Unlikely Festive Films

'Tis the season to watch festive films. And what a choice you have! You can watch the curious tale (on paper at least) of a retarded angel saving a put-upon banker from jumping in the river after a particularly bad day in the office*. Or you could watch the once popular Tim Allen turn into Santa in an at times similar manner to the central character in Cronenberg's version of The Fly (albeit it without the body parts falling off or the sheer viscera and pain). Then there's the surprisingly watchable Muppet Christmas Carol, in which Jim Henson's creations sing their way through Dickens' most famous tale. Or there's the genuinely funny Elf, in which Will Ferrell brings a certain level of charm to the one character he can play well - that of the earnest simpleton. But it is more than possible that by the end of the festive season you'll be sick of the traditional festive films, yet at the same time you might not want to watch something as unseasonal as Eraserhead or Black Swan. So I give you five films that are seasonal if only because they are set during the festive season:

Trading Places

A festive favourite that involves two men fucking up the life of an employee over a one dollar bet. It's a great film, though; pretty much perfectly cast and blessed with Eddie Murphy at his peak. The story is entertaining, fast moving and often very funny. So yeah, the central plot may not be that festive, but if you ever want something light yet absorbing for a post-Christmas dinner film, then you could do far worse than this one.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Once upon a time it used to be a quasi-tradition that there would be a Bond film broadcast on TV on Christmas day. Actually, it might still be for all I know - there is very little I watch on TV these days, and films I have on DVD are, fairly, obviously, not included in what I do watch. But if I had to choose one Bond film to watch on Christmas Day, it would be this one. Firstly because it is partly set at Christmas - even to the extent where it contains a Christmas song (albeit one that is so sweet and sickly that it could send even the healthiest of us into a diabetic coma). Secondly, it is quite possibly the best Bond film ever - well directed, with a proper story and central romance combined with some great performances. Of course, there is the massive drag factor of George Lazenby - an actor who seems permanently bewildered not only by the fact that he is James Bond, but also by the fact that there is a film crew following him and like shooting stuff and shit. So whenever you watch this one, picture Connery, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig or even Moore as the star. It may be tough to pull off at times (especially when the late George Baker's voice is crudely dubbed onto Lazenby's flapping mouth), but trust me, this makes the whole film much better.

The Poseidon Adventure

A simple premise for this one: a voyage across the ocean during the festive season goes wrong. In fact, it is safe to say it goes really badly wrong. Capsized by a freak tidal wave, a group of plucky survivors fight their way through the upturned ship. Of course, disaster, destruction and death are not necessarily that festive, but there is something curiously Christmassy about a disaster movie. And there are very few disaster movies quite as good as this one. But if you can't get hold of it, then check out Voyage of the Damned - it's more or less that same story, but set in space and with additional Time Lord goodness.

Batman Returns

Ahhh, Christmas in Gotham. And what does director Tim Burton give us as a present? The darkest cinematic interpretation of the dark knight prior to Christopher Nolan deciding that a broken hero with post-traumatic stress disorder was the way forward for the franchise**. A city under siege; traumatised parents killing their deformed, cat-eating baby; said cat-eating baby turning into a bestial version of the Penguin with a penchant for nose biting and attempted mass murder. Plus there's Catwoman; a PVC clad vengeance machine who ultimately turns her back on Bruce Wayne - favouring, instead, death by electrocution with her murderous boss. So yeah... set at Christmas. Not a great Christmas for Bruce Wayne/Batman. Or Gotham. Or Selina Kyle/Catwoman. Or Oswald Cobblepot. Or pretty much any character who appears in the film.

Gremlins

Perhaps the most Christmassy of all the films listed here as this not only takes place at Christmas but contains numerous references to Christmas and is set against the backdrop of snow. It is even, at times, trying to be a twisted version of It's a Wonderful Life. Of course, it also contains vicious little monsters who create havoc and hurt, maim and kill arbitrarily. Indeed, they'd be some characters in this film who might prefer to have spent the festive period in Gotham circa 1992. But there is glee in this film - even if it is often a malicious, sadistic glee. It is a fun and fast-moving motion picture, even if occasionally scary, and as such is perfect for Christmas.

So that's my list of non-festive festive film treats. If you have any suggestions in a similar vein, well, you know where the comments section is...

*Actually, I really love It's a Wonderful Life, despite what I've written here. But it has to be seen to be believed, because any summary of it does make it sound cheesy and annoying.
**And was actually right in this decision.

Never Let Me Go

In many respects, Never Let Me Go is a very simple film. It is a movie about a tragic love triangle between three doomed individuals. But that simplicity is deceptive. In fact, it is a far more complex film that it might first appear. Because the background scenario - the dystopian society that provides the backdrop and the reason as to why the leading trio are doomed - is simultaneously fascinating and frightening. And yes, there are spoilers ahead.

The trio at the heart of the story are donors - not those who volunteer to donate organs after their demise, but rather human clones who are bred to provide replacement organs for real humans. And those organs are removed while the donors still live -organ by organ until the donor can no longer survive and they die. Their whole lives are laid out for them, and the donors know that they will die on an operating table giving their vital organs to those deemed to be more important than them.

In part, the film is about what it means to be human. The donors - bred to be internally cannibalised - are effectively human. They feel; they love, they argue, they hope and they fear. They create. In what way are they different from other humans? Is it simply they were bred to be spare parts and then conditioned to accept that fate? But it is about more than just the question of whether the donors are human, since the film also posits the implicit question of "how human is a society that breeds fellow humans to slowly kill them in a cold, clinical and bureaucratic way?"

As such, this film is in part a tragic romance, in part a dystopian fantasy. But it is also an very unlikely but also compelling horror movie, rather like In The Loop (albeit for different reasons). The horror isn't blatant or in-your-face; rather, it hangs in the atmosphere but is everywhere. The film features people born to die and while one of the characters muses that everyone completes (the film's term for dying), these people aren't just born to die, they are born to be killed and their organs systematically harvested. Furthermore, there are constant hints at just how inhumane this society has become. Hailsham - one of the schools that educate the donors - is perceived by one of its leading staff members as a last bastion of ethical behaviour towards the donors. It cares about whether they are human or not. But even as it asks that question it still grooms these children not to question; to be compliant little donors. It is complicit in the systematic slaughter of numerous people in society. Furthermore, it is suggested that Hailsham has closed towards the end of the film, and that the newer schools for clones are really just battery farms. Humans clones as battery hens, bred by a society that would rather ignore them until it needs their organs. And clones so indoctrinated and convinced of their own fate that they do not run and do not flee; the closest they come to such an aspiration is wanting to defer their first donation because they have found love. Hell, even the bland wording for the process are haunting; "donations" for the harvesting of organs, "completion" for what is effectively murder at the hands of the National Donor Programme. This is a dystopian future, and we see it through the dystopia's victims.

Never Let Me Go is touching, sinister and thought-provoking in equal measure and, as such, is well worth watching.

The A-Team

The A-Team was frankly screaming out for a Hollywood remake. Big, bold OTT characters, stunts, explosions, a simple plot premise and unlikely yet clever gadgets, it has blockbuster written all over it. What a shame, then, that the actual Hollywood version of The A-Team was this.

On almost every level, the film fails to be what it should be. All of the characters are just slightly wrong. Take B. A. Baracus; in the original, he was a hard-as-nails strongman who could reveal a slightly more benign side in the right circumstances. In the film, he's a bit of a wuss whose character development - such as it is - mainly revolves around him getting his trademark haircut. Then you have the violence. The violence on the TV series was cartoonish to say the least, with no-one ever dying despite the outrageous stunts and massive explosions. People die in the film, and there is a level of violence (like the threatened necklacing) that you just wouldn't see in the TV series. And finally, there's the plot. Sure, the TV series had quite repetitive plots, but that was part of its charm. Unfortunately, the film launches into a plot that is both hideously complicated (for a Hollywood flick) and misses the point of the original. In the TV series, the A-Team helped others who couldn't help themselves. In this version, they are either helping Uncle Sam or helping themselves.

That's not to say this is a bad film - it isn't an insult to the original, as say the film version of The Avengers was. Indeed, in the scene when the A-Team rescue Murdoch from a mental hospital, it approaches a level that is almost genius. The point is, though, that it never manages to be The A-Team. Rather, it all feels like a Pierce Brosnan Bond movie; the whole thing is a bit like a remake of Die Another Day (albeit without the arsing about in an ice palace at the end). Which is all well and good, but does rather beg the question of why they felt the need to make this an A-Team film when they very clearly wanted to make an action-espionage movie instead.

Let Me In

There is a film version of The Woman in Black. Written by Nigel Kneale, it is an effectively creepy tale with some genuine scares in it. The production is difficult to get hold of not least in part because the novel's author hates it. One of the reasons why seems to be the minor, yet seemingly pointless and niggling, changes Kneale's screenplay makes to her book. I mean, why change the gender of the dog? Really, what was the point in doing that?

Now I've often thought that Susan Hill is over-reacting about these changes (if the rumours are correct and they are the main thing bothering her about the adaptation); they do little to damage the drama, and even the changed ending is still extremely effective. Then I saw Let Me In, a remake of the superb Swedish film Let The Right One In, and I got it. Because, while Let Me In is not an atrocious film, it is filled with pointless little changes to the original that add nothing but help to make the remake into a pale imitation of a far superior original.

I'm not going to list all the differences between the two films; instead, I'll illustrate using two crucial ones. First up, why change the title? Surely the filmmakers weren't worried that the Swedish title was too long for US audiences? But if that wasn't the case, then really, why make that change? The original title is playful, and hints at the ambiguous relationship at the heart of the film - has Oskar let the right one in, or is he being manipulated by a much older vampiric predator? Let Me In as a title lacks that ambiguity; it is a straight request, and a pointless truncation of the original title.

Then you have the elimination of the drinking buddies in the original as properly drawn, credible characters. This is the most irritating change for me; those characters were crucial to the success of the original - they made it more human, and the characterisation helped us to care when they were killed. By reducing them to walk-on parts in the background, the film loses a crucial counterpoint to the central drama, and makes the film solely about the relationship between the vampire and his/her would be carer.

Any remake has to work hard in order to show it is as good as its predecessor. Let Me In hampers itself by implementing a number of pointless changes. The end result is a passable film if you haven't seen the original, but if you have, then the US remake is simply an inferior and irritating faded photocopy of a much better predecessor.

Paranormal Activity 2

I once lived in a haunted house. There would be a strange tapping at the window - the upstairs window. And the alarm would sometimes go off all by itself, despite not being set. Creepy, eh? Except, of course, until you take into account that the tapping noise was probably water dripping and the alarm going off was probably caused by the fact that (a) it was really old and (b) the electrics were probably corroded by the fact that the whole house was sodden with damp. Then, when you combine the fact that these events took place over the course of nearly three years, you get to the truth that this "haunting" was the world's dullest one. At least until you watch Paranormal Activity 2.

For the first hour of the film, nothing really happens. In fact, the first half hour of the movie is mainly taken up with the conundrum of how a pool cleaner can exit a pool by itself. Lacking a pool cleaner, a pool, and any real empathy with the main characters, this all comes across to me as really rather tedious. Fortunately the ghost/demon ups the ante. By turning on and off lights, opening and closing doors, and doing other really rather boring stuff. The biggest scare in the first hour or so is cupboard doors opening. No, really. It is like the demon was having an off day, and actually couldn't be bothered. Or he/she/it was saving its best to last. Whatever the plan, Paranormal Activity 2 feels a little misleading. Paranormal Inactivity would be a better title.

Even when things gear up for the big finale the film still fails to get interesting. In fact, it seems at pains to reenact scenes from the first film. Woman dragged along the floor - check. Person thrown at camera - check. Yes, it has a higher budget, but that doesn't really make it look any more realistic. And the moment when a character gets his neck snapped is unintentionally comical.

However, this sequel is determined not just to be boring - it also wishes to piss all over its far more effective predecessor. The reason for the demonic haunting is explained away using sub-Faustian bollocks. Memo to film-makers - arbitrary evil is far more unnerving than evil with a cliched explanation behind it. We don't need to know why this is happening; in fact, not knowing makes it scarier. But no. We get exposition. Or shit a teenager read on da interwebs. We also get a deeply convoluted attempt to tie this story in with the continuity of the first film, meaning the whole story feels curiously tacked on to a much simpler - and much better - original. Quite why we couldn't have another random haunting is beyond me. Instead, though, we end up with a paranormal soap opera. The "twist" is only really clever if you care a lot about these characters. Unfortunately, the film doesn't do anything to make me care about them. In fact, it makes me care even less about the characters in the original.

And then there is the framing device, or rather the crude attempts to explain why all this is being filmed. Yep, I get that it is about security. But that is rather undermined when the person who had the cameras installed refuses to check them when strange stuff happens.

But the biggest flaw is in the editing of the film. The first film was quite taut, moving from exposition to scares with a certain fluidity. Not so here. The editing is absolutely abysmal. Clearly, the filmmakers decided that reality is best reflected through showing normality. And then more normality. And then more normality. And then something weird happening. Or not, as the case might be. Unfortunately, that isn't interesting. In fact, it is so boring that it breeds resentment. That scene when the guy gets his neck snapped? I'd spent so long watching the cunt lounging on a sofa prior to him buying it that I frankly wanted the dopey sod to die. Which I'm guessing was not what was intended.

So we have another tedious horror movie. Why get so worked up about this one? Because the first one - despite its flaws - was actually curiously effective. This one, however, not only killed the fledgling franchise for me, but also robbed that first film of much of what made it effective. Not so much a missed opportunity but a spectacular own goal.

Paranormal Activity 2 - don't bother.

RIP Dino De Laurentiis

As a producer, he was just as capable of making absolute rubbish as he was making works of genius, but his name is on many striking films that the Hollywood mainstream would not have touched. His impact on the career of David Lynch would be reason enough to celebrate his life and career; the fact is that there is much more to him than that is a testament to just what he managed to achieve during his life.

RIP indeed.

5 films to watch on Halloween

Let's be clear about this - the following five horror movies are not the best horror movies of all time. You could find better horror movies to watch on Halloween (if you are so inclined). But these films - as disparate as they might at first appear - are thematically linked. And I find the theme linking them fascinating and they all contain something that makes a horror film at least unsettling, if not properly chilling.

And it is fair to say that there are spoilers ahead.

First up, with have The Omen. A film notorious for its increasingly inventive death scenes (something that would come to dominate the franchise), the film includes the impaling of a former Doctor Who and the decapitation of a key character. It is also a masterwork in faux pomposity, even down to inventing a poem from the Bible to add credence to its really rather ludicrous story. Yet the reason why this film remains credible in my eyes has nothing to do with the fancy deaths or the admirable efforts by all concerned to play their roles with a straight face despite some of the outlandish scenarios and the wince-inducing dialogue. At the heart of this film there is a force so powerful, and so unstoppable, that as soon as you come into conflict with its malign intentions it kills you. You can't run; it will find you and despatch you. The Exorcist may have had the spinal tap sequence, the vomiting, the weird nightmares and the aggressive demon, but in the end the Church saves the day and the little girl is Ok. Contrast this with the ending to The Omen - the heroes are all dead and the demon child is now with the President of the United States of America. All the efforts of those on the side of the good were for naught - evil wins.

Which is also true in Paranormal Activity. Of course, this film doesn't have spectacular death scenes. It didn't have the money to film such things. Instead, what it does have is an unstoppable force that, despite the best efforts of the couple at the centre of the film (which are a lot more credible than those in The Omen but just as ineffective), is always going to win. And in a sense, the demon in Paranormal Activity is than the satanic forces at play in The Omen. See, in The Omen people die when they try to interfere with the progress of the antichrist. In Paranormal Activity the main characters have done nothing to warrant the haunting and the eventual death/possession. The demon is just fucking with them because it can. It is a chilling concept - something far more malign and powerful than you decides to terrify, stalk, attack and then possess you and kill your lover. In fact, that force - given it is invisible - might even be in the room with you now... but that's enough of that.

You could argue that the students in The Blair Witch Project have done something to invoke the witch's wrath - although the witch's revenge does seem a little excessive for the "crime" of simply shooting a documentary on her manor. Nonetheless, The Blair Witch Project fits in with our theme, as the trio of would-be documentary makers end up at the mercy of an unseen, malevolent force determined to stalk, terrify, and then remove them from the face of the earth. True, some people don't rate The Blair Witch Project but for me it works because it makes its main characters so helpless. To a large extent it is a claustrophobic film despite being filmed in the open air, because the power of the witch is such that she manages to make the forest into a prison that the protagonists just cannot escape from. The fact that the witch - like the demon in Paranormal Activity - is unseen merely adds to the feeling that the power of the supernatural element in the film is massive.

You can see who the source of evil is in The Medusa Touch - he's played by Richard Burton and everything. But this underrated, clever little film slowly chips away at the methodical, orderly approach taken by the police investigating an attempted murder and shows the awesome power in the mind of the antagonist. This is a man who makes Carrie White look tame - he has the power to destroy space missions, to make planes crash into buildings and - in the climax of the film - "bring the whole edifice down on their unworthy heads" as he destroys a Westminster Abbey filled with the ruling elite. The fact that the police managed to save some from the disaster is a pyrrhic victory; the final scene shows that the human monster has another - potentially must more devastating - target in mind. And he is still able to attack despite having been beaten into a bloody pulp and having been ripped off a life support machine. Such is the level of his misanthropy that effectively being killed will not stop the carnage.

You can also see the menace in the remake of Dawn of the Dead - although in this case it is not one man, but a whole world suddenly filled with cannibalistic zombie maniacs. The premise is not a million miles away from most zombie films - if you go outside, someone's going to bite off your face. But where this version of Dawn of the Dead succeeds is in making the situation in which the characters find themselves so utterly hopeless. The female lead only survives the initial outbreak through blind luck, and the mall that provides a brief respite is also located mainly through luck. When the group do try to do something to better their situation, it tends to go badly wrong. Trying to make things better in this film comes with a hefty body count. And this film does what surprisingly few zombie films are prepared to do - it ends with a clear indication (if you watch through the credits) that there is no option of sailing off happily into the sunset - in fact, the end of humanity is here, crushed under the weight of a world of zombies, and there is no hope.

Which is what makes all five films so striking - the evil/malign forces at play in each film are so powerful that the humans in the films are rendered helpless in the face of those forces. It doesn't matter whether it is satanic forces, or a demon/witch or a world full of zombies, whatever you do against them, you will fail and they will ultimately destroy you. Films like this strike at one of the fundamental (yet often false) assumptions many people have - that you are in control of what happens to you. These films depict far more powerful forces rendering individuals helpless even over questions of their own survival. And on so many levels, that is true horror for a good many people.

Enjoy your Halloween!

Four Lions

I'm a big fan of the work of Chris Morris. As far as I am concerned he is one of the few people who actually gets what satire should be - topical, biting, true to life and, if need be, cruel. So it was with some anticipation that I sat down to watch his film on suicide terrorism - Four Lions.

The basic idea behind is both striking and spot-on. The reality is that jihadists are not the sort of robotic, fundamentalist warriors depicted in many TV shows and films. They are often inept, shallow and very human. More often that not terrorism - and not just Islamic terrorism - succeeds more through luck than judgment. This is what Four Lions showed in detail - the contradictions of the bombers, their inability to agree on just about anything, and the fact that their bombings were a farce from beginning to end. In a country where many see an ruthless army of Islamic militants waiting to be awakened, this film depicts a scenario far closer to reality - a bunch of incompetents, largely ignorant of the religion they are meant to be fighting for, succeeding in creating death and confusion only after their hastily conceived plan goes wrong.

The odd thing about the film, though, is just how tame it is. The first half of the film - right up until the suicide bombing of a sheep - feels a lot like an episode of Last of the Summer Wine with added cussing and nail bombs. Yes, I get that it is meant to be exploring the mundanity of those involved in the plot, but the end result is that the film seems very sedate and, at times, almost meandering and unengaging. The fact that these people are incompetents doesn't mean that their attempts to produce bombs should be devoid of tension. See Zero Day for a film that deals far more effectively with people both living normal life and simultaneously gearing up for a killing spree.

The film only really comes to life in the final third, as the "plan" (such as it is) goes into action, and then almost immediately falls apart. The heavy handed, lethal policing, the general incompetence of the bombers and the fact that their attack ultimately ends up being confused and unable to hit their actual targets makes for a very watchable piece of cinema - simultaneously tense, funny, uncomfortable and an accurate representation of the idea that neither terrorists nor police are ever truly in control of these sort of events. Its a shame that the rest of the film couldn't have been like the final third.

It is also a shame that the biting edge to much of Morris's work is missing here. It is almost as if he has decided that making a film about suicide bombing is enough - the controversy is a given, and therefore he doesn't have to raise his game. Which makes this, overall, a bit of a missed opportunity. This film didn't - and couldn't, really, given its structure - provoke the sort of reaction and debate as his paedophile Brasseye special did. What would have been far more effective is to do the whole thing as a Brasseye or The Day Today news flash about an ongoing terrorist incident occurring on the day of the London Marathon, complete with inappropriate media observations, ghoulish reporting, nonsense emerging from the police and garbled videos emerging from the bombers - amateurishly shot and utterly confused as to the actual motivations behind the bombings. That would have been edgy, clever and controversial satire. That would have been vintage Morris. Which, sadly, Four Lions - as good as it was in places - was not.

The Crazies

The longer a TV series goes on, the more likely it becomes that the quality will decline. In order to keep the viewer interested, writers and producers will keep on coming up with more and more outrageous things. Unfortunately, this has the effect of undermining what initially made the project successful, and viewers lose interest despite their efforts.

As I said, that happens a lot with long-running TV shows. It is seldom that we get to see it happen in a movie with a run-time of less than 90 minutes – however, The Crazies manages to achieve this dubious honour.

It starts out well enough, with a series of strange murders befalling a small American town. Of course, it is highly derivative – even for a remake, which almost by definition will be derivative. The use of a Johnny Cash song over the opening credits mimics a far superior remake of a far superior Romero film. The burning deaths represent a scenario that has been used time and time again in everything from horror films to weepy TV movies. And the scene in the undertaker's references both The Fog and, in the grisly sewing up of the pastor’s mouth and eyelids, the pilot episode of Millennium. Of course, the more weird the deaths become the more it all resembles a film adaptation of an early James Herbert novel, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing – it just means that credibility has been left us for the duration of the film.

Then the US government becomes involved, and the film takes its first nosedive. First up, it stretches credibility that the US government – which failed so spectacularly on both 9/11 and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina would be able to mount the sort of operation depicted in this film. Secondly, the developing mystery of the place crash is largely abandoned, only to be resolved in the blandest of bland ways in the final third of the film. Finally, there is some heavy-handed symbolism – like the potentially infected being herded around in cattle trucks – that is frankly tacky and inappropriate even for a “B” Movie like this one.

Introducing the US government as another enemy in the film has the effect of sidelining the titular “crazies”. Sure, they crop up every now and again throughout the rest of the film, but they are only there to offer inventive deaths only to be dispatched with almost tedious regularity at the last minute by the deputy sheriff. Yes, I get that the real monsters can sometimes be the humans rather than the monsters, but this hackneyed and clichéd point has been beaten to death ever since Romero first made Night of the Living Dead. This film doesn’t add to the idea, it just regurgitates it with an almost criminal lack of flair and inventiveness.

And then the movie disintegrates into a tedious runaround as the ever-diminishing band of protagonists run from both the government and them there crazy people. However, the film has an admirable determination to eject any shred of credibility from its plot with the final revelation that, if you are caught in a nuclear blast, all you have to do to survive with little more than cuts and scrapes is to be in a truck driving in the opposite direction to the explosion. Turns out the CND was worrying about nothing – nuclear blasts aren’t all they’re made out to be. My intelligence would have been utterly insulted had it not been turned off pretty early on for the duration of the film.

Finally we end up with the heavy-handed hints that what we’ve just seen is about to be repeated in another town. All I could think at that point was “thank God the film’s over and I don’t have to watch that happening”.

To be fair to the film it was well directed, with some great action set-pieces and acting that, while it was nothing special, was equally not jarringly bad. And as always, I can hear the objection in the back of my head “it was a horror movie. What were you expecting? A great film?”

And the answer is “well, yes”. Horror as a genre is much abused by studios desperate to make a quick buck from an easy to make genre with an almost guaranteed audience. To do so, they sacrifice much of what would actually make a film great. The Crazies is a prime example of this. It basically seems to be saying “fuck characterization and fuck the plot – as long as we have a few decent action sequences that contain moments to make the audience jump we’ll be fine”. Except the film won’t be fine – it will be anything but. The Crazies doesn’t have characters, it has meaningless empty ciphers designed to provoke audience reactions through empty signifiers – he’s the sheriff, he must be good, he’ll survive. She’s the sheriff’s wife, a doctor and pregnant – she’s definitely good and will survive. And so on until you don’t care about any of the characters because they are so bland as to be instantly forgettable. And the film lacks an internal logic – in fact it never seems to quite work out what it wants to be – monster movie, zombie movie, conspiracy chiller. Of course, it could be all three at the same time (see REC) – but that would involve weaving the plot strands together rather than lumping one type of event after another with no real attempts to link them and hoping no-one notices.

The point is horror movies can be great – they can have strong internal logic, a coherent plot behind the scares and fully developed characters. See The Exorcist, Dawn of the Dead (either version), 28 Days Later and The Shining for examples. However, if you can’t be bothered to provide this, then you do have to question just why your audience should bother with your film at all.

And with The Crazies it would be my recommendation, sadly, that you just shouldn’t bother. Not only to watch the film, but to make it in the first place.

Home Movie...

...Or the dangers of making a "found footage" movie.

First up, Home Movie. It's about a couple and their young children. The couple decide to film all special occasions - starting with Hallowe'en. What they don't really seem to clock is that their children - a boy and a girl with instantly forgettable names - are weird. In fact, they are fucking weird. They throw rocks at their parents, put frogs in a vice, and then crucify the cat (on Christmas Day, natch). It is about then that the parents realise there might be something pretty wrong with their kids. Of course, they then turn on each other, and then do things that can only warp their children further (including an exorcism - filmed, of course. Family occasion, isn't it?) The movie ends, predicably enough, with the kids properly turning on their parents. By then you don't care - about the dumb as fuck parents or the children, who make Midwich Cuckoos look like well-rounded characters.

The film is presented as "found footage" - in other words, the film-makers pretend that this is actual footage recovered from an untoward event that somehow ended up being recorded. And it is here that the really negative reviews miss the point - of course the acting is bad; it's a collection of home videos. Of course the camerawork is bad; it's not meant to be good. But simultaneously, there comes a point where those who who praise this movie to high heaven are also wrong as well. And, in this film, you can pinpoint the exact second when that happens.

Put it this way. You've got two kids. They abduct another child, torture and nearly kill him. What do you do? Are you traumatised? Do you question everything about yourself and your children? And if you do, do you so in front of a camera in a near-perfectly composed shot near a roaring fire-place? No, didn't think so. And that is the point where Home Movie jumps the shark. But it isn't alone in that. There comes a point in nearly all found footage movies where the film itself ceases to be credible by filming what would no longer be filmed.

It is true of some of the "best" movies in this genre. Think about the recent Paranormal Activity. It is clever enough to make a lot of the filming passive - it is about a motion detecting camera filming supernatural happenings at night. But there comes a point - when the man is filming the woman during a row - when any right-minded viewer thinks "this scene would not have been filmed". The same happens in the brutal but compelling Cannibal Holocaust (the grandpa of this genre). Yeah, you might film atrocities in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest, but are you really going to film yourself committing those atrocities? Thought not - such scenes only exist for the purposes of plot exposition. And in The Blair Witch Project there comes a point where they just wouldn't film anymore. Probably around the time they find the tongue in the parcel. Or maybe that's just me. Whatever. There comes a point in that film - and many films of its ilk - where you would put down the camera, and just run like fuck.

So this sort of movie has to provide a reason why the film-makers go on filming even when everything is turning to shit. And to my knowledge, only two films (well, one film and one TV programme) manage this. The first is REC. It is about TV journalists filming the lives of fire-fighters. So of course they film when there's a call to attend an apartment block. Of course they film when things start to go badly wrong - it's a great story. And of course they film when it appears that there is government collusion keeping them imprisoned in what looks like a plague zone. And finally - when the movie kicks up yet another gear and ends up in the hysteria of the top apartment - there's another reason why they're still filming - the camera allows them to see in the dark, while they are being stalked by a hideous creature apparently possessed by a demon. See, in this film, I don't stop to think why they keep on filming, because there is a reason at every juncture why they keep on doing so.

The same with BBC TV's Ghostwatch*. Of course they keep on filming when things get weird, and then when things are apparently explained, and then when things get totally freaky. They have to. The genius of Ghostwatch is that it is a (fake) live broadcast. Those involved (real celebs of the time, lest we forget) have to keep the cameras filming, because they are paid to do so and the entire performance is happening in real time. This is the wonderful genius of Stephen Volk - he told a ghost story to the nation on Hallowe'en that appeared, for all the world, to be real. And he managed to make it so compelling because he constantly kept an eye on its internal logic.

This genre of films - "found footage" - has become far too popular recently, and I can kind of understand why. These are cheap films to make - you need a few actors and, at most, a couple of cameras. They can - as The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity show - reap financial rewards that are near beyond imagination. But they are also deceptively simple. It is about more than just formulating a scenario and letting improvising actors film it. In fact, these are - narratively speaking - among the most difficult films to make credible. You always have to ask yourself "why are these people still filming?" And if you cannot come up with a good answer, you lose all credibility. And since these films are often horror movies, a certain level of credibility is essential to making the whole thing work.

*Ok, technically not "found footage" as it is an ersatz live broadcast. But it still does fit in well with the genre.

Inception

"Is all that we see or seem just a dream within a dream?"

Edgar Allan Poe's quote neatly sums up the premise of Inception - an exploration of the nature of dreams, and what might happen if people could manipulate your memory - and even implant ideas - while you dream.

Given the basic premise of the film, there is a fair amount of messing with reality, and moving through different dreamscapes. Prior to watching the film, I'd heard that a lot of people found it quite difficult to follow. God knows why, though. If you pay attention (and why wouldn't you pay attention if you've paid money to watch a film?) there should be no real difficultly in following the action. And yes, there is ambiguity in the film, but to have a pat ending where everything is explained and everyone is OK would be a letdown at the end of a film such as this.

No, it isn't a massively complicated film, but probably more thought-provoking than your standard popcorn movie. What it is, though, is incredibly well made and very well acted. The film moves a great pace, meaning you never stop for long enough to start picking holes in it. Furthermore, the visual FX are eye-opening and extremely stylish. Some of them really did leave me wondering how they managed to achieve it, whereas normally I would just assume that it is all down to CGI. The locations are stunning and well used, and the direction means a film that could very easily become ludicrous very quickly obtains a certain, and essential, verisimilitude. This is backed up well by the actors, who never break the atmosphere by treating the script as anything other than completely serious. Even when they are joking with each other, the basic premise is never attacked by the humour. Which is just as well, really, as that could sink the film. All the roles are played with absolute conviction.

The downside? There isn't one, really. If you want an action-packed, well-directed movie that still manages to be thought-provoking, then watch this. For once, the hype is right. This is a great film. And it bodes very well for the next Batman film...

Starsuckers

Starsuckers is a film by the same chap who made the excellent Taking Liberties. I thoroughly recommend the latter film; it is the type of piece that can make you very angry at just how our civil liberties have been frankly shat on under the utterly spurious idea of the "War on Terror". However, Starsuckers is different. It's a film about the manipulation of the media by corporations to sell products, and about the lack of balance against the messages proposed by these corporations. It is also about how celebrities have devalued democracy, and the dangerous implications of what happens when celebrities become experts.

As a result, it isn't a very good film. For several reasons.

Firstly, the director was railing against the lack of balance against the messages protrayed in the media by large corporations by... making a deeply unbalanced film. The director's (for he was at the screening and took questions after the film) argument that if people wanted balance then they could just go and read the mainstream media did not stand up to close scrutiny. If you want balance in journalism, then you should lead by example and create balance in your own work. Starsuckers isn't balanced at all; it a furious polemic. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against furious polemics - this blog is full of them - but you shouldn't attempt to claim such polemics as journalism or anything other than biased commentary on the modern world. It is counter-intuitive to the point of stupidity to make a completely unbalanced film about the lack of balance.

Secondly, the film also made a lot out of the fact that newspapers would print unsubstantiated - or to put it more brutally, made up - stories. Which would be more shocking if we weren't talking about the tabloid end of the newspaper world and if the stories concerned weren't minor ones about celebrities. So what if the newspaper managed to get stories about Guy Ritchie juggling and Sarah Harding reading quantum physics into the gossip columns of tabloid newspapers? These stories hardly change the world; in fact, you forget about them as soon as you have read them (if you are interested enough to read them in the first place). I'd be far more inclined to be worried - and, indeed, interested - if these were the front page stories of reputable newspapers being made-up and phoned in. Unfortunately, they weren't. And it doesn't follow that stories printed as gossip in trashy sections of trashy tabloids being faked means that the major news stories in better newspapers are faked as well. The film seemed almost inclined to dismiss all journalism based on the actions of some gossip columnists writing largely irrelevant stories.

Furthermore, the whole thing felt like the content of the film - that corporations want to make money from you and will try to manipulate you in the process - was meant to be a massive revelation. And, of course, it really isn't. I've known about this for about as long as I can remember. I know there is bias in the media, and I deal with it. Nothing in this film actually surprised me beyond the apparent naivete of the production team, since all of this seemed to be coming as a total surprise to them.

Let's take an example. The film presented a negative side to both Live Aid and Live 8, and expected me to be surprised that the events weren't both total successes. Sorry, guys, but I don't really remember a time when I didn't think that both events were deeply flawed to the point of being worthless. The director's assertion that Geldof's version of the events - that both were resounding successes - has largely been unchallenged is simply not true. You can find alternative voices to the mainstream media. You just have to go and look for them.

Which leads me nicely to my main objection to the film. It seemed to suggest that we were all dumb and unable to work out these tricks of manipulation for ourselves. In some respects, it took an almost typically left-wing view that people as a whole need a wiser person to point out the reality of the world to them. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I have a greater faith in the intellectual capacities of most people. I think they will see through the lies, manipulations and distortions presented by some media outlets, and understand why those distortions occur. They will also understand that a celebrity is far less likely to have anything meaningful to say on many subjects than an expert in that field. We don't need a film like Starsuckers to point this out to us.

And this is the film's biggest problem - it comes across as patronising. It states the bleedin' obvious like it should be a complete surprise to us, and then expects us to swoon in awe-struck admiration at these crushingly self-apparent revelations. It almost seems to think that we're all too stupid to understand the world around us. I don't think that's true. But the upshot is we end up with a deeply cynical film that believes itself to be far more impressive and important than it actually is, or is ever likely to be.

Paranormal Entity

Before we start, let me make myself clear - I'm talking about the film Paranormal Entity, rather than the film Paranormal Activity. If you want my thoughts on the latter, then head here. But make no mistake about it, there are similarities between the two films. In fact, Paranormal Entity is a mockbuster of its much more rewarding and successful predecessor. In other words, it is pretty much the same as its predecessor, but 78% more shitty.

It is a bit like going to the local market and picking up a cheap "designer" watch - a Bolex rather than a Rolex. At first, the two things look very similar and sound very similar. Then your Bolex starts running slow. Really slow. You go by your Bolex, so you're a half hour late for work, yet an hour late going home. Furthermore, the second hand to your Bolex has fallen off and is rattling around within the watch, further hindering an already torturously crap piece of mechanics. Then, to really make things worse, the silver of your Bolex is already started to rub off, leaving an murky iron color underneath. And worse, the silver paint is giving you an odd rash on your wrist. Plus, all of your work colleagues have realised that you are wearing a Bolex, rather than a Rolex, and are all taking the piss as a result.

Paranormal Entity (PE from now on) is like that, only much, much more boring. Plus, they pretty much tell you exactly what is going to happen in this film with the opening caption. It is one thing to imply that something bad is going to happen over the course of your film. It is another to spell out the ultimate fate of your characters just seconds after your viewers have met them for the first time.

PE's premise is exactly the same as Paranormal Activity - people try to catch a spooky presence on camera. Which leads to lots of torturous explanations of why often deeply traumatic events are being filmed. The difference here is that there is stuff that just wouldn't be committed to camera in the first place, let alone added into a film by the family to prove a relative's innocence. For example, no-one would film their mother mournfully cradling the tie of their dead husband/the cameraman's father in an attempt to film a ghost. No mourning family member would then add it to their film.

Of course, in all horror movies, people are dumb, but in this film they appear to be a special kind of dumb. The mother and sister leave their brother alone in the house. Also, they don't seem to think to review the footage the brother has been filming until halfway through the film - even though the footage would help to explain what the hell is going on. And I ended up like that character in Blink who Sally Sparrow overhears - the one shouting at the screen "just call the police! Why doesn't anyone in these films just call the police?"

Plus, the family behave in really odd, unrealistic ways. We're led to believe that the sister sleeps in her bra - just so the camera can get a couple of underwear shots of her. The son lays traps for the paranormal entity by setting up trip wires with bells on them at floor level - even though the entity was, on the previous evening, walking on the ceiling. And the family just doesn't communicate with each other. No-one stops to say "let's compare notes" or "what do you think is going on here?" or even "why don't we sell some of these numerous video cameras that we're filming everything with and piss off on a holiday somewhere?"

But, as I say, people in horror movies are dumb, just as people in comedies tend to be arseholes in need of redemption/a shag/both. That alone is not enough to sink a film. What does sink a horror, though, is when the shocks just aren't scary. This film is a rip-off of Paranormal Activity - so we expect the sort of things that happened in that film to happen in this one. However, you need to add a twist to the events - if they are simply the sodding same, they it becomes a bit tedious. If your shock moment is the mother character standing behind the door after 75 minutes of the film, you've got a problem. That is only scary if you are the person it is happening to. Rather than if you've watched a tedious prick running all over the house before finding her behind a door.

And what is the death knell for any movie is if the pace is all over the place. And in this film, it really is. It manages to make 90 minutes seem roughly three times that amount of time. It spends an inordinate amount of time showing us the brother setting up ghost traps in his home (in Paranormal Activity, that was a brief set-up for a great later scare). However, the climax of the film is over in about a minute. After an utterly spurious explanation of what the entity is (a rapey ghost, in case you're interested) we then get to see the prof dead and the sister dead - with her tits out. That's something that I guess the filmmaker meant to be titillating, but is rather undermined by the fact that it is the naked corpse of a woman who has been raped and killed by a ghost. Sure, you can argue that the makers of PE had no money to spend on the climax of the film. But nor did the makers of Paranormal Activity. The difference is that the makers of the latter film provoked the viewer's imagination, before hinting at what had happened. The makers of PE simply ripped off The Blair Witch Project, and ended the whole film in such a way that leads to believe that they ran out of time, money, and the ability to care about the ending.

The truth is that Paranormal Activity is a very derivative film - but one that is done well. PE is a crude copy of a derivative film, and it is done really, really badly. Of course, you can argue that this is what mockbuster filmmakers do. It is simply about making money, not about creating anything of any artistic worth whatsoever. The problem is that if you make a good mockbuster, then you can create a franchise that makes millions. If you make PE, you simply make a film that insults your viewers.

The New Spiderman

New decade, new Spiderman:

British actor Andrew Garfield is to play comic book superhero Spider-Man in the next outing of the film series, it has been announced.

Hmmm. I’m not going to comment on whether or not I think Garfield is a good choice as Spiderman – after all, I was very circumspect about both the casting of both David Tennant and Matt Smith as the Doctor, and I was wrong about both of them. However, I can’t help but feel that the replacement of both the star and the director of a film franchise if often not a sign of rude health for that franchise. Particularly if that franchise is about a superhero.

Furthermore, the success of the Spiderman films to date has, to a very large extent, been down to the star and the director. To lose them would be a little bit like the sequel to The Dark Knight starring someone other than Bale as Batman, and with a different director to Nolan.

Yet… yet it would take a lot to argue that Spiderman 3 was anything other than a disappointment. Raimi threw plotting out the window in favour of set-pieces showing of the latest Visual FX, while Tobey Macguire looked like a smug, puffy-faced Peter Parker and seemed incapable of playing the more malign version of the hero required by the film. And since this film – which is looking at the formative years of Parker – appears to be an almost necessary reboot, perhaps it is the best thing for the franchise.

For fans of the series, I guess we have to cross our fingers and hope that this is the Spiderman equivalent of Batman Begins rather than Batman Forever…

Cameron, Caine and National Service

Even Jackart reckons the Tory National Citizen Service scheme is more that a little bit crap. Trying to save the Nation’s youth is a worthwhile enterprise – however, if your solution is a glorified summer camp where the state gets free work from the youth, you’re going to end up looking like a bit of a dickhead. Particularly if you’re promoting your proposal with an old actor whose only exposure to the problems facing youth today is a recent role in a shit movie.

But that’s not stopping Cameron. No, he’s a-gonna save the youth regardless of details like practicality:

Mr Cameron added that the aim was to give young people more shape and purpose in their lives.

"Show me a gang taking drugs and I'll show you a group of people who have nothing to look forward to," he said. "The problem is their lives lack shape."

And Sir Harry Brown Michael Caine is giving his backing to this plan:

Sir Michael said it would help youngsters "forgotten in this country".

"There is a very, very hardcore of [young] people we have really got to save," he added.

Thanks for that, Alfred, but I think we’ve heard enough – back off to the Batcave with you.

Now, this proposal is clearly flawed, but in fairness Cameron seems to be stressing that he has sought, and then acted on, advice:

He admitted that his initial proposal for the citizen service scheme was for it to be compulsory, "but youth leaders told me that would have been the kiss of death".

Well, I’m glad that youth leaders saw sense, but I am slightly concerned that they seem to have a better grasp on reality that the Leader of Opposition and possible next Prime Minister.

So instead, while the scheme will be available to every 16-year-old in the UK, it will be voluntary.

And here we hit yet another problem. Not only is there something extremely distasteful about the idea of the state getting free work from the youth, and something very concerning about the massive funding gap at the heart of this project, but as soon as you make this voluntary then you aren’t going to be getting to those junkie yoofs that so concern the man who was once Harry Palmer to join up. Seriously, those wayward and difficult young people aren’t going to be the sort of people who rush to volunteer themselves for government service, are they? The kids who will end up doing this service will be the preppy fucks who do the DofE award and other voluntary work already.

This scheme really is the very definition of pointless. Get a grip, Cameron. At the moment your photo opportunity with an actor who is well past his prime is making you look pretty dumb - and far too willing to embrace the sort of meaningless, wasteful, ill-thought-out policies that have become so symptomatic of the Nu Labour years.

Precious

I must admit, I really didn’t know what to make of Precious before I sat down to watch it yesterday evening. It could have gone either way – it could have been a challenging and rewarding view or it could have been sentimental tripe. It was the former – very much so.

Detailing the grim life of an illiterate black teenager in New York in the 1980’s, it pulls no punches in showing just how unpleasant life can be. Precious is pregnant for the second time – her first baby, called Mongo (as a brutally descriptive term for the baby’s Down’s Syndrome) lives with the grandmother, except when the social worker comes around. The father of Precious’ children is her father – she was raped by her father from a young age. Her mother despises Precious for stealing her lover from her, and is horrifically abusive towards her daughter as a result.

In fact, the mother is one of the most memorable screen monsters I have seen in a long time. She lives off welfare, sitting in her chair, eating, occasionally retiring to bed to masturbate. She throws bottles at her daughter’s head, then throws water in her face to revive her. She despises her disabled granddaughter, and treats her mother with barely disguised disgust. She has no issue with dropping a baby to the floor, and indeed attempts to hurl a television set onto the heads of her daughter and her newly born grandson. She is a simmering bag of lard and barely contained hatred. When her lifetime of resentment and cruelty is exposed by a social worker, she does what all bullies do – she retreats into self-pity and desperate begging. As a character, she is simultaneously contemptible and terrifying.

The presentation of welfare in this film is also interesting. It is made clear that the family is dependent on welfare – indeed, the mother insists that Precious gets herself down to the welfare office to maximise their government funding of their empty lives. The mother makes it clear that she sees no point in education. All Precious needs to do is sign on, and the rest of her life is taken care of. Interestingly, when Precious finally does flee from her mother, she is saved by the charity of her teacher, who takes Precious and her baby into her home. Welfare doesn’t save Precious, the kindness of another person does. The film presents a rebuke to all those who venerate welfare mindlessly, and who believe it is always better than private charity.

Which is the triumph of Precious. It is difficult viewing, and at times truly tragic. Yet is it challenging and through-provoking. And given the amount of bland, candy-floss film-making that passes for entertainment today, that is something to be celebrated.

When Horror Films Go Wrong: "Orphan" and "Paradise Lost"

Horror movies are always going to be popular with filmmakers. After all, classic movies like Psycho, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween, were made for relatively little money but have gone on to become cash cows and legends in their own right. Many a filmmaker must have thought “I can make a quick buck and a reputation with a decent horror movie.” The problem is that making a shit horror movie is far easier than making a decent one. Let’s look at two examples.

First up, let’s look at the film Orphan. It has a twist in it – and, by the way, I’ll be revealing that so spoilers ahead. Of course, horror has always had twists and the moment when it was revealed Norman and his mother were one and the same has rightly become a classic moment in cinematic history. Done right, and a twist in the film can be awesome. Done wrong, and it is… well, Orphan.

The film starts in a mediocre way. It is obvious there is a child (from Estonia, natch) who is up for adoption and is clearly more than a little odd. As things go on, it becomes clear that she is a cuckoo – and a murderous one at that. She tries to split up the family, she kills a nun, and drives the mother to the point of insanity before almost setting fire to the eldest son. Then – in a scene that is compellingly uncomfortable and awkward – a 12-year-old girl attempts to seduce her middle-aged father. Thus far, the film has had some scary moments, some good performances and some examples of exceedingly clunky dialogue. There were some minor lapses in logic*, and the parents do appear to be shockingly inept both in their relationship with each other and their dealings with their children. Nonetheless, it sort of works, if for no other reason than this girl appears to be an evil human, as opposed to the Anti-Christ or the spawn of an unseen alien race.

And it is just after that seduction scene when the film jumps the shark.

About halfway through the film I had a thought that maybe Esther the Evil Orphan could be an adult in disguise. But I dismissed the thought. It just seemed silly. Yet, actually I was bang on. See, Esther has hypopituitarism – she actually is an adult! It is supposed to be an awesome twist; one that is deliberately mimicking the twist in Psycho. Instead, it completely undermines the whole film. It was set up as a film about an evil child – a lot of the horror came from the apparent inhumanity of the child. Once we learn that she’s actually a lusty adult looking for a quick fuck, the film loses much of its potency. In the final chase scene, Esther becomes nothing more than a pint-sized Jason Voorhees. Orphan was never going to be a classic film, but its twist just makes it deeply disappointing.

However, it is far better and far more intelligent that Paradise Lost. Paradise Lost is a dumb movie, that is aspiring to put the “horror” into “horror movie.” The problem it finds is that there is a distinction between a movie being a horror and just being horrible. Paradise Lost is very much the latter.

It isn’t just the violence in it, although Lord knows that there is no shortage of machete slashing, eye-gouging, foot slicing and unnecessary surgery in this film. No, it is how the characters are presented. There is not one sympathetic character in the whole thing. Which is a massive problem in a horror movie. Put simply, why should I give a fuck about your characters getting their kidneys removed if there is nothing whatsoever to like about them? Paradise Lost became a little like Our Daily Bread, with witless backpackers taking the place of the cattle. But whilst Our Daily Bread is a interesting documentary, Paradise Lost is a haven’t-I-seen-this-all-before sort of a movie, trying to distinguish itself through the use of graphic violence.

But what is most repugnant about Paradise Lost is the racism within it. Of course, horror films are never going to be that aware of racial (or gender) politics. But Paradise Lost makes a whole country into a nation of thieves, whores, and serial killers. Even the justification by the lead villain for his actions (America exploits us, see?) is shown to be utterly spurious – he had no compunction about killing anyone, including one of his associates in front of a boy. The story seems to say that if you’re going to go to Brazil, then expect to be involved in a bus crash, drugged, chased, tortured and then killed. Your best bet is to get into a plane and fly away. Horror always has thrived on the fear of the unknown; unfortunately, Paradise Lost thrives on the fear of the foreign. It is as racist as it is stupid.

So the message here is two fold. If you are going to make a horror movie with a twist, make sure that your twist doesn’t destroy your whole film. And if you are going to have a monster, then make sure that the monster is defined by its actions. Not by its nationality.

*Such as neither one of the parents picking up on the nun’s comment that Esther socialises well with the other kids when she has to. Which should be a massive alarm bell, followed by "run away from the freaky kid!"

For those of you who like your comedy to be scathing, vicious, topical and often uncomfortable, Chris Morris' output is always worth watching. He's been working on a jihadist comedy called Four Lions for a while, and The Guardian has a clip up from it. Go watch it. It looks like vintage Morris, and is almost certain to piss off just about everyone who lacks a sense of humour about the controversial.

The Road and an Apocalyptic Audience.

Went to see The Road last night. It painted a vivid and very real vision of a post-apocalyptic world, and had some haunting and some down right disturbing images within in. And it was a very faithful adaptation of the novel, even down to the cop-out ending that turns it into a cosy catastrophe story. All in all, though, worth seeing.

Of course, I probably would have enjoyed it more had I not been sat in a multiplex cinema in Nottingham, surrounded by a baying mob of feral fucking youths. Seriously, it was like the cinema was filled with those aspiring to be Beavis and Butthead. Not only did they snigger at every bit of nudity, but they also sniggered at every single emotional moment and also at a hefty proportion of the traumatic moments as well. "Hurr, hurr, look that man's naked. And he's got a leg off anything. Those people upstairs are, like, totally gonna eat him. Hurr hurr." Yes, that's exactly how you should respond to the imagery of charnel house filled with naked, mutilated humans awaiting cannibalistic harvest by their captors. Particularly if you are a budding young sociopath.

But it wasn't just the sniggering. They also talked throughout the whole film. They also used their mobiles, and at one point, one of the terrible little shitheads even started playing music on their mobile. Don't they fucking get that other people have paid money to watch this film? Actually, they probably don't and even if they did, they wouldn't care. Sociopathic, see? And the cinema staff were about as much use as a marzipan dildo - occasionally coming in and whispering a chastisement at some rat-boy or rat-girl. There must have been no fewer than 40 people disrupting that screening. The number removed? 3; kicked out at the start of the film. It is no wonder the teenagers thought they could get away with their crass behaviour because, well, the ineptitude of the cinema staff clearly showed they could.

The Road itself made me dread any sort of post-apocalyptic world. The behaviour of large swathes of the audience made me almost wish for some sort of apocalypse; if only to thin out the number of oiks who seem to be rapidly becoming the majority in this country.

Avatar

So, a brief review of the new James Cameron film. You'll have seen the basic plot before in films. Many, many times. It is not innovative and it is not clever in terms of the script. But then again, who really thought it would be? This isn't a great piece of storytelling - it never was going to be. Instead, this film is all about how the film is told.

And in fairness, if you go see this film in 3-D, it is spectacular. Visually, anyway. It is extremely impressive and probably does represent a leap forward in visual FX. Of course, you have to turn both your ears and your brain off in order to enjoy this film. And I can't shake the feeling that this is basically a commercial for 3-D film-making. Which is the biggest problem with this picture. See, your standard commercial is a couple of minutes long. Whereas this film is just under three long, bum-numbing hours. Avatar's biggest failing is falling into the trap that so many modern films make - namely, that a long run time automatically makes a film Important and Worthy. Of course, it doesn't. It just makes it long. And in the case of Avatar, it makes it far longer than it should be or needs to be.

So if you like sci-fi, then I'd say go see this film. However, see it at the cinema, in 3-D. If you wait for the DVD release you will miss all of the visual FX, and end up with an over-long film with a plot that you have seen somewhere before. And probably isn't worth sitting through to the end credits.