

The festival will be launched by opening night "gala" of Jackboots on Whitehall which despite featuring Ewan McGregor, Richard E. Grant, Tom Wilkinson AND Alan Cumming, looks so distinctly bad, one really has to question the four geniuses decision to join the cast. The Airborne Toxic Event are then playing at Heaven for the opening night party. Why? Because a film about them (All I Ever Wanted...) is also being shown at the festival. Makes sense. Except I for one am not familiar with any fans of the band and find it difficult to imagine a fuss being made over their performing at the party, let alone paying money. But hey - I've been out of the music journalism world for long enough not to know anything about such things. So far, so bad, then.

All is not lost, however. With some genuinely interesting films featuring later on in the festival. Within the Documentary strand, This Way Of Life, an Oscar-tipped tale of a Maori family's struggle to protect their way of life gets its UK Premiere and looks wholly decent.

For the more pretentious viewer, there is also Rouge Ciel to whet your artistic appetite.


In the oddly titled "Raindance Symphony Orchestra" strand, you'll find some of the weirder/more controversial entries of the programme. The most obvious topic for discussion is the inclusion of A Serbian Film which was banned from being shown at this year's Fright Fest. Except it's not really being shown, as the only way you'll be seeing this bad boy is if you happen to receive an invite to the private screening. Which you won't. And shouldn't want anyway. And I'm not saying that from some sort of moralistic pedestal - I frankly couldn't care less that the film features necrophilia, pedophilia and rape (combined in one scene with the rape of a newborn baby...tasty) as it's ONLY A FILM. What I'm more concerned with is the quality of the film. Which is piss poor. Controversial films made for the sake of controversy are one of my pet peeves. At least take a leaf out of Lars Von Trier's book and make the film semi-possessing of a decent narrative, development of characters and something which resembles a script. So stop waiting by your letter box (or more likely inbox) in the hopes of receiving one of these invites, and instead go and see Too Much Pussy: Feminist Sluts in the Queer X Show. Yup, you heard me. (Heard me? Read me?) Find out why here.

From the "North American Indies" strand (which does exactly what it says on the tin) I have chosen We Are The Mods purely because of the promotional image. It could swing either way: entirely good or entirely average. Either way it'll be entirely indie. Go here for more information.



The strand which has really excited me, however, is the Japanese strand. With the only world premiere of the festival (Lunar Child) this strand looks far more promising than any of those previously mentioned. I'm most looking forward to seeing Boys on the Run (supposedly a Japanese take on 40 Year Old Virgin), Lost and Found, Autumn Adagio (nun hits menopause and discovers her sexuality...lol?) and Yuriko's Aroma. Sod you, Serbia, Japan's where it's at. For a more comprehensive list of Japan's lovely features this year - go here.

RAINDANCE RUNS FROM SEPTEMBER 29TH TO OCTOBER 10TH AT APOLLO PICADILLY CIRCUS (one of the snazziest cinemas in town...)

31 NORTH 62 EAST

Here is a film which you should definitely watch despite its crap title and even crapper poster. "Why?" you ask. And so you might. And the answer dear readers is simple: because British people can be funny unintentionally, too! 31 North 62 East (the most clumsily titled film of the year, hands down) stars John Rhys-Davies (you'll know him best as Gimli in Lord of the Rings trilogy), Marina Sirtis (known best from her appearances as Counselor Deanna Troi from Star Trek), Heather Peace (who's been in every British "drama" or soap there is to hand), and Craig Fairbrass (who other than being Dan in Eastenders has apparently been in Rise of the Footsolider and played various voices in the Call of Duty franchise.) On paper, then, this supposed "political thriller" telling the tale of conspiracy and deception within an SAS unit located in Afghanistan should be better than an episode of Emmerdale. It isn't. Rhys-Davies plays the prime minister (who can only be modelled on John Prescott...) who betrays the location of the SAS unit in order to secure £80 million arms deal. Something which we are told from the very beginning. So there is absolutely no mystery involved there, then. In fact the only mystery pertaining to the film, is why on earth any of these people signed on to the project in the first place. Did they read the script and assume it'd only be released as a straight to Channel 5 piece (even ITV wouldn't have touched this...)? All the more mysterious is the actors' apparent ability to misplace any ounce of talent they once possessed. I take it back: it does take some talent to reel off "31 North 62 East" as effortlessly as every member of the cast manages to every time it's mentioned within the film.
The makers of the film have missed a real trick in not deciding to market the film as a spoof. Not even 20 minutes in and you'll have witnessed these groundbreaking film moments:


1. A man wielding the most unrealistic machete you'll see this side of Aladdin in panto season (for some reason Aladdin in my imagination wields a machete?), rubbing Heather Peace's tits with said weapon and growling in a particularly sexy voice: "maybe if I cut one of your silky-smooth breasts that might loosen your tongue". Which seems completely devoid of rational thought. I was simply left wondering "how does he know her breasts are silky-smooth?".
2. The same unconvincing Afghan captor torturing poor Heather Peace by claiming to use "acupuncture" as a method of loosening her tongue (yes he says this...AGAIN). A particularly unorthodox method in that he uses needles with flags of differing countries at their head, and inserts them under her finger nails. Effective.
3. Heather Peace eventually does loosen her tongue and drops the "F" bomb. Even the word "fuck" manages to be unconvincing in this context.

And if you should stick with the film a little longer, you'll experience the following treats:
1. The soundtrack which was evidently made for a low-budget porno and re-used to heighten the tension.
2. Heather Peace donning an ill-fitting balaclava to cleverly disguise herself while trying to capture Marina Sirtis. Soz Heather but noone is unrecognisable when you can still see their body, eyes and mouth. Except not one person manages to rumble her.
3. The line of dialogue: "round up the usual Islamic suspects". With not one shred of irony.

The list could (and does) go on. It is simpler, therefore, to leave you with the trailer for this stunning piece of film-making - though I should warn you - it wholly surpasses the film itself.

BELLA

Every now and then, a film comes along which affects you so little, it's hard to even form an opinion about it. An outcome which was somewhat surprising in this instance, given that Bella had won the People's Choice Award at Toronto Film Festival, and yet less surprising if you remember the fact the film was originally made in 2006 and has only now secured a UK release. The film stars Tammy Blanchard, certifiable cross between Lili Taylor and Hilary Swank, and Mexcian Eduardo Verástegui sporting the most off-putting beard since Joaquin Phoenix's monstrosity. Verástegui is in fact very, very good, as is Manny Perez who plays his brother, both working well to create a credible and touching dynamic between the characters. It helps that the highlights of the screenplay are shared between the roles, but Perez and Verástegui deliver perfectly. Tammy Blanchard does her best with what she's given, but as the character is more than under-developed, her ability to cry on cue very, very well, seems something of a wasted effort. What really spoils the film, however, is the last 5 minutes. Until this point, the film, in my opinion at least, is paced well, with the switches in time fitting well with the plot. The ending however is infuriating. Amid an outpour of more tears from Blanchard, the viewer is left wondering what on earth happened in the intermittent 5 years. And not in a mysterious, done on purpose kind of way, more in a "we've cut out the montage telling you exactly why these two characters appear to not have seen each other in 5 years despite being new best buds and why Verástegui decided to trim his beard perfectly to the same annoying length without ever feeling the need to get rid of it all together". It really is a shame, too, as until that point the film had all the potential to be perfectly competent and touching, if not a little bland around the edges.
I'll give it a begrudging 3/5 simply as a congratulations to Verástegui for carrying the film alone.