Snake Eyes (1998)

In a similar vain to the recently reviewed Suspiria, Snake Eyes is a masterclass in 'all style, no susbtance' film making. It seems like a tag permanently attached to director Brian de Palma, creator of familar gangster films Scarface, Carlito's Way and The Untouchables as well as the the brains behind the more experimental Femme Fatale, The Black Dahlia and Body Double.

But boy does Snake Eyes begin in a technically impressive way with an opening, unbroken single shot following Rick Santoro (Nicholas Cage) through doors, up and down stairs whilst he talks on his phone and engages with people before he finally takes his seat inside the arena. He is at a boxing match after all. This technically astute opening shot allows de Palma to introduce the key players in the film, Santoro, his good friend Commander Kevin Dunne (Gary Sinise) and of course the arena itself; de Palma uses this shot to explore it's layout.

Shortly after the bout begins the champion Lincoln Tyler does gown (Tyler never goes down) and shots are fired. The man Dunne was in charge of protecting, Secretary of Defence Charles Kirkland is wounded. The arena is cordened off and a real-time investigation gets under way. We meet two women, a fiery haired woman who fled her front row seat just before the shooting began and a woman in a blond wig who converses with Kirkland again just before shots are heard. Their place in the story is gradually explained.

Santoro hears the opinions of the various characters in the film as explanations of the shooting are attempted. People lie, things don't make too much sense, but the more Santoro hears and the more camera angles he attends to, the pieces of the puzzle start to fit together more kindly and eventually it is revealed that a conspiracy took place.

But the film descends into ridicule. Not only does the suspense that it successfully builds fall flat with still around 35 minutes to go, but the ending is so nonsensically convenient. Successful character developments like the sinister side of Dunne's personality are abadoned as Snake Eyes stumbles to it's conclusion. It's all a shame really because if de Palma could use his hands to write as well as he can use them to man a camera then Snake Eyes could actually have been pretty good.

Rating: 6.5/10

Suspiria (1977)

On a stormy German night Suzy Bannion arrives from New York to enroll at a prestigious dance academy there. But her night doesn't go too well. Starting with a less than comfortable taxi ride, Suzy is eventually refused entry to the school under strange circumstances as she witnesses one student, already enrolled, storming out of the school, screaming into the distance. In a scene many have described as misogynistic, we follow the fleeing girl, Pat Hingle, to her friend's flat where she is brutally stabbed several times before being hung. Her onlooking friend is also killed, in one of the film's most iconic images (see picture above), as her face is severed by shattered glass.

The next morning Suzy returns to the academy and everything appears to be normal. Suzy recalls something that Pat said as she fled the school the night before but she can't recall what it was. Remembering this is obviously going to be key to solving the mysterious events that follow. Argento's screenplay is the typical 'everything seems to be normal but something sinister lurks beneath' storyline; it reminded me of the superior Rosemary's Baby in that sense. I won't spoil any of the plot in this supposed Italian horror masterpiece but what I will say is that it is much less successful than Roman Polanski's film at chilling the viewer to the bone.

The films most effective, most memorable scene is the scene that sees fellow student Sarah escaping through a high window using a tower of boxes before falling into an unseen wire pit on the other side, whilst someone or something attempts to pick the lock of the door in order to catch her. The reason is stayed with me because half way through the scene Argento strips it of any music whatsoever and suddenly the urgency that the score fuels falls flat. Is Argento purposely showing us the false facade that a film's score provides? I believe so.

Where the term 'masterpiece' is most apt to apply to this 1977 effort is towards its score which is perfect. Not only is the score, provided by Italian rock band Goblin, unique in it's production but it is one of the most apt scores I've ever heard. I'm not usually one to get over excited by a film's music but Suspiria's is simply sublime. Goblin combine their instruments with excellent breathing-like vocals to create something that perfectly balances the innocent and magic of the ballet with the creepy atmosphere you come to expect of a horror film.

But an incredible score does not make a good film. The acting in Suspiria is somewhat stagy and the overall aesthetic feel of the film, despite occasional impressive colour and lighting techniques, looks somewhat grainy and dated. Further, poor direction and structure in the scenes in the film intended to have the most effect, strips them of any 'scare factor' and they are occasionally totally incomprehensible as the film descends into messy chaos in it's final act.

Rating: 5/10

The Cell (2000)

With the point at which the bold, cloudless sky meets the vast orange sands below strikingly clear Catherine Deane (Jennifer Lopez), dressed in white meanders through the desert. Already we are presented with symbolic imagery. The landscape is one, the burnt-out ship wreck, the scorched trees and the motionless horse. Catherine Deane meets a boy, the son of a millionaire. He appears well here but really he is comatosed. He's not really in a desert either. The opening scenes depict the results of unconventional science methods of unlocking the thoughts of those who cannot share them otherwise. Back in the desert with a squeeze of her hand, we are transported to surroundings that seem more familiar but are still equally perplexing. Scientists peer through wide glass windows at two bodies head to toe in red virtual reality suits, squares of material covering their faces. They are hooked up to some kind of machine, a machine that produces the visions we just saw.

This is Tarsem Singh's The Cell and it is unlike any film I've seen before. It possesses the psychology of The Silence of the Lambs and blends this well with the artistic creativity and beauty we would come to behold in David Lynch's Inland Empire. Mixed in for good measure is the race against time nature of any bog standard crime thriller and a bit of science fiction too... oh and there are even scenes in there that modern day audiences are likely to associate with the Saw and Hostel franchises.

After it's intriguing start the film switches focus pretty quickly. We meet Novak (played by Vince Vaughn, still in his pre-comedies stage) and his F.B.I. team as they track down a serial killer they identify as Carl Stargher (Vincent D'Onofrio). Trouble is, although they successfully apprehend Stargher, this is not before he has fallen into a coma. This incident provides the link with the film's beginning. Using the unusual, experimental methods from the beginning of the film Deane will attempt to unlock the mind of Stargher in order to try and locate the killer's next target who they discover is locked in a glass tank in an unknown location, a tank that is gradually filling with water.

I don't want to ruin the storyline but simply put, The Cell combines all the genres it appeals to and creates a multi-layered film of the highest artistic quality in which we really care about the characters and really believe that well-being is on the line.

Those viewers expecting more thrills than psychology are likely to be left disappointed, choosing to pass this off as bizarre, pretentious nonsense. Perhaps they aren't far from the truth there but by choosing to study human psychology in such a unique, unconventional way, Singh gives himself the opportunity to allow his artistic side to truly run wild. By blending bold, vibrant colours with unique set design and an unmatched visionary direction we the viewer are treated to striking image after striking image. The Cell is without doubt one of the most artistic film of the past decade.

Is it's conclusion one of satisfying clarity? No not exactly, but a film of this kind doesn't need nor deserve clarification. It's not always as simple as fitting square pegs in square holes, but it does admittedly get a little lost in it's own ideas in the final scenes. However, these issues are only minor and further viewings will only help to piece together what is an already brilliant film.


Rating: 8.5/10

Avatar (2009)

So, here it is. I'm sure you have heard of a little film called Avatar by now. After twelve years, the 'King of the World' is back. Yeah that's right Mr. James Cameron's Avatar, fifteen years in the making, is finally upon us. Smashing his own box-office record by becoming the most popular film at the cinema ever, thus knocking Titanic down to number two, Avatar has already made, the I'm-sure-he is-already-loaded-director, even more money, thus perhaps justifying the reported $250 million it cost to produce. So what's it all about?

Avatar's main protagonist is Jake Scully (Sam Worthington). His twin brother, a former avatar operator has been killed, and as Jake is a near-perfect genetic match he has been brought to Pandora, the far away planet on which the film is set, to replace him, despite no longer having the function of his lower body. Humans are on Pandora for a reason, to undertake a mining operation to secure a rare yet valuable mineral called unobtanium. Through the creation of avatars, virtually identical replica's to the inhabitants of Pandora called Na'vi's, humans are able to get close to the Na'vi and increase the quality of their research of the planet. Avatars are operated via a mental link by matching a human to an Avatar body, thus rendering Scully's disability unimportant.

Scully's avatar eventually links up with Neytiri, whose massive Na'vi colony live in an area that the humans want to bulldoze. Scully's mission is to befriend Neytiri and convince her and her colony to relocate. At night, whilst Scully's avatar sleeps, the human Scully is brought around, back to headquarters and updated on the next part of the mission. However, Avatar could be called a film of self-awakening. Scully begins to enjoy life as an avatar and eventually swaps sides, deciding that he would quite like to live on Pandora permanently, much to the disgust of the humans.

Now one of the main discussion topics that Avatar has aroused is regarding it's visual achievements and sure, I'll allow them to be described as 'sharp' but visually stunning perhaps not. With such a big budget Cameron is obviously going to make the film look incredibly slick. Boasting the most expensive and technologically advanced special effects the film does look very good, and the use of 3D allows Cameron to fully display the expansive and intricate nature of the Pandorian forest. But films have been made at a snip of Avatar's budget and have been visually a lot more beautiful. Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain and Wong Kar Wai's 2046 spring to mind.

The most curious and perhaps even most enjoyable parts of the film came when Jake and Neytiri discussed the environmental aspects of Pandora's forest plant and wildlife. These scenes allowed Cameron to get full benefits out of the magical colours he employs and allowed the 3D side of the film to shine the most. I must give out the highest praise for these scenes. Unfortunately such moments take up far too little of the film's running time.

All the pre-Oscar talk suggested that Zoe Saldana could become the first motion-capture actress to ever be nominated in the Best Female category, for her performance as Neytiri. She missed out though, and I think that this was the right choice. This isn't because I disagree with motion-capture performances being considered in such categories but simply because I do not think that she stands out in the film, say above Sam Worthington's performance as Jake Sully, and I didn't hear of him potentially being up for Best Male. Nor does Santana give a performance as good as the only nomination in the Best Female category that I've seen, Carey Mulligan, in her role as the charming Jenny Miller, in the very good coming of age tale, An Education. Of all the performances in Avatar I was probably most impressed with Sigourney Weaver's. She stood out above the majority of average actors despite her small role.


Predictably, the last act of the film is devoted to high octane action or, as I like to call it, people dying and things blowing up. Fellow 2009 Best Picture nominee District 9 also sets itself up in this way, and this story arc is what I consider a major flaw in the film as it simply boils down to an arbitrary battle to decide a winner. I was hoping that Avatar did not follow in District's shoes. In a sense it does, however, the final action scenes are amongst the most impressive scenes of this type that I have ever seen. Not only are they put together incredibly well, but Cameron has, by the time these scenes come about, established his characters and the unfolding situation in such a way, that, for once in an action film these final few scenes really feel like they mean something to all involved. This wasn't just about coming to an arbitrary conclusion, this really was deciding the fate of Pandora. And for achieving this I almost begrudgingly have to give Avatar credit.

Avatar is not revolutionary cinema, primarily because this is not revolutionary storytelling and for me that is such a main part of being original and distinctive, which this is not. It is riddled with cliches, from a predictable love story, to stereotypical, one-dimensional characters, and even just a general, all too familiar, we have seen it a million times before structure. It's a shame really because Cameron is a big name in cinema, he loves films, so with such special effects at his disposal why not go just that one little step further and not only prove that you can make state-of-the-art special effects films but that you can also revolutionise storytelling, then you can make us all happy? Instead Cameron seems happy just to provide us with some sort of prototype of what is to come.

But what Avatar is, is incredibly good popcorn cinema. It's a good ride, and at around 160 minutes it does fly by. I do worry at how well Avatar will transfer from the big-screen to home viewings on DVD. I fear that it's flaws may become more apparent and the magic that is created through the use of 3D glasses and a big cinema screen will evaporate. For me this is a massive problem in classing a film as good. Great films are universal. They can be viewed on the big screen, on a portable DVD player or on just your standard living room television. If Avatar is only worthwhile on the cinema screen, then in a few weeks time when it's cinema contract runs out will it disappear from our lives altogether?

Is this the best film of 2009? No, the answer to that question is Moon. Is this the best film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. Again, I'd have to say no. But what it does prove is that hype is everything, and I'm sure James Cameron isn't complaining.


Rating: 6.5/10

Zodiac (2007)

2007, it is often said, is one of the best years for cinema of the past decades. In the Coen's No Country For Old Men and Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood, it is quite simple, we have two bona-fide masterpieces that will be remembered for years to come. Gus Van Sant's Paranoid Park ain't bad too. Perhaps including the Academy-overlooked Zodiac in the bracket of masterpiece, or pretty close to it, wouldn't be too far from the truth.

The film tells the true to life story of the mysterious Zodiac killer who was never caught. The paranoia begins with a letter that arrives in the mail at the headquarters of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper. The letters are encrypted with codes and make little sense. An employee there, political cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) shows the most interest in the letters but due to his status within the company, he is not taken seriously by his peers. However, Graysmith is able to crack one of the codes, thus enabling him to become a part of the attempts to solve the case.

Zodiac isn't a film that tells the story of a serial killer from their point of view as they meticulously hunt down their victims. For sure, the film does show three of the Zodiac's murder that are shot with a genuine sense of realism with Fincher refusing to glorify the killings for the sake of visual enhancement. But most of the film is dedicated to showing how the police try and fail to solve the case of exactly who is guilty for commit the several murders. They continue to try, get a little further and then fail again until the majority of them give up. All except one man.

When it comes to noteworthy performances I was really, really impressed by Jake Gyllenhaal. I've only seen him in Donnie Darko, Jarhead and The Day After Tomorrow, and in all three, although adequately acted, I was never struck by anything overly special. However, his performance in Zodiac perfectly illustrates the obsession that his character Robert has with the Zodiac case. Just look how many years pass throughout the course of the film, and still, even as time passes into the 1980's Gyllenhaal still manages to portray the fixation controlling Robert's life perfectly.

I'm first to admit that I didn't absorb every detail contained within the picture. First of all, at 156 minutes, it's longer than most films but the task of understanding every little intricacy is made ever harder by the plethora of characters, the fast yet perfectly pitched pace and the intensity of the well-written dialogue. However, this does not detract from the overall pleasure gained on a first viewing. It is still a mesmerizing watch and a film that I'm sure will benefit from multiple rewatches, thus allowing for all of the minor details to tie together nicely.

Many viewers will be wrongfully frustrated by how the film turns out. Zodiac isn't a film that can have a nicely rounded ending, with all burning questions answered. But this cannot be avoided, after all the film is based on a true story and the Zodiac killer was never caught, so Fincher cannot provide us with a satisfying conclusion. But what he does do, through his flawless direction, is create a fascinating yet strangely unsettling film that hinges on the absolute persistence of one man to solve. Despite being shot digitally, the cinematography is at times gorgeous, probably the most visually impressive digital film I've seen aside from David Lynch's Inland Empire.

Further, Zodiac is noticeably void of many 'action' sequences. There are no car chases, no shootouts, no rise and fall of climatic events. It's not a film that requires them and for me, this was a breath of fresh air.

David Fincher is one of the most talented, stylish and intense directors working today. His filmography includes Fight Club, a film that seems to have universal love and Se7en, another film about serial killers. These two are labelled by many as modern day masterpieces, but in Zodiac, Fincher has created his best film to date that for me simply aside the two aforementioned films. It's an intense, seemingly very accurate depiction of the ways in which police work genuinely does function and the frustration that can occur when they don't always strike gold.


Rating: 9/10

Irreversible (2002)

"Time destroys everything."

If approached by a man who informs you that he can tell you of your future would you want him to go on? Are we happy to live our lives not knowing what lurks around the corner or would we prefer to know? Decide for yourself.

Irreversible tells the chronological story of a couple, Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and Alex (Monica Bellucci) and their best friend and Alex's ex-partner Pierre (Albert Dupontel). Marcus and Alex are deeply in love. Alex has just found out that she is pregnant and Marcus is clearly delighted at the prospect. The two are the epitome of happiness. The trio are spending the night at a house party. Whilst there, Marcus high on drugs, and probably drunk as well, acts very flirtatiously with other women, much to the distaste of Alex who informs him that she is leaving the party and intends to take a taxi home. After struggling to cross a busy road she is told by a passer-by to take the underground passageway, which she does. Whilst beneath the road, Alex is brutally raped and beaten for a lengthy nine minutes. A while later, Marcus discovers her body being wheeled onto the back of an ambulance and is informed by the paramedic that Alex is in a coma. Incensed, Marcus and Pierre are led on a revenge quest to find the perpetrator, which eventually leads the pair to a gay bar called The Rectum.

However, where Irreversible differs from most films is that, like Christopher Nolan's Memento, it tells this story in reverse chronological order. The first 45 minutes of Gasper Noe's highly controversial 2002 effort are tough going and many film-goers won't make it past them. Everything you can think of that is often deemed morally repugnant is included here; explicit homosexual language and content, racism, savage and brutal violence and more which culminates in the punishing unbroken, nine minute long rape scene which is unbearable to watch. Noe refuses to take his camera away from the attack, subjecting the viewer to nine of the longest minutes you are likely to ever sit through. Heads have to be turned away, eyes have to be closed but still, the sound of Alex screaming at the top of her lungs and the aggressive tone of the rapist's voice as he asks her to call him 'Daddy' refuse to go away. And all this occurs after we have already sat through another static shot focused on Pierre as he beats a man who he thinks is the rapist, several times over the head with a fire extinguisher.

The rest of the film which tells the beginning of the film chronologically actually make for pleasant viewing. The scenes on the Metro make for some light-hearted, even humorous moments as Pierre tries to figure out why Alex didn't rate him in bed. At the very end (the beginning) we see Marcus and Alex at their most comfortable which each other. The chemistry is excellent, unsurprisingly so seeing as the pair were married in real life (and still are).

I began my review by raising a relevant question regarding whether we would like to be able to know our futures and I think this is a major reason why Noe decided to reverse the chronology like he does. This isn't a film that aims to show us the happiness and then shock us into seeing everything fall apart for the pair. The shocks come at the very start, before we really even feel anything for the characters. In actual fact, Marcus is the first character that we see being overtly violent, yet he is not the evil here.

By getting the shocks 'out of the way' so to speak, Noe gives us time to reflect on what has happened (or what will eventually come to happen). For example, at the party, Alex now comes across as vulnerable, in a way that she wouldn't have done had the film played out in order. Her perfect body and revealing dress have us wishing it was otherwise. Some of the conversations hint at things that are yet to come and the colour of red on the wall of the house from the party that we see just before Alex leaves act as a warning of what is about to take place.

If you can overlook the film's brutality, on a technical level the film is very impressive. The swirling cameras and pulsating sound effects create a tense atmosphere which brilliantly illustrates the chaos surrounding the search for the rapist undertaken by Marcus and Pierre. The conversations are mostly improvised, heightening the sense of realism. The twelve or thirteen scenes that make up the film are all shot in a single take each (even if clever editing helps to make it this way).

I'm unsure on it's rewatchability and whether it will be as affective second time around, once you are already familiar with how it unfolds. Regardless, this is an impressive film and an original one at that. It's a film that aims to show just how thin of a thread happiness hangs on and how quickly that thread can be broken and lives altered forever and it's quite unsettling to see quickly Gasper Noe thinks that can happen.


Rating: 8.5/10

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

Lars Von Trier is making a name for himself as one of the most talented, unique yet highly controversial directors working today.. His latest film, Antichrist has had critics in a bit of a fluster due to scenes of extreme violence and genital mutilation, and this, Dancer in the Dark, was the focus of similar critical division back in 2000. As a maker of films, he is not one to sugarcoat his audience, opting instead to achieve what he wants by whatever means he feels necessary, no matter how divisive they may come to be. But this is a musical I hear you say, a genre notoriously dead in the water, so void of any originality that it seems almost counter-intuitive to suggest anyone would have the audacity or indeed the talent to reinvent it. Well that is exactly what Mr. Von Trier has done. This is a musical like no other you have ever seen in your life.

The film, starring Icelandic singer Bjork, Catherine Deneuve (Repulsion, Belle de Jour) and David Morse (Disturbia, Twelve Monkeys), tells the story of Selma, a Czech immigrant now living in America with her son Gene. Selma suffers from a hereditary condition which is slowly causing her to go blind. She works in a factory solely to raise money for an operation for Gene which would stop him from suffering from the same condition, thus saving his sight. She stores her money in a little pink tin in her home, which she rents from the town policeman Bill and his wife Linda.

Selma has an amazing singing voice (unsurprising since she is played by Bjork) and is a big fan of musicals (in fact she is currently rehearsing the role of Maria, from The Sound of Music) and this together with the triviality and bleakness of her life causes her daydream often, daydreams in which she imagines she is the leading lady in big Hollywood musical scores.


It is in these musical scores that the film really shines as a fabulously unique piece of work. There is something pulsating, something rhythmic about them. You can sense them coming, slowly, as Selma, using only the cacophony of noises from her surroundings (i.e. factory noise, the noise of a train moving down the track, the footsteps of the prison guards) then suddenly bursts into song and those people around her become the backing dancers. The sequences really grab a hold of you, they are the most pleasurable and enjoyable parts of the film and are masterfully edited. 100% film genius.

This is not a film that intends to visually satisfy you. In fact, von Trier has done his best to achieve the opposite. Staying partially loyal to his Dogme-95 statement, whereby films are made using hand-hand digital camera (in this case a pretty dowdy looking one) to create a documentary-style feel, Dancer in the Dark does not look 'nice'. But this rule of thumb is abandoned when Selma abandons the reality of her life. Then, the cameras become static, the colours are vibrant, and this echoes how musicals really are, colourful, detached from reality just as Selma is momentarily lost in a world in which she wishes she could permanently be.

But it is not all song and dance. In fact the musical side of the film does not really dominant. On top of this there is devastating emotional content touching on themes of staying true to yourself in the face of those who abuse the trust that you place upon them. This manifests through the actions of Bill, who steals the money that Selma has been saving up. These leads to a really unpleasant scene where Selma murders Bill and thus is arrested and placed on death row. The final scene, of which I will not spoil, is one of the much emotionally impacting pieces of cinema I have ever seen. A truly incredible way to end the film.

Dancer in the Dark is a film that thrives on the wonderful performance that Bjork gives and a lot of credit must be given to von Trier for having the vision and confidence in Bjork to come up with such a role. Selma, is a likable character and one who you no doubt will empathize with massively. It seems so rare that a female gives such an amazing performance in a lead role, but Bjork delivers what is probably the best I have ever seen.

It is a shame that the state of cinema in the modern era means that many will not see this conventional shattering masterpiece and winner of the Palme d'Or. It is a truly original piece of work, a re-imagining of a genre that usually tends to regurgitate itself time and time again. This is a truly remarkable piece of work.


Rating: 10/10