trelloskilos-1

Without doubt, one of my most favourite movies of all time.

I love a good movie that screws with your mind (The Game, Primer, Cube, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Mulholland Drive, Identity etc.) where the movie you think you're seeing becomes something else entirely. Mr. Nobody is one of those films.

Part sci-fi, part romance, part thriller, part comedy, the film ruminates on the old multiverse theory, that a single decision by an individual, creates multiple parallel universes where the alternative outcomes are selected. Of course, this idea from quantum physics, has been used before in many other sci-fi movies, but not like this.

Describing the plot is a bit of a challenge, as there are so many threads to this movie, right off the bat. Mr. Nobody is a man who is conscious of the other universes where certain key decisions of his life are all played out, and he seems to jump between them. The main one, however, is set in a future utopia, where he is the oldest human & will be the last human to ever die. - Actually, that description is pretty weak.

How about comparing it with other movies? Well, I guess this would be a bit like a mash-up of Cloud Atlas, the Fifth Element and The Butterfly Effect, but co-directed by Darren Aaronofsky and Michel Gondry with Terry Gilliam and Wes Anderson on hand...

...but even that does not do the movie justice.

The movie will be polarising. It has a lot of great ideas, and is cerebral one minute, goofy the next minute, and tragic the next. - If you enjoy or appreciate any of the movies I've mentioned in this review, you should enjoy Mr. Nobody...and if you still don't think you understand what the movie is about after reading these reviews, I would highly recommend just watching it anyway!

Interesting premise, and yes, this is a rip-off of Saw/Jigsaw, but not very well-executed.

Firstly, there is very little character development. The puzzles themselves are fairly clever, but not really explained and no-trial and error, the villain is almost non-existent, and the acting is gruelling.

Starts off with a completely unrelated character dying at the hands of a puzzle. No rationale at all as to what he was supposed to do, or why.

Next, a bunch of pretentious 'hipster' friends are introduced at a birthday party in a swanky restaurant. 6 characters go to the escape room, one character goes off and does something else....and that is her only role in the movie. Not one of the remaining characters gives the viewer any reason to root for them. They all appear to be uppity and plastic. Not one has any good or even bad quality. They're all just lame.

Fast forward to the actual escape room. There are a few neat puzzles that probably would be good in a real escape room, but some too far-fetched or impossible. A few puzzles are solved by some crazy leaps of logic by the group (padlock combination 'HEAD"? really?), and while the viewer is partly engaged on some level in the solving process, but the solutions are glossed over, with zero exposition. The movie ambles along like this until the final 20 minutes, then it seems to actually realise it needs to end. Everything is rushed, and loads of loose ends are left.

...and at no point do we get to see the protagonist, or have a good reason for the murderous setup. At least in Saw, we had a villain, a few people who we either rooted for, or despised, some gruesomely cunning contraptions and a few twists, no matter how hokey or contrived they might have been. This film has very dreary lackluster characters with little interplay between them, and an almost-absent villain, with no raison d'etre.

There are several better ways to have dealt with this movie, or how to end effectively. For a start, at the beginning of the 'Game' itself, the main guy tries the exit door. It opens. He flicks a switch on, and suddenly the door is locked. How about having a revelation later on that he could have unlocked the door again simply by switching off the light? - What about making more of a statement about the hipsters' derision of the homeless, or the caged girl being revealed as the 'protagonist', because her boyfriend cheated on her....clued in to the line of "I never cheat' while they are in the limo?

It is a real shame that this remake of the cult classic was a real let-down. I think that a whole generation of RHPS fans wanted to like this movie, but the result was a botch job with a complete lack of all the charm and raunch that made the original such a great film.

The problem seems to stem with what the film is trying to be. Is it a tribute? A remake? A homage? An update for a modern audience? Are the actors trying to bring a new spin on the characters or are they trying to mimic the nuances of the original cast? - Unfortunately, the answer seems to be a bit of everything and nothing, and that's why it all becomes a bit of a mess.

Firstly, the music. Richard O'Brien & Jim Steinman created characters and wrote music that was supposed to be raunchy, sexy and appealing. The original RHPS featured rock guitars, pounding beats and a streak of devilish mischief. When Frank first appears to stomping drumbeats, or when Eddie belts out Hot Patootie, you feel the music. When Frank sings to Rocky, its flirtatious, and sexy. Each cast member injects their character into the song, whether it's Magenta's vampishness, Riff-Raff's dryness, Brad & Janet's naivety etc, its all there. This remake has none of that. The music seems sterile, no rock, no passion, no life.

I didn't mind Laverne Cox too much. She was OK as Frank, but didn't really bring anything new to the table. Tim Curry was pretty much inimitable, which is why it would have been better for Laverne Cox to do something different with Frank's character. She didn't. Instead, it just felt like she had watched the original movie, and tried to mimic all the moves & speech patterns of Curry's Frank'n'Furter, and ended up missing the point.

In fact, I could make the same criticism of most of the other characters. Riff Raff, Brad, Janet and (sadly) the Narrator all sounded like they had watched the original too many times,and practiced their role independently of each other, but together, it all became disjointed, with no comic pacing or understanding of the actual character. Sorry, but Magenta needs to be vampish, Riff Raff needs to be Machiavellian, Columbia needs to be hedonistic, Frank needs to be a larger-than-life charismatic glam degenerate rockstar playboy onmisexual predator mad scientist. Brad & Janet just need to be confused innocents and Rocky just needs to be a dunce. Nobody succeeded in encapsulating their actual role. It just looked like everyone was trying to out-ham everyone else. Even Rocky juddered about like a wind-up toy with a bladder problem.

Again, going back to what the movie wanted to be, it seemed confused. Some scenes were almost take-for-take retreads of the original. Some were completely new, in a 'good idea at the time' sort of way. sometimes, the movie tried too hard, and sometimes it all seems phoned-in. Even Tim Curry delivered his lines with no real aplomb, and seemed to have just been added for the sake of an obligatory cameo.

It's a shame. I wanted this to succeed, but it was a remake without the soul and heart of the original.

There are several movies that have done this sort of thing before. Put a cross section of society in an isolated situation (Desert Island, Hostile Planet, Booby Trapped Death Cube, Reality TV Show etc.), and observe their behaviours to see who is a team player, and who is a selfish aback-stabber.

Circle reminded me of a more extreme version of the TV game show 'The Weakest Link'. Only there is 50 people involved, and each is voting for their own life.

It's a neat premise on paper, but ultimately, the movie doesn't really go anywhere with it.

As a social commentary, we are presented with a broad cross-section of some very unpleasant stereotypes across the spectrum. Nothing was spared, whether race, gender, age, disability, sexuality, the movie provided some very sloppy examples of stereotyping & discrimination.

As a sci-fi movie, there is no character development at all. The movie only has two ongoing questions and they are 'Who will everyone vote for next?" and "Why?". The first question is answered every few minutes, and the second answer seems to be "Isn't it obvious?". - There is a third question "What the hell is going on?" and to its credit, the movie does not have an ambiguous ending. It does actually answer that question, but the answer feels like a tacked-on epilogue that doesn't really tie all the loose ends.

All in all, I found myself getting a bit bored & impatient with the movie to start going somewhere. I continued watching a bunch of people squabble over strategic voting and each round became more telegraphed. Even the 'twist' final rounds were predictable.

There are much better socially based sci-fi movies around The Cube & The Exam, for example, allowed for some character development, and for moral ambiguity.

Overall, I wouldn't recommend this film as an in-depth moral commentary about humanity, but if you are into the whole 'watching people stab others in the back' thing, then this will kill an hour or so.

It's very easy to get caught up in the hype of a film, particularly if the hype has been simmering away for the best part of 20 years (allegedly), and despite the valiant efforts of all involved in this project, HHGTTG just doesn't quite achieve what is expected of it.

Now, before everyone slates this opinion, I would like to say that I did enjoy the movie, I didn't expect a loyal and faithful rehash of the storyline in the book/TV series/game/radio show, and I didn't go into the cinema screen with the attitude that either I was going to love this film no matter what, or that I was going to hate it no matter what. I just felt that it could have been improved on with just a little vision - that's all.

I do give full credit to all involved for daring to take a complex tale (even while he was writing the radio show, Douglas Adams confesses that he did not have any planned ending, or even where the next episode was going to turn up), and a "trilogy" of five books that traverses time, space, and throws some of the deepest philosophical questions at the reader with humorous results, must be a daunting task. I take my hat off to the directors.

However, I just felt that the true atmosphere, the stamp of Douglas Adams, and the feeling that what Adams intended for the screen was absent in large amounts.

***Spoilers*** My biggest gripe was the number of shortcuts the directors made. Even the TV series was brave enough in the '70's to try and recapture the sheer absurdity and lunacy of the Heart of Gold with the improbability drive activated on a very low budget. We get a pair of sofas and an odd scene involving rag dolls in the film. Oddly though, much of the special effects budget seems to have been used in less relevant scenes.

The film also seems to tie up with a "nice" and very Hollywood ending, where Earth II is restored, the mice are vanquished, Zaphod cops off with some anonymous chick who hangs around with the Vogons, and of course, a "hint" of a sequel in "The restaurant at the end of the Universe".

Moments of pure Douglas Adams comedy that made each inception of HHGTTG (such as Arthur's argument with Mr. Prosser, the origin of the Improbability drive, and even Eddie the over-eager computer) seem to have been snipped short in order for one of the cast to offer a one-liner which is badly timed.

Finally, my last gripe about the film was the 'love interest' of Arthur and Trillian. I can see why it was done this way, and I don't disagree that in a 2 hour medium, having a love interest and a purpose for the film is all well and good, but they just took too long in setting it up (the fancy dress party), and not enough time developing it fully afterwards (The P.O.V gun).

Despite these gripes, like I said, it was not a terrible film at all. It was very entertaining, and everyone involved has a lot to be proud of. There are some great laughs, some stunning visual moments, and scenes that I would definitely like to see again. I would recommend people to go and see it, but I would also implore them to read the book(s) afterwards, which truly capture the essence and lunacy of Adams' universe like it was intended.

Cidade de Deus seems to have a lot of praise on the IMDb boards, and with good reason too. It simply is, in my opinion, one of the best contemporary films ever made.

Based on true events and characters who live in the overlooked and poverty stricken slums in the shadows of Rio de Janiero, where life expectancy doesn't reach the 30's and drug dealers are kings.

The tale of the City of God, and its myriad of characters is told by Rocket, a young man who struggles to make something of his life, other than to wind up another victim of drugs or gang wars.

Not only are the characters in City of God absolutely fascinating, and also very endearing, but also convincingly acted by groups of young and unknown actors. The stoies are well-told, and at times, funny, and at others, brutally shocking.

The cinematic style of the film gives a nod to Tarantino, with some clever time-jumping, freeze-framing, and texts indicating another chapter of the film. In every sense, a bit of a Brazillian "Pulp Fiction" or "Goodfellas", but with its own unique flavour to it.

The City of God is a marvel, and a highly recommended film to watch, but not recommended for the over-sensitive or easily distressed.

OK, I've watched "The Sixth Sense", "Signs", even "Unbreakable", and whilst Shyamalan's films have all been a bit hit-and-miss, "The Village" really sets an unprecedented low.

The plot focuses on a village completely surrounded by a forest full of monsters who seem to be attracted to the colour red. The villagers live with the monsters in an uneasy truce, neither of them infringing on the borders. However, when skinned baby animals start appearing from nowhere, the villagers suspect that someone has breached the borders and angered the monsters.

In the village, live Ivy, a blind girl, and Lucius. A quiet, but mature boy. The majority of the plot centers on them and their developing relationship in the midst of the potential peril.

OK, the plot seems capable enough. The storyline does have a twist or two, but the film made me burst out laughing unintentionally several times. (Not a good thing, especially if the film is supposed to be creating an 'ambience'). The actress who played Ivy could not have done a worse job in portraying her blindness. Clumsily fumbling around while stationary, and confidently running through unknown territories, negotiating obstacles and not hitting a single thing. You've got to see her turn corners and wave her stick around. So appalling was this that I found myself sniggering several times over.

Secondly, the dialogue was very long and drawn-out. I know it's supposed to be set in the late 19th century, so the English is very "olde worlde", but surely even during this time, people didn't take 30 seconds to deliver a single line.

There are films which do take a while to build up some sort of suspense, then deliver a payoff for the audience's patience. Takashi Mike's "Audition" is a great example (although the payoff was a little more gory). Unfortunately, the payoff in "The Village" was a flat, and fairly predictable twist. I pretty much knew there was a twist coming, guessed what it was, and surprisingly, was right. Unlike Shyamalan's other films, this twist has been done before.

Perhaps I found this film so funny because I was expecting some form of entertainment, and was gravely at risk of being bored stupid. Maybe I'm a philistine for denouncing such a high profile film in such a manner. Bottom line, though, is that if the film did do its job and offered a semi-decent thriller with polished acting and a more intriguing build-up, I would not be sitting in my chair in fits of laughter at how bad the film is.

If there was ever a filmmaker whose films fuel discussion and divided opinion long after the final credits have rolled, David Lynch is certainly a prime candidate.

Almost every film he has made so far is classed as either a work of genius with a unique point of view, or incomprehensible arty-farty rubbish. Despite whatever anyone thinks of his films, however, it is undeniable that they are all very well-crafted, well-directed, and will unfailingly cause a reaction.

Mulholland Drive, while originally intended to be a TV series in the same vein as "Twin Peaks" was restructured and recreated into a fascinating piece of film-making and storytelling, with a dreamlike and almost detached atmosphere all of its own. Employing several set pieces of mysterious dwarfs, blue neon, red drapes and vintage microphones, chanteuses singing Roy Orbison songs, enigmatic and dangerous femmes fatales and '50's memorabilia, the setting is perfectly "Lynchian". Everything is stylish and chic, caught in a hazy lens with an element of something dark just behind the scenes.

What causes the most controversy in Lynch's films, however, is the plot itself, or more particularly, the conclusion. Some people will wonder if there was a point to watching the movie, expecting an ending that is handed on a plate. Lynch, however, likes to make his audience work for their own answers to the movie (and personally, with the case of Mulholland Drive, I do believe that there is an underlying solution that does make sense of the entire film). Moviegoers who enjoy something cerebral and enjoy a challenge will love this movie. Others who do not attempt to understand the movie will either be entranced by the imagery, or be appalled at the apparent lack of a coherent ending.

Ultimately, though, the key to Lynch's films, including Mulholland Drive, is to switch your point of view. Lynch's films centre heavily on dreams, and once the viewer realises what they are watching, the film takes on a different perspective, with a satisfactory conclusion.

This is, without doubt, one of my favourite horror films ever! I really cannot believe that it didn't gain much more popularity when it was released, especially when the main contenders at the time were the usual Wes Craven sequels and copycat horrors, Mute Witness has all the style, suspense and quickfire plot twists of a Hitchcock/DePalma movie, coupled with some very sharp black comedy and a great plot. It never promises to be any more than a good popcorn-and-hot-dog movie, but it is difficult not to just enjoy the film for what it is.

The plot centres on Billie Hughes - a mute girl working on the set of a horror film being made in a Russian factory. By a series of events, she finds herself accidentally locked in, and stumbles on the filming of a snuff movie.

One of the best things about the film is the lack of screaming that seems to invade every horror film ever made. As the main character is mute, she cannot make a noise - something which is a blessing at some stages of the movie, and a curse in others.

The director seems to have studied his Hitchcock very well, Even the opening scene is a tongue-in-cheek nod to both Hitchcock's "Psycho" as well as fairly generic slasher movie scenes.

While the acting can be hammy at times, the whole film does hold it together, not only throwing in a couple of excellent scenes that put you right on the edge of your seat, but a few neat little questions about how the film is going to end.

All in all, a hugely overlooked, well-paced and action packed psycho-thriller which I would recommend for any jaded viewer looking for something a little different from the usual Freddy/Jason/Scream/Michael Myers/Damien regurgitation's at hallowe'en.