Fincher Accepts My Friend Request

Why would anybody want to make, let alone watch, a movie about Facebook, you ask? Well, when it's written by The West Wing's Aaron Sorkin and directed by David Fincher...it's a must see. Sorkin's script works on many levels; as a fascinating document of the conception and rise of the world's largest online social network, as a character study into obsession (Fincher's area of interest in many of his films) and the destructive nature obsession has on one's life, even though the protagonist might be trying to do good. And it's an insight into the working of the rules and politics governing American Higher learning institutions and business law.

Jesse Eisenberg is brilliant as Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, playing him with just enough humanity to not make him seem like a complete dick. Zuckerberg is portrayed as obsessing about attaining a high degree of social acceptance and desires recognition for his intelligence and his achievements...but doesn't wish to actually engage socially with other human beings. Using the all the principle characters, not just Zuckerberg, Sorkin and Fincher show individuals who are driven by failure and rejection to achieve and earn more and more.

Fincher's trademark direction is more subdued in stretches allowing Sorkins clever banter, room to breathe. The opposite is also true in wonderfully edited set-pieces that allow the director's unique sense of cutting and composition to shine. It's all accompanied by a stunningly atmospheric score co-written by Nine Inch Nail's Trent Reznor. It's 80's synth vibe makes this talky drama far more cinematic and helps to seamlessly gel the sharp dialogue and the gliding camera moves.

Unlike anything Fincher has done before, but just as engrossing as Zodiac and Seven...and certainly better than Benjamin Button....even if it doesn't have serial killers.

Don't Panic...You're Not Going Mad

The great thing about animation is that you can let your imagination run completely wild. Your characters can be anything, do anything and go anywhere...all for no extra production cost. Most of the time animation is limited to the adventures of cuddly animals or, as seen in recent years, riffs on the superhero genre. But sometimes animation is left to run wild and the results can be spectacular. The french production A Town Called Panic is such an example. Shot in stop motion with a bastard combination of plastic children's toys and plasticine Aardman-esque characters if follows the everyday lives of folk in a small village. Sounding like the set up for a kids joke, the film focuses on a Horse, a Cowboy and an Indian (native American) who live in a farm house together. When the childlike Cowboy and Indian decide to order some bricks, in order to build a barbecue for Horse's birthday, a simple error causes dramatic consequences.

The film is batshit crazy, like a freakish mutant offspring of Robot Chicken and Mr Tourettes from Modern Toss. The silly French characters are, of course, subtitled which adds to the outlandishness of the story. The animation is crude and jerky, which adds to the charm and the frenzied lunacy of the film. It's a globe-trotting adventure with mad scientists, an equine romance, musical farmyard beasts, undersea aliens and physics defying stunts.

You may find this far too absurd and crazy, wanting to kick the TV in with disbelief and confusion. But if you can go with it you'll see a film like you've never seen before. Like the cocaine fueled nightmare of Toy Story's Woody, A Town Called Panic will keep you entertained and on a dizzy high when it's all over.

A Pile Of Dinocroc Shit

There are three types of movies, off the top of my head, which are worth avoiding:-
1/ Uwe Boll movies.
2/ Movies from the low budget exploitation production outfit Asylum.
3/ Direct to DVD / TV movies shot for either Zone Horror or the SyFy channel.

Dinocroc Vs Supergator is a Roger Corman produced dino-turd that falls into category three. Here's a list of things you should know:-

1/ The CGI is abysmal. Both giant creatures appear to be weightless and don't blend into their environment realistically. A camera shudder is slyly used by the film-makers to try to give the creatures some realism...but it falls flat.

2/ The cast is comprised of three tiers of actors:-
i) Cardboard lunks that were too shit to get jobs on American daytime soaps.
ii) Seemingly ex female-porn actresses who are trying their hand at 'acting'.
iii) David Carradine, in one of his final on-screen roles. Pisser.

3/ When the cast are supposed to run away from an attacking creature...they jog slowly. Who knows why, perhaps the cameramen couldn't keep up beyond a mild canter, but they never muster any speed. And when they do run away, they only flee about 10 metres than exclaim, "Do you think we lost it!?!"

4/ The heroes use heat seeking technology to locate the beasts. But they're lizards (which are cold blooded) so how do they...

5/ The final confrontation takes place outside an abandoned sugar factory. To avoid the explosion which will destroy both creatures, our hero leaps into a convenient, water filled bath tub that just happens to be lying around in the open...outside an abandoned sugar factory, did I mention that...

Film making of the lowest order. But it's never dull, the girls are pretty and the ultra-corny score by Chuck Cirino and company is more memorable than 90% of most contemporary movie scores. No wonder Carradine couldn't take it anymore...

Venturing Into Joe Dante's Hole

Some directors are never out of the lime-light (Spielberg / Scorsese). Some directors have their one shot and are never heard from again (Marco Brambila / Steven Lisberger). Then there are the directors that have substantial careers, but you wish would just go away (Bryan Levant / Brett Ratner). And finally, there's the directors that you wish would keep getting A-list work, but struggle to convince the money men of their marketability and relevance to contemporary audiences.

One such director is Joe Dante, he of The Howling, Pirahna and Gremlins. Although his body of work is variable in quality (as it is with all directors), it never dips below a certain standard...maintaining his wit, style and signature no matter the script or subject matter. His latest film, The Hole, once again proves why Dante should still be working alongside the top ranking film directors working today.

The Hole is a kids adventure film, much in the style that Dante himself has dabbled with before with Explorers, Small Soldiers and Gremlins. Like that latter movie, The Hole crosses the line into adult entertainment; not sexy, pervy stuff but it has a dark creepiness that's normally reserved for horror films. Now, it being a PG-13 rating, this might not be entirely unexpected, but when you have a child-centric film about them finding a mysterious, bottomless hole in their basement you expect it to be more Disney than The Ring. And that's what this film feels like...an American adaptation of J-Horror...for kids. Creepy clown toys, freaky ghost children, hulking supernatural entities and an undefined menace that preys on the little 'uns.

Dante gets great performances out of his cast and sculpts the movie with his usual black humour and dynamic camera moves. If I'd have taken an under 12 to see this flick, in full blown 3D, in a movie theatre, I'd have been concerned for their chance of sleeping without nightmares that evening. But given the amount of skill, wit and sophistication that went into crafting a superior entertainment for kids...is it so wrong to freak the wee folk out?

The 3D Health & Safety Rebellion

If there's one thing I've learnt from Resident Evil 4, Avatar and now Jackass 3D is that movies shot in 3D look much more impressive than those converted to 3D. No matter how complex the moving image, every pixel of it's digitally projected being is clearly and precisely situated in three dimensions. But it's not just the 3D. It's the combination of 3D AND ultra-slow motion photography. The results are frequently stunning; seeing the ripple effect of a boxing glove in a fat dude's face or the impact of a donkey's hoof in the family jewels. These are spectacular visual images...not to mention utterly hilarious.

As for the third Jackass without the 3D...it all depends on what you think of Jackass. If you like a bunch of immature American adults performing clearly dangerous stunts and pranks then you're in luck. If you like watching people inflict great pain on themselves, and each other, in the name of original entertainment, then you'll love it. And if you think poo, sick, urine and farting is funny (although admittedly juvenile and gut-churning) then Jackass is the comedy for you.

A non stop laughter-fest from start to finish, it's at it's most gut-busting the more frightened and hurting the charming band of charismatic pranksters are. They also leave one of the most spectacular and disgusting gags for last. Those with a weak stomach should look away...

How To Train Your Dreamworks Animators

Dreamworks Animation is perhaps the second best known (and the second most successful) contemporary animation company in the world, after Pixar. But despite their achievements, most of their output leaves me unimpressed. The first Shrek was OK, but the sequels struggled to find their mark. Madagascar, Monsters Vs Aliens and Kung Fu Panda were fun, but flimsy. And Sharks Tale sucks. Only Over The Hedge has had the right combination of story, comedy and characters to warrant being called a 'good' film...and even that wasn't quite up to Pixar standards. Well, with How To Train Your Dragon they've got a second impressive string in their bow.

It's the tale of a misfit Viking boy whose clan are at war with the dragons of the world. While his warrior father (Gerard Butler) struggles to defend the village and figure ot what to do with his wayward son, the boy, Hiccup, befriends an injured dragon. Dreamworks wisely go for a tone dominated by the weight of the story rather than impose a jokey feel on the movie. It's a big scale fantasy adventure, first and foremost, with the comedy less forced and silly than their other efforts. The characters are clearly defined, the script is sharp and well structured and the relationships are relatable and touching.

But there's a few things that stood out:-
1/ The relationship between Hiccup and his dragon, Toothless, is the heart of the movie. Without that key, believable affection between animal and master, the whole plot would loose it's power. As it is, the relationship acts as a hook on which the emotional bulk of the story is hung.
2/ Craig Ferguson's dragonslayer trainer, Gobber, is great. He's got the best humorous lines and sharpest delivery as the comic relief of the film.
3/ There's a great John Powell score which enhances the adventurous spirit of the film. For example there's a sequence where Hiccup saddles and rides Toothless for the first time...and a later one where he takes his girlfriend on her first flight too. Both sequences are more awe inspiring than the similar set-piece in Avatar. Sure James Cameron's sequence is cool and is 100% times better looking, but Dragon's has more whomph!

Still not up to Pixar standards then, but a rollicking good yarn and surprisingly well told. It's just a pity that Dreamworks have got Panda and Madagascar sequels on the horizon...

Gornography In The Third Dimension

With SAW D being the sixth sequel to the low budget, breakout, horror hit that was 2004's Saw, I've gotten to know what makes a good Saw movie, and what doesn't. So here's the checklist:-

1/ Are the traps any good? Only partially this time. As with any horror franchise (Elm Street / Friday 13th / Jaws), characterisation begins to take a back seat to the number, and quality of the kills. And when I say 'quality', I mean the originality, the gore quotient and the entertainment value combined. The kills here start of well, with the most being used of the 3D process, but after the first three the budget begins to reign in the sadistic inventiveness of the torture devices. Yes they're OK, but never quite matching up to the fun factor (if you can call it that in a Gorno) to the opening traps.

2/ How convoluted is this sequel? All Saw movies are obliged to tie it's narrative into that which has been established before. It has to provide some fresh perspective onto the events of all the other Saw movies so that, come the revelatory final scene, the audience is going, "Ooooo...ain't that clever!" Saw's 4 and 6 overdid this, making their plots difficult to follow. The audience can spend so much time trying to remember plot points and character relationships from a movie 4 to 5 years ago, it makes you want to stop watching then and there. Fortunately, SAW 3D gets the loose ends from Saw 6 tied up pretty quickly and it's off with the new plot.

3/ Does this sequel have anything interesting to say? Well, Saw 6, despite it being a bit dull, did at least have some social commentary on America's dubious medical insurance policies. Saw 3D does examine people's need to exploit the news and media for personal gain...but it's nothing in depth.

It's directed with all the anticipated gloom and grime of the previous franchise entries, the 3D isn't used to any startling effect beyond the first 20 minutes. Oh and Cary Elwes, the magnificent thesp that he is (!) turns up for a plot twisting cameo. Not a dud, but an average entry into a film series that needs a nice long rest.