A Heart as Big as the Universe

Kosmos (2010) - dir. Reha Erdem - 4 stars

"The funny thing about life is that everybody has the same fate" declares Kosmos, Reha Erdem's latest protagonist.  As one of the first lines of dialogue in the film, this quote profoundly captures the essence of what Erdem is trying to convey with his creation. Sufi ideals, shamanistic rituals and a lot of frantic running dominate Kosmos and defines its visuals, sound, rhythm and mise-en-scène, which combine for a worthwhile experience albeit a bit long.


Seemingly to appear out of nowhere, a stranger named Battal finds himself in the middle of a snow-covered landscape. As soon as he approaches a town, he ends up saving the life of a boy drowned in the river. Immediately, he becomes a local hero, but his enigmatic speeches make the locals weary. Battal claims that he's looking for love and nothing else, as nothing else matters in the world, which is greeted with laughter and ridicule. Soon, strange events take hold of the town from mysterious robberies to a crashing satellite. The stranger becomes a loved and hated prophet as suspicions grow. On top of it all, he falls in love with the sister of the boy he had saved, who chooses to name herself Neptune.  It is poignant that in reaction Battal names himself Kosmos, as the quest for love is as old and infinite as the universe itself.


Sufi ideals such as the quest for true love take center stage in Kosmos' language and are introduced via various scenes.  The main argument is that, regardless of good or evil, the same fate awaits everyone. Therefore, it is vain and useless to try and define oneself as superior by comparison to other people or animals. At the end of the day, we're no better than a duck, a cow or a bird. As such, many visual juxtapositions are made between humans and animals in the film. Multiple close-ups on cows' eyes are interspersed with other tracking shots of ducks running away. There are many lines in the script that consistently refer to how humans define themselves in relation to animals, which is problematic in principal. We are not as special as we think we are, and the more special we think we are, the less we can understand the world and our place in it. Kosmos patiently explains this in various dialogues he has with other characters.


Sufi elements are further strengthened with shamanistic rituals that fortify the fantastic aura of the film. Firstly, Kosmos heals people in a ritualistic manner, but more prominently, his mating calls with his lover, Neptune, are striking. Throughout the film, Neptune and Kosmos call out to each other like birds. They tease, flirt and play as if they're animals.  The constant mating calls reach a crescendo when they almost literally transform themselves to birds perched on the bed frame. The euphoria of requited love is enough for both as no sexual release takes place. Erdem pulls together the sounds and visuals of this scene in such wizardry that this seemingly unnatural act appears to be completely natural and plausible. Goosebumps abound.


On the topic of sound, Erdem's attention to the soundscape of the film is constant throughout, which extends the suspension of disbelief. The soundscape is full and vibrant, pulling in the audience to the environment of the film and complementing the ominous visuals.


All things considered, Erdem delivers a powerful punch with Kosmos. The cinematography and sound design both picked up awards at the Antalya Golden Orange Film Festival along with Best Film and Best Director awards.  The script, written by Erdem, is fairly mature and well-written; however, the film could probably be trimmed to be tighter and shorter.  Regardless of its fantastic visuals, engrossing sound and overall impressive vision of its world, it will be hard for the film to reach to the mainstream as distributors are likely to shy away from it due to the above sticking points. Let that not be a hindrance though as it deserves a place in the cinephile's library.

Is love original or just a copy?

Copie Conforme/Certified Copy (2010) - dir. Abbas Kiarostami - 5 stars

The last film from Kiarostami I had seen was Shirin, which had forced me to think about where Kiarostami saw his work presented - in the cinema or in an art gallery.  Shirin had pushed the boundaries of what's expected in cinema with its construction whereby close-ups of 114 Iranian women, mostly theatre and cinema actresses including Juliette Binoche framed the entire film. The film they were watching could only be heard by us. Our eyes were voyeuristically fixated on the women's faces and their reactions to the story they were being told. It seemed more suitable for an art gallery rather than a cinema. With Copie Conforme, Kiarostami leaves no doubt. The film belongs in the cinema as long as it can stay. With its timeless story and extraordinary acting, this is a film that will stay in my heart. 


The film follows a mother as she tries to grapple with her life while her son and husband are at odds with her desires. She wants to feel the connection and the excitement she felt before and is now lacking.  At times she forces the others to see her way, and at other times, she just lets life trickle down the cobbled streets. Juliette Binoche really deserves the best actress honors she received at the Cannes Film Festival as the mother. Her portrait of the mother is touching, mature and sensitive. It's so natural to identify with her fears, insecurities and beauty. Kudos to la Binoche for a fantastic performance.


Long term collaborators, Binoche and Kiarostami are a pair to watch out for.  While Kiarostami really shows he understands the European mindset, Binoche enforces it with her acting.  From the ungrateful, independent child to the fussy couple, Kiarostami shows virtuosic control over the content and establishes his authority as a filmmaker that can traverse borders and be successful in any context, not just as an Iranian filmmaker making Iranian films.  This spells good tidings for us all as I'm sure we're bound to see more excellent films from the pair in the future.

Icarus at the Edge of Time at the Royal Festival Hall

The tale of Icarus gets a "science in fiction" overhaul as Brian Greene's book is transformed into a multimedia experience.


Narrated by David Morissey, featuring a film by Al + Al and an original score by Philip Glass, the European premiere at the Royal Festival Hall started with the Dr. Atomic Symphony by John Adams. It was a fine start, fit for the main event, as it is an opera about the life of Dr J Robert Oppenheimer, who is behind the atomic bomb. Considering the heavy physics behind the concept of the event, there was a quick lecture on how black holes function and what effects they produce given Einstein's theory of relativity, and then it was time for the main event.


In Greek mythology, Icarus uses the wings constructed by his father from wax and feathers to escape from Crete. His curiosity gets the better of him when he flies too close to the sun and his wings melt away. As such, Icarus falls to the sea and drowns. Brian Greene's book, published in 2008, reworks the myth and situates it in deep space. Icarus is the son of the captain of a ship sent out to deep space to investigate alien life forms. On their way, they encounter an unchartered black hole. Icarus, overtaken by his curiosity and eager to try his prototype spaceship, flies out to the black hole to show his father that he can make it there and back. He does achieve this fantastic voyage, but he fails to factor in the effect of the black hole on time, slowing it to such a degree that a second near the black hole translates to hundreds of years in the normal fabric of space-time.


The premise of the story deserves a lot of interest as it's scientifically accurate, hence "science in fiction",  and yields great dramatic value. There are undertones of personal struggle as well, as Icarus slightly disdains his ancestors for making the decision for him to be born into this spaceship only to ensure continuity of the mission since it takes many generations to reach its destination. Philip Glass' original score has the right tones and intensity to deliver this emotional weight of the story. However, I can't say the same for the film, which lacks the artistry of the music or the narration.  


As the main drawback of the event, the film simply comes off as unprofessional. The simple geometric shapes and the use of flashing colors may all be well intended, but the experimental approach taken in the production of the film unfortunately diminishes the overall effect and clashes with the narration, which is rather straightforward.  It almost seems like the different elements of the production are at odds with each other. An unsettling aftertaste.


Film is the right medium to tell Icarus' story, especially with Glass' fantastic score, but it needs more maturity especially considering the fact that there is narration involved. A better way to present this story though would be through a feature length film where the director can really explore the emotional depth of being born into a traveling home with a mission. Having that huge decision made for you would anger anyone, and a kid would most likely respond in the manner Icarus does. It propels him towards the black hole, from which there is no return even if you survive. Black holes can warp time and slow it down, but time always travels one way - into the future. And what awaits at the end of your journey is even more fantastical.

A Study of Guilt

Please Give (2010) - dir. Nicole Holofcener - 3 stars

It's been a while since I saw Friends with Money (2006), the film that introduced me to the Holofcener name.  I hadn't realized until then that I had already seen her work before, alas on TV.  She had directed many episodes, some for Sex and the City and Six Feet Under, but it was with her 2006 film that I came to connect the dots between her TV and film work. Her focus on female protagonists, wry humour, money and generosity coupled with her fascination with actress Catherine Keener all resurface with Please Give.


Kate (Keener) and her husband own a vintage furniture shop in NYC, where most of their stock comes from families trying to get rid of furniture owned by their passed-away relatives. They are embroiled in the quest to make big profits, as they enjoy the thrill of the thought of money. While their teenage daughter gets further obsessed with her looks and skin, they continuously make plans to expand their apartment, which depends on the old tenant dying.  Andra, the old tenant, is taken care of by two sisters, one of whom is devoted, shy and introverted whereas the other is self-centered, shallow and mean.  All characters in the ensemble suffer from some sort of guilt, and as such Holofcener is able to show guilt and how we deal with it in its many shapes and forms.  Some try to counter it by forcing themselves to be charitable while others keep their guilt at bay by ignoring it or even drowning themselves in it. 


The film's intricate story connects these characters in a higher emotional level than any of them expect. Sense of resolution is abound throughout the last 20 minutes of the film. This, in a way, dispels the plausible atmosphere created all along as it feels a bit too good to have everything come full circle at the end, but then I've gotten very used to expecting films to drop me off a cliff so take it with a grain of salt.  All things considered, Friends with Money also ended in a similar fashion so it says more about Holofcener's storytelling habits than anything else.


Holofcener is rather good at developing her scripts and keeping a nice pace throughout her films, despite several approaches that harken back to her TV work. The film mostly consists of short scenes and punch lines, which feel episodic, but they also add a sense of realism as if we're watching reality TV.  Her characters tend to understand themselves at the end and accept what they need to do to change. This sense of self-realization is very central to Holofcener's scripts and provides very low-key, quiet moments of epiphany.


Unfortunately, this results in a low-key feeling at the end of the film as well. Holofceners' films never engross the viewer in deep emotion. At the most, she tickles our feelings and makes a dash for resolution.  So, even though the film is rather good, it makes you feel a bit underwhelmed at the end.

2001: a Space Odyssey at the Royal Festival Hall, June 25, 2010

As I soaked in the famous opening fanfare of Strauss's Also sprach Zarathustra performed live by the London Philharmonic,  I saw the beautiful image of the Earth rising over the Moon with the Sun following suit in alignment. I then read the words appear ominously on the screen: 2001: a Space Odyssey. Attending the world premiere of Kubrick's definitive science fiction epic with live music accompaniment at the Royal Festival Hall on 25 June 2010, I was reminded once again of his genius. Kubrick's attention to detail, his love of music and his meticulous research into his subject material all shine through to make this film as mysterious and sublime today as it must have been when it was released in 1968.


As Kubrick's wife, Christiane, mentioned at the event, Kubrick had wanted to show people that by 2001 space travel would have been a piece of cake. We are in 2010, and we are nowhere close to hibernation or inter-galactic travel, let alone creating artificial intelligence that is capable of emotion. In many aspects, we failed Kubrick's trust in mankind's evolution. But what Kubrick really accomplished with 2001 is that he set the standard for many other science fiction films that followed it. The design, the story and the predicted future technology all became common place in our minds. We accepted Kubrick's vision to be reality, almost fate, that we now expect pressured sliding doors, video calls, miniaturized food,  hibernation, enhanced computer intelligence, humanoids, aliens, white and sterile environments, etc. We expect the artificial intelligence that we create to overtake us, fueling our self-doubt. 


What Kubrick doesn't do is get carried away with his vision. As anyone will notice, none of the space scenes have any diegetic sound whatsoever. There are no engine noises, laser sounds, or any sound at all. Since there is no air in space, sound cannot travel. Space is not only black, but it's also mute. Kubrick takes advantage of this by filling in the gap with non-diegetic music. He purposefully picks Johann Strauss' waltz, the Blue Danube, to accompany the motions of the space station. He emphasizes the slow, rhythmic movement of the space station and likens it to ballet. With this choice of music, Kubrick not only stays true to scientific reality but also enhances the cinematic experience, signifying an almost royal air to space travel and making the cinema experience more like an opera. As a matter of fact, the film's road show release in 1968 included a musical prelude akin to how operas and musical theatre productions start. The blank screen musical intro was immediately followed by the MGM logo and then the film. I was lucky enough to experience that original idea at the Royal Festival Hall, and I must say it does amplify the experience and harken back to Kubrick's love of music. For more on the use of music in the film, I would highly recommend this Wikipedia article.


The story is also well polished. Arthur C. Clarke and Kubrick wrote the story and the book together, but Kubrick wanted to keep the film a bit more mysterious. He keeps the film in four parts that are divided to outline human evolutionary steps, each one highlighted with Strauss'  Also sprach Zarathustra in the background. However, he denies the viewer any direct explanations as to what the black monolith is that ties them all. The four main parts are:


I. The Dawn of Man
II. TMA-1
III. Jupiter Mission
IV. Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite


In the first part, a herbivorous ape discovers the use of bones as a tool and weapon. Subsequently, the apes learn to stand up on their hind legs, hunt and eat meat and defeat other tribes. As such, humans begin, and Kubrick gracefully transitions to millions of years later with a match cut from the bone to the spacecraft in TMA-1. The humans also discover the black monolith, but this time on the surface of the Moon. The monolith seems to be a living thing that reacts, purposefully buried there. 


A cut to the Jupiter Mission introduces us to HAL-9000, the iconic artificial intelligence onboard the spacecraft. HAL-9000 is most definitely the basis for many other representations of AI and robots in subsequent films. Their mathematic logic somehow presents a danger to our human way of thinking, and as such, they become our enemies made by our own hands. Kubrick's take on the subject is thrilling to say the least, as he introduces potential emotional capabilities. HAL-9000 may not only be designed to display emotion to make communication with the astronauts more natural but may actually exhibit emotion. HAL's last words are striking and are no different than a man who knows he is dying.  Regardless of his actions, HAL ignites sympathy and pity from the audience as his voice gets lower and he loses his mind. "[He] can feel it."


The final chapter has been the most mind-boggling and left open to debate. As the final astronaut, Bowman, approaches Jupiter, he encounters another monolith. On contact, he is taken through a "star gate" as Clarke calls it. He finds himself in an enclosed space with a bedroom and bathroom, suspiciously decorated and fitted almost as a lit cage. It's almost as if aliens have captured him and are keeping him alive to study him. At the end, Bowman transforms into a "Star-Child" as an image of a fetus bound in a glittering bubble travel around the Earth. It's as if Bowman gives birth to himself as he dies or the aliens have found a way to clone him.  Or it could just be death.


When everything is said and done, there is still one question that doesn't fully get explained. What is the black monolith? Is it an alien or an element that we have not discovered so far? Does it matter? It could as well be that little synapse which creates moments such as those presented in the film and pushes us to our next evolutionary phase. Throughout the film, the monolith is used as the agent for further evolution. Without the monolith's interference, we are essentially not moving on the evolutionary ladder. It takes that little unknown something to push us through the boundary and create another chapter in our collective history.

"N'importe, nous nous serons bien aimés."

Les Herbes Folles/Wild Grass (2009) - dir. Alain Resnais - 3 stars

Resnais made a name for himself first with his documentary short film, Night and Fog (1955), and then with his first feature length film, Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959). His fascination with memory as a subjective phenomenon reared its head in almost all of his films, taking center stage with Last Year in Marienbad (1961). His association with the Nouvelle Vague and the Left Bank movements brought him fame and interest in the 60s and onwards. At the age of 87, Resnais has delivered a rather curious film with Wild Grass, shifting his focus from subjective memory to subjective imagination. At the surface, his latest appears to be a playful and coincidental film with no deeper meaning, but it's riddled with seemingly unexplainable episodes that leave the viewer in doubt as to what really lies underneath it all.


The lives of Marguerite Muir (Sabine Azéma) and Georges Palet (André Dussollier), collide when Georges finds by chance Marguerite's stolen wallet. Georges' imagination takes off upon this discovery, and with what little information he's able to gather from the contents of the wallet, he convinces himself that this could lead to a romantic encounter. His borderline-criminal obsession with meeting Marguerite pulls her in even closer as she finds herself obsessed over him. The unexplained curiosity of both characters disrupts their lives, and their closest, Marguerite's best friend and Georges' wife, find themselves entangled in the confusing tale. 


Resnais employs a wonderful visual motif throughout the film: wild grass sprouting from cracks in the asphalt. By definition, wild grass is unexpected and hard to control. It will find life at the most impossible locations and thrive nonetheless. As such, the film is aptly named as Georges sprouts into Marguerite's life and disrupts her set path, road. No matter how well defined she may think her life is and how much she wants to be left in peace, wild grass unexpectedly comes forth and changes her story. 


Besides the visual motif, Resnais achieves surreal and dream-like visuals with heavy uses of cranes, tracking shots and highly saturated colors. His signature voice-overs tell most of the story, but depending on the narrator, the legitimacy and truthfulness of what's shared are in question. In expected fashion, the film ends in a riddle, which reminds me a lot of David Lynch. All in all, the film is enjoyable, but it's not the best Resnais has made.


P.S. The quotation in the title of my review appears in the film and is taken from Flaubert's L'Éducation sentimentale. It translates to "No matter, we shall have loved each other well."

Jeunet's charm lives on, just not as deep

Micmacs (2009) - dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet - 3 stars

Jeunet's imagination is an impressive creature. The fact that he pulled off Amelie from a box of thrown-in notes tells tons about the man's talent. Speaking at the BFI preview screening of Micmacs, his latest feature, he admitted that he wrote it in about two weeks out of a desperation to film after failing to score financial backing for the Life of Pi, which had been in pre-production under his helm for nearly two years. And I'm sorry to say that it shows. Jeunet has created another charming universe with colorful characters, but the story can't penetrate much as it's mainly two-dimensional, lacking the depth of Amelie. 


When released, Amelie became the highest grossing French-made film globally, and it still holds that crown. What made it so special for audiences was the complete world Jeunet created and the very special protagonist. Amelie was a part of everyone - she was cute, shy, mischievous, scared and daring at the same time. She did what everyone wanted to do but feared. Audrey Tautou's impressive interpretation took the character to a whole new level, and Jeunet experienced the rare joy of having created a successful film that's loved by critics and movie-goers alike.


Micmacs also features some very colorful characters and carries Jeunet's signature heavily. At the center, we have Bazil, played by Dany Boon, who works at a local video rental store. One night, out of chance, he witnesses a gun-blazing car chase fit for the movies and ends up with a bullet lodged in his brain. The bullet stops short of killing him, and the doctors decide he needs to live with it as the risk of removing it is too high. To add to the coincidence, the bullet lodged in his brain is made by the same company whose bullet also killed his father. A tale of revenge unfolds with the kookiest crew ever as Bazil's new adopted family includes a contortionist, mechanics genius and a mind reader among others.


What starts out as a fun ensemble doesn't expand to anything beyond that. Characters exhibit one characteristic, which serves as a key point in the film. They never really grow or change. Everyone's happy with what they've got so the final experience feels a bit like watching a cartoon. It's like any Japanese cartoon of super heroes who seem silly by themselves, but together, they're formidable. 


Visually, the film features heavy post-production digital coloring similar to Amelie, which enhances the cartoon aspect of the film. The Paris we see in the film is very much an alternate Paris as you will not see many references to the modern-day city we know. It's obvious that Jeunet spent quite a bit of time to perfect the look of the film to reflect the contradiction between the emotionless stainless steel of the weapons firms and the coziness of the kooky team's hideout.


All in all, Micmacs delivers an enjoyable time at the cinema. Just don't expect anything like Amelie this time around.

Easy recipe, easy laughs

Shrek Forever After (2010) - dir. Mike Mitchell - 3 stars

The fourth and final instalment of the Shrek franchise doesn't take any risks when it comes to its story but still manages to whip up an entertaining experience with a worthwhile new villain, who is as deviously funny as Lord Farquaad from the original. 


The film essentially picks up where the third entry left. Shrek and Fiona are living 'happily ever after' in their swamp, but the film doesn't lose any time to introduce the dull routine of their lives. Shrek, like any male human who finds himself in a marriage with kids, discovers that ogre males have the same psychology. He feels their world revolves around the kids and that he has no control over his life. He misses the days when he used to roam freely in his swamp scaring the wits off villagers. A fight with Fiona and a magical contract later, Shrek finds himself in an alternate day when people still fear ogres. The fine print on the contract turns out to be a bit more tricky though as our new villain turns the tables on Shrek.  He finds himself on a quest to save not only himself but everyone whom he has ever cared about. It is a worthwhile premise for the franchise as the story goes back to its roots about true love, but a part of me still wishes that we could have accompanied these colourful characters on an all-new quest one last time.


Even though the Shrek sequels have never been as good as Toy Story 2, if there's anything they've done well, it's the villains. From Lord Farquaad to Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother, the Shrek writers have always created screen-worthy bad fellas. The 'bad' ensemble adds Rumpelstiltskin with Shrek 4, who originates from a German fairytale. Wonderfully voiced by Walt Dohrn, who is also Head of Story on the film, Rumpelstiltskin is quite a character. From having different wigs for different occasions to fashioning the best evil grin to grace the Shrek films, he dominates the film despite his dwarfish size. Given the initial cliché of middle-age crisis, Rumpelstiltskin represents the creative side of the story. He tricks Shrek into the magical contract and gets the kingdom he has always been waiting for.


The original Shrek became a huge hit because it made fun of the age-old clichés of the animated world and brought a modern day take on fairy tales. From birds exploding by the princess' song to the reality show treatment of picking a queen for Lord Farquaad, the original grew from its clever restatement of Disney classics. As new sequels got added to the mix, the writers took off a different direction: the films became about the Shrek universe. The final instalment is a product of that transformation, where the film tries to stand on its own legs without resorting to ridicule of animated classics. It can achieve this to a certain extent as the characters are well-established and loved, but it is also obvious that the writers resorted to some quick and easy gags to fill the laughs. At the end of the day, the Shrek universe is an off-shoot of the traditional animated world, and its admittance of that fact made the original so good. It's valiant to see an attempt to create a new, standalone universe, but there isn't that much new in the mix to support a fourth bloat completely.

Ignorance is bliss

Four Lions (2010) - dir. Christopher Morris - 1 star

One cannot boil down the intricacies of home-grown terrorism into a comedy. Let me preface this review by saying that I do not lack a sense of humour. The truth is that Morris' presentation of his characters does not constitute a dark comedy; it is just a bad film. It completely omits the psychological, social and religious background that would be necessary to develop the mindset of a terrorist. I urge anyone, who is inclined to find out, to read Shiv Malik's article on the issue over at Prospect Magazine, which is well researched and written. Morris, on the other hand, implies that the making of a terrorist is to be laughed at, which doesn't make the situation any more tolerable or funny for that matter. It is just dangerous. As much as I love escapism, this is one film that is so disconnected from its characters and their community that it doesn't just escape the issue but rather misrepresent it.


Morris' TV background glares throughout the film with its handling of the central issue. It picks up with the assumption that the four main characters have decided to be jihadists and never bothers to explain why.  This assumption and treatment may work well for TV productions, but it just doesn't fly high on the big screen. Two-dimensional characters cannot exhibit the urgency required to sustain a feature-length film, especially one that deals with a tough topic like terrorism. Morris' characters start and end the same. They do not learn or grow; they do not change for better or worse. They have no real incentive to have become who they are or continue down their path, nor do they exhibit any identity confusion or have any issues in their life that would push them to pursue jihad. All we know is that they are all rather stupid, except for Omar, played by Riz Ahmed.


Omar is the 'brains' of the group. He's the one who edits their ridiculous videos, the abundance of which says more about their narcissism than their dedication to the ideals they are fighting for. The others are less rounded - if you can call Omar a well-rounded character that is - where their main character trait is their naiveté.  They come off as simpletons frankly, and the viewer gets to find out nothing more about them.  We have no idea about their families, what they do to earn a living, how they have come to be friends with Omar, etc. The worst script flaw though is related to the 5th recruit, a young Pakistani guy whose first appearance in the film ignites a sense of thoughtful commentary. It is the only moment in the film where Morris says something, but then true to form, he later degrades this one single moment of potential revelation by having him become one of the jihadists. 


Despite its focus on unintelligent humour, the film attempts to pull some dramatic strings towards the end and show a hip attitude towards violence a la Tarantino, but what might be construed as a cool approach is actually just annoying. The film really feels like a Western attitude towards the complexity of a suicide bomber. If something's too hard to figure out or understand, people tend to joke around it in an attempt to diminish its importance and their lack of understanding. Four Lions really feels like it was written by four British friends at a pub, who have no idea about the Pakistani community, the confusion that 2nd generation immigrants face when growing up and how terrorist organizations feed off of this.  It is ignorance at its best, and as Thomas Gray says, ignorance is bliss, but it has no part in good film-making.

Blanchett is the saving grace of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood

Robin Hood (2010) - dir. Ridley Scott - 3 stars

I would have loved to be at Cannes to see the reactions of the critics after seeing Robin Hood last night.  Ridley Scott claims to have made the most historically accurate Robin Hood film, and while it may be the case, the film feels devoid of energy despite its attempts to appear epic. A visual and directorial quality that seems more appropriate for a TV series haunts the 140 mins. The film is too focused on getting the story moving that it forgets to pay attention to its characters, which results in the same experience as watching the Tudors on TV. The only scenes where the film really grips the viewer are courtesy of Cate Blanchett, whose Lady Marion owns and rules the screen.

Unlike many previous films, Scott doesn't deal with the traditional part of Robin Hood's story. The film doesn't involve his band of thieves who steal from the rich to give to the poor. The sheriff of Nottingham is reduced to a mere side character. Instead, Scott focuses on the origins of the man himself and how he became to be Robin Hood.  Granted, it is a very good story that involves familial separation, rediscovery of identity, a thirst for revenge, and unexpected attraction. As a common archer in King Richard the Lionheart's army, Robin Longstride witnesses the death of the king on his return home from France. Through chance or some may call it fate, he intercepts the French who are trying to possess the King's crown. This encounter sets him on a path back to England posing as a knight named Robert of Loxley, delivering the crown to King Richard's brother. Through many more story twists, he ends up leading the charge against traitors and the invading French and finally makes a stand for democracy, which obviously doesn't go down well with the new King. Thus, he becomes Robin Hood.

I must say that I have never been a fan of Russell Crowe, and his performance as Robin Hood feels like Gladiator 2 to me. His acting range is very limited so the only character-specific changes I could notice were physical. Crowe is a bit puffier and meatier than before, but the range of facial expressions is still limited, not to mention he looks a bit too old for the character. Cate Blanchett, on the other hand, once again convinces everyone that she is the living, breathing Marion Loxley. Blanchett is one of those few actresses who can really differentiate the characters she plays. If it wasn't for her, my rating for the film would be lower.

But Blanchett can only do so much. The only epic moment in the film is either a copy or a nod to Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, and the washed out colors don't help the cinematography become somewhat exciting. All in all, Robin Hood leaves a lukewarm taste; it's a not a bad film, but it's not a great film either. It sits on the verge of acceptable, and that just won't do for the great director Ridley Scott.

Can't feel the pulse; is it dead?

Iron Man 2 (2010) - dir. Jon Favreau - 2 stars

Comparing the second serving of the Iron Man franchise to its original would be a big mistake.  The special effects are better than before, the Iron Man suit is shinier than ever, and we have a new villain who can kick some ass.  But it's a failed attempt as it has none of the charm, surprise, or fun elements of the first film.  It's downright boring.  Both films have the same actors and the same director so you might be curious as to how this could have happened.  It's the screenplay I tell you, the awful screenplay, coupled with some bad directorial choices.

Iron Man 2 picks up six months after the end of the first film.  Our hero's ego has reached behemoth levels where he proclaims him and himself only as the key to world peace.  This peachy view is somewhat scarred as the US government starts to treat him as a potential threat to national safety and a vengeful scientist builds the same technology to bring Iron Man down to earth.  All this while, Tony Stark also needs to deal with the consequences of his mechanical 'heart.'  It all sounds good on paper, right?  You have the fundamental flaw of the main character challenged by an arch enemy while he is trying to secure his destiny, which ultimately forces him to reconcile his own definition and identity.

Unfortunately, besides the special effects, nothing leaves a lasting impression.  The acting is second rate where obviously Favreau omitted doing multiple takes for some scenes sacrificing his chance to get the best performance out of each actor.  This makes the film feel hurried and unpolished.  The dialogue doesn't follow well and feels spotty.  Tony Stark's character is meant to be a bit short when it comes to dialogue, but that doesn't mean every other character needs to be that way.  At several moments in the film, I just stopped listening as I wasn't missing much anyways.  But let me get back to the point, as these are minor grievances considering the root cause, which stems from a bad screenplay.

Any film that is based on a comic book already has a certain leeway for taking short cuts in the story, and it's generally OK. We don't expect every comic book film to have the depth of Nolan's Batman, but it's downright sad to see too many holes in Iron Man 2.  Who is Samuel L. Jackson in the film and what's with the eye patch?  Why does Petter Potts accept to become CEO of Stark Industries? There are too many holes to mention here...  What's worse is that the film completely ignores these holes and tries to sandwich scene after scene of what we've come to expect from comic book films.  Hero is at the top of his game; gets challanged; loses his initial incentive along with a personal loss or trouble; hero goes down the wrong path; his new enemy reminds him of who he is; he comes back with a pow.  Great.

But the pow never happens in this film.  It has a flat pulse that never seems to pick up and lies dead on the floor.  The events are so uninteresting that even the characters forget about them a few seconds after they happen.  Explosions?  Big whoop.  Let's kiss.

Do yourself a favor.  Save your money; watch it on a plane where you're stuck and need time to kill.

The Woody Allen I like is back!

Whatever Works (2009) - dir. Woody Allen - 4 stars

Allen's latest is being hailed by many critics as a return-to-roots for the director .  It's being compared to Annie Hall, which in itself is a compliment. Considering that Allen wrote the script for Whatever Works in the 70s, the comparison isn't too surprising. Having found his leading man in Larry David some 30 years later, Allen decided to unearth the script and finally shoot it.  (Boris, the character that David plays, was originally written for Zero Mostel who passed away in 1977.) Whatever Works serves as a fresh serving of good ol' Allen with its hysterical antics, wacky characters, unexpected twists and trademark non-stop dialogue. It's a good thing that we're finally getting it in the UK a whopping one year after its US release; what's up with that?


The film traces the life of a New York misanthrope by the name of Boris Yellnikoff. The strange name is just the tip of the iceberg for this interesting choice of protagonist.  A one-time nominee for a Nobel prize in physics, he has a high opinion of himself and the lowest possible opinion of the human race as he believes we would be extinct by now if only nature had her way.  The only things he really enjoys in life are insulting others, keeping to himself and listening to classical music.  He abhors sex, human contact, children - basically everything.  Boris essentially plays out like an exaggerated Allen as most of his conversation beckons to the director's own views.


When a twenty-something named Melody from the South appears on his doorstep asking for shelter, Boris unexpectedly allows the "submental baton twirler", played by Evan Rachel Wood, to stay with him. As they grow on each other, romance starts to flourish between them, which is challenged as Melody's parents show up on their doorstep with their own issues to sort. Regardless of each of their situation, the name of the game is finding happiness and love with whatever that works as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. The film definitely drives this point in as many ways as possible as the Southerners embrace New York and its eccentric comfort with anything and everything.  With a bit of luck and a nudge from the universe, two people can meet with one-in-a-millionth chance and that might be it.  That might be love.


Whatever Works carries the trademark Allen humour with non-PC comments scattered around in continuous dialogue.  David, who is a master of improvisation as evidenced in his role in the HBO hit series Curb Your Enthusiasm, occupies a different ground here as he sticks to his lines devotedly including the three page monologue that starts the film.  He apparently tried to improvise and was encouraged by Allen to do so, but he was afraid to not sound like Boris and end up sounding more like himself, so he gave up.  He does an admirable job with the role and the lines, and I cannot think of anyone else who could have assumed the role better than him.  As for the rest of the cast, the right actors are wearing the right hats. Everyone from Evan Rachel Wood to Patricia Clarkson, who plays Melody's mother, fit the bill creating a nice ensemble.


All in all, this is the Woody Allen that I've always loved and missed.  Yes, the characters and the story might seem outlandish - they may even appear irritating! - but they do instill a sense of childish positive attitude that things do work out at the end if one just goes with the flow.  The universe may be random; we may be here by some stroke of luck, but luck works both ways, and it's better to give in than live against the current.  As Boris says, "Christ, you know the odds of your father's one sperm from the billions finding the single egg that made you? Don't think about it or you'll have a panic attack!"  Here's to Whatever Works!

Funny, Sad, and Everything in Between

I Love You Phillip Morris (2009) - dir. Glenn Ficarra & John Requa - 4,5 stars

The posters showcase a gay couple with two pooches, Barbie-like hair and glowing skin.  They carry the trademark smile that Jim Carrey is famous for. The whole thing beckons like a straight-up comedy from the wrapper, but the film's deep and thoughtful handling of the true story of Steven Russell and Phillip Morris makes Ficarra and Requa's film a highly enjoyable experience.


Steven Russell is a cop who does well and means well. On the surface, he is in a loving marriage with a religious wife who would make any Texan proud. But God wants him to come out, and so he does after a car accident forces him to reassess his life. He reveals to his wife that he is gay and he has been having affairs.  He moves to Miami, gets a boyfriend and starts living the sex-and-the-city life. However, as they mention in the film, being gay is expensive. Clever as he is, Steven beats the system with fraud and becomes a con man to get beautiful things for himself and his lover. All's well until finally he gets caught and put in jail. This may sound like the end of the story, but actually, it is just the beginning.


His time in jail brings love to his life when he meets Phillip Morris, and for love, he's ready to do anything. The following 80 minutes or so surprise, delight, depress and force the viewer into fits of laughter. This crazy, clever, romantic man does what he can to make sure they stay together despite circumstances and enjoy what life has to offer. It might just be the best romantic comedy for those who hate traditional romantic comedies as it is littered with dark themes that remind us we're watching a true story.


With his performance as Steven Russell, Jim Carrey once again proves he is an actor with range. The Carrey we watch is not the same one we've seen in any of his screwball comedies; it's closer to his performance in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. His trademark smile is still there, but his portrayal is inherently believable and convincing. Similarly, Ewan McGregor matches Carrey's performance with his wide eyes, naiveté, and Southern accent. The great performances of the leads are coupled with an astute script and effective editing that drives home the surprising tactics of this con man. At more than one occasion, I found myself as deceived as anyone else in the film. 


Overall, the film has the right amount of all things essential to make it a great film. This is one that shouldn't be missed so go buy your ticket!

Glorified, unimaginative monster bashing

Clash of the Titans (2010) - dir. Louis Leterrier - 2 stars


I must admit I wasn't expecting much to begin with when I went to see this remake of the 1981 classic, but even so, the film was underwhelming. Made in typical cash-cow style that dominates Hollywood remakes, the film pays too much attention to the action and graphics and not enough to the characters or the mythology. It's one of those films that assumes a certain viewership demographic and goes for it. As such, it is riddled with unimpressive acting and predictable dialogue. This is not to say it will not be successful financially, as there will be scores of people signing up to see the Kraken monster in 3D.

The story is based on Greek and Nordic mythology. In a time when humans start to rebel against Olympus, the Gods decide to teach their creations a lesson by unleashing a Titan that would set havoc on them. The plan is that the Gods will intervene and save the humans, which will inspire them to go back to their devout ways and pray to the Gods. The prayers are important as they keep the Gods immortal.  The twist in the story is that there is a demi-God among the humans named Perseus who has a personal score to settle with Hades. Hades, on the other hand, has his own agenda involving Zeus and the rest of the Olympians.  For vengeance, Perseus ends up traveling the ancient world killing one famous creature after another to destroy the Gods' plans, while Hades makes his underground agreements to get his dream. Still reading?  Good.

As you can tell, the story is actually quite elaborate, and considering the depth that exists in Greek mythology, it could have been turned into a fully-fledged fantasy world. There were some moments in the film where Leterrier obviously tried to emulate the Lord of the Rings feel cinematically, but overall, the film cannot create the sense of disbelief that Peter Jackson had so masterfully accomplished in his trilogy. Instead, Leterrier's attempt feels very unimaginative and canned. The monsters die as quickly as they appear with almost no backstory for any. Medusa didn't exist just to be slain by Perseus. She has her own story and it's a damn good one. In Leterrier's film, their stories are diminished into seconds and they just exist for the action sequences, which dominate the 106 minutes. Seeing these creatures get beheaded and killed with no justice to their story made me feel a bit sad. Furthermore, the film simply jumps from one monster to another with some heroic leadership speech thrown in the middle to give just enough incentive and need for the characters to go on. The script is obviously not a highlight for this film.

The attention to detail that should have been paid to the script has all been used for the graphics. The monsters are pristine and realistic in their 3D glory and the action sequences make the most of the technology. However, due to the aforementioned issues, the action sequences don't have much heart in them as the viewer doesn't care who or what is being killed. It's just a glorified monster bash.

To add insult to injury, the acting in the film is mediocre with a lot of stereotypical performances. Perseus (Sam Worthington of Avatar fame) is a meathead with heroism thrust upon him, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) is a bad God who apparently smokes a lot in Hell and has to bend to get places as one can tell from his osteoporosis, while Zeus (Liam Neeson) decides to wear full, glittering body armour in Olympus for some odd reason and speaks with a very low voice. Why doesn't anyone really think through what these Gods would live like up there and try to reinvent their world? It's boring to see these stereotypes even in 3D.

If all you'd like to see is some 3D popcorn film, by all means be my guest.  But if you're looking for something with a bit more thought put into it, avoid Clash of the Titans. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Carell-Fey duo needs a better script (or none!)

Date Night (2010) - dir. Shawn Levy - 3,5 stars

Never, ever, take someone else's restaurant reservation. One little white lie can take your life off the rails. That is pretty much the premise behind the new comedy from Levy. Starring the poster children of US comedy, Steve Carell and Tina Fey, the film has to satisfy a lot of expectations on the comedy front. It ends up as an enjoyable night out, but the action takes over from what could have been a funnier film given the improvisation geniuses involved.

Phil and Claire Foster (Carell and Fey respectively) live a quiet life in suburban New Jersey with their two kids. Their marriage seems boring, tiring and extremely ordinary; so ordinary in fact that they don't even remember their date nights - the nights without the kids - and even when they do, it feels like a chore. One of these date nights takes a wrong turn when Phil, in a desperate attempt to save his marriage, tries to take someone else's reservation for a romantic dinner. That lie propels their relationship into resolution; that is after they've been kicked, chased, shot at, among other things that include some extremely funny references to robot sex.

The action in the film takes centre stage with elaborate sequences that are thrilling. Long car chases follow breaking-and-entering, which definitely keeps the film going at a nice pace. However, this also means that the comedy is a bit dispersed so it never reaches a crescendo to sustain itself. This seems a bit endemic in Levy's films from the Pink Panther to Night at the Museum, where the comedy cannot sustain itself and relies heavily on action sequences.

Overall, Date Night is an enjoyable film with some good action and a few good laughs. It doesn't take any risks and plays on a tested-and-true Hollywood formula. However, with the Carell-Fey duo, I was expecting something better than Levy's other films. One thing that I'm sure of after seeing the film is that we'll see more from the duo as they're a good comedy couple. They work off of each other's energy and lines extremely well, which shows off in the small portions of the film where they were ad-libbing and improvising. If you want to see more, stay until the end of the credits and you'll be treated with some extra takes that are well worth it.

Burton Disappoints with Alice

Alice in Wonderland (2010) - dir. Tim Burton - 2 stars

Burton is a director with a very distinct view of things. He tends to show the beauty in some of the most unlikely characters, embrace the dark and review a new good within it. Some might say he is the Mad Hatter of the world of cinema. However, his latest is a disappointing experience. It is slow, boring, conventional and so not Burton. It seems Disney has pulled on the reins.

The story is loosely based on Lewis Carroll's famous work. I say loosely because the screenplay written by Linda Woolverton imagines Alice's return to Wonderland,

where pretty much only the characters remain intact

. Alice is now a teenager starting to show signs of puberty by way of trying to define her individuality. So, at the most opportune moment, the White Rabbit pulls her down the hole once again in an adventure where she will determine not only the destiny of Wonderland but also her own.

The Wonderland she returns to has been ravaged by war and left rotting. She's given the treatment of the savior, but she must first acknowledge it herself. Pretty standard fare, isn't it? Good work, Woolverton.

The story goes in starts and stops. At points, the action picks up but is not fueled enough to propel the viewer throughout the entire film. I felt a bit like Alice growing and shrinking again and again; it felt tiring. The dialogue also isn't very polished, as some of the most memorable characters of the story never get a good line. The focus is obviously on the Mad Hatter and the Red Queen, who have the best lines and scenes. On that note, both Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter live and breathe these characters. I cannot imagine someone else doing a better job. On the other side of the fence though, Anne Hathaway feels awkward and fake as the White Queen. She wants to be over the top for Burton but ends up out of place. Nicole Kidman would have made a better White Queen, especially since she's used to quirky stories from working with Baz Luhrmann.

Leaving the story and the acting aside, the set and costume design are fantastic. This is the one place where Burton seals the deal and delivers. Wonderland is brought back as a gothic forest complete with intriguing animals and insects. From the Red Queen's digitally-enlarged head to the Mad Hatter's green eyes, from Alice's pale skin to the creature animation, the visuals are wonderful.

The visual kudos cannot save this film though from what it is: a boring, conventional children's story; so not Burton. I especially cannot forgive how the Mad Hatter's charisma, built so meticulously by Depp, is completely destroyed towards the end with what might seem a harmless act. I cannot spill the beans completely here as there might be some of you still wanting to see the film even after reading this.

All in all, i

f I were the Red Queen, I would have said "Off with his head!"

Pretty, ain't it?

A Single Man (2009) - dir. Tom Ford - 4 stars

Tom Ford has an eye for beauty. In his directing debut, almost every shot is carefully designed in terms of mise-en-scène. Wong Kar Wai influences are abundant in the camera movements, the fleeting moments that seem to rise out of reach so fast like a red balloon. He is also lucky to have fine performances from his leads, Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. It all points to a fantastic debut, but the film is a little too slow and beautiful for its own good.

The film traces a day in the life of George, a silent, rather awkward, gay college professor during the America of the Cuban crisis who is going through his own personal crisis: his partner's death. The film makes copious use of flashbacks and voiceovers to reveal the entire story. Throughout the day, the subdued colors of his regular routine brighten up when he interacts with others who make him feel desired and alive again. This type of mood coloring works perfectly as it gives visual cues of George's unsettled feelings and uncertain future. In general though, color is used very effectively throughout the film along with every aspect of the visuals. Ford makes sure that his film is pretty to watch indeed, which unfortunately does become distracting. At more than a few occasions, I felt that the scene was almost too put together, the colors too perfect. I still haven't decided whether or not it was because I knew this was a fashion designer's film. Thank God the prettiness isn't skin-deep though. Colin Firth and Julianne Moore give incredible performances as both are best at the types of characters they play in A Single Man. It feels as if George was written for Firth to play. I'm not surprised that he won the BAFTA for best actor.

Finally, the film is decidedly conservative when it comes to its homosexuality. Yes, it is about a gay man directed by a gay man, but the film doesn't try to use sexuality as a reason for George's suffering. He is just like any other man and he grieves as such. His reaction to the events in his life are not due to his sexuality. I really liked this subtle treatment of the subject matter as it could have derailed the film completely.

One last thing: I really resisted while writing this review to not go into the debate that's been raging through the blogosphere, but I can't resist! "A film by Tom Ford." This phrase has been causing a lot of debate in film critic circles. How much of this film is Tom Ford's? Can he really claim that this is "a film by Tom Ford" considering it's his debut feature? Should it have simply read "directed by Tom Ford?" Are we now living in an age of self-proclaimed auteurs? An auteur by theory is defined by critics based on their body of work. Truffaut and Godard were auteurs as was Fellini. What signature is there in A Single Man that one can identify to be Tom Ford's? We have never seen a film by him before, so how are we expected to look out for that certain signature? I believe the designation is indeed premature, but I guess we'll have to wait and see if Ford can prove us all wrong.

All things aside, it is very obvious that Ford really wanted to make this film. He wrote the script along with Christopher Isherwood, financed, produced and directed it. I feel that regardless of the auteur theory, the man deserves some acknowledgment. But I don't want to go as far as to say he's an auteur, as I don't want to infer that if you've got the money, you can be an auteur nowadays.

Heaven has become so cliché

The Lovely Bones (2009) - dir. Peter Jackson - 3 stars

Jackson's latest is definitely not an epic film, which has been his forte. By contrast, it is a decidedly small drama with an ensemble cast that's as good as it gets. On top of that, Jackson's signature is obvious in the editing, the attention to detail and the special effects. However, the film doesn't necessarily bring anything fresh.

I'm not sure what attracted Jackson to this material. If he got attached to the project so he could project his version of purgatory and heaven, I must say I wasn't impressed. I have seen many fields of corn and Sound-of-Music-esque mountain ranges depicted as heaven before many times. His rendition also sometimes takes away from the drama that's unfolding. The story is quite powerful and emotional, but the special effects take over, which distances the viewer slightly.

Getting past its shortcomings though, the film features a superb ensemble cast. Stanley Tucci deserves his Oscar nomination as one of the most realistic and dreadful villains I have seen. Susan Sarandon is a breath of comedy in this dark tale and much appreciated indeed. Rachel Weisz also performs admirably as the mother who needs to cope with her loss while trying to keep her marriage together.

Finally, I must give credit to Jackson as a master at building tension. He has several scenes in the film that are so well directed, shot and edited, that I was at the edge of my seat. I must reveal that none of these scenes included any heaven shots though.

Cameron sets new record as Avatar claims highest grossing film ever

Avatar (2009) - dir. James Cameron - 4 stars

This is a film that was hailed as the dawn of a new type of cinema before it was even released. It created enough hype and speculation to rival an Apple product release (watch out on January 27!). I paid good money to experience this creation as it was meant to be. Off I went to the Odeon Leicester Square, put on my 3D glasses and got ready to be sucked into Pandora. I must say that I was amazed at what I saw, and I do agree that this film will change how science-fiction films are made and seen. However, I draw the line there. Despite its three dimensional presentation and (virtual?) reality, the characters are sadly two dimensional stereotypes and the story a revised version of Pocahontas. I guess Cameron thought that with enough 3D and bigger, meaner dragons, he could cover these shortcomings.

But I must not be so harsh. After all, Cameron has been dreaming up this film ever since he was a kid, and it shows. The detail that has gone into making Pandora a real, breathing world is evident. This is a complete world filled with herbivores, carnivores, insects, plants, you name it. It is so painstakingly created that it is real for all we know. There are many minutes in the film where the main purpose is to indulge the viewer in their new surroundings. These scenes would have normally been considered unnecessary, but in Avatar I thoroughly enjoyed them following the main character touch everything and gasp and giggle in amazement.

Unfortunately, the characters and the story don't feel so real3D. All of the characters are basic stereotypes, from your evil corporate head to the good scientist. No one has any twist in their story and they all act as expected. Cameron probably assumed viewers would not require such character depth given that the story is a very common one. I'm actually most surprised and disappointed with the story overall. It is basically the story of Pocahontas or the genocide of the native Americans by the colonists. The only uniqueness of Avatar is that the ending is different from either. Everything else feels as if Cameron took the Pocahontas script and put it on Pandora instead of America with some explosions for good measure.

Overall, I feel like Avatar was really an experiment for the movie industry to see if the experience could be made worth it so as to draw the crowds into the movie theatres instead of pirating copies to watch at home. With its recent position as the highest grossing film ever made in history, I'm sure we'll see more films like Avatar grace our local screens and that Hollywood is a fan. My skepticism aside, Avatar is worth seeing because despite its shortcomings and its very long running time, it engrosses the viewer in a completely new world, which is why it deserves four stars. I do not doubt that this will be the medium in which we see science-fiction going forward, but traditional film making is not over yet. After all, 3D is just make-up.

Humanity at Stake: Are we really capable?

The Road (2009) - dir. John Hillcoat - 4 stars

What distinguishes Hillcoat's gripping tale from other post-apocalyptic films is his focus on the realistic issues that humanity would face in such a situation raising questions on the ideals of humanity and human nature. What part of humanity do we expect to last in a situation where the world is ending and everyone's out for their own survival? Would we join the cannibalistic herds or retain our sense of humanity no matter what price we pay? Hillcoat dissects these questions in several layers and reveals that we are as human as the choices we make. His revelation is even more noteworthy considering the film mostly relies on focused acting and beautiful yet solemn cinematography.

The characters in the film do not have names. They're simply cast as Man, Boy, and Woman, as names don't really matter in post-apocalyptic tales. Everyone is the same, just flesh and blood. In this particular tale, the Man and Boy try to fend for themselves in the resulting cold and ash. Their main purpose is to make it south to a warmer climate, but they have no idea what awaits them there or what they would do next once and if they arrive. With this purpose in mind, the Man and Boy scavenge for food and avoid the cannibals on their way south.

Yes, that's right. In Hillcoat's tale, the majority of the human population turns cannibalistic in the absence of food. These herds hunt together like animals but still seem to have a certain air of modernity and civilisation about them. They live in houses and still eat from plates. Moreover, they have access to whatever technology that's left behind. The Man and Boy, on the other hand, are dirty and live in the wild with nothing but a pistol with two bullets and a rusty shopping cart. They eat insects and whatever else they can find. They're physically portrayed as animals, but it's this conflicting depiction that grabs the viewer's attention. The co-existence of civilisation and cannibalism really challenges our current understanding of what it means to be civilised and raises the question: do we have to be civilised to be human?

To answer that, we need to examine how we define ourselves. Humans have traditionally defined themselves and civilisation for that matter in relation to their superiority over animals, which includes technology, and their success at resisting animal instincts. It's this relative definition that gives us a proud sense of who we are, but the danger lies herein. Relative definitions are not stable especially when the surrounding environment changes, and technology may be used for good or evil. What becomes acceptable may change if the relative point changes. It's really in these moments when people find who they really are. They may break under the pressure or they may still be proud and do whatever's humane and dignified. This central choice frames Hillcoat's film, which deserves to be seen.

Despite being a little slow at times, the film is blessed with great acting from Viggo Mortensen and Kodi Smit-McPhee. The father-and-son pair garner instant sympathy and we take on their journey seriously. Thanks to Hillcoat's realistic approach and the non-existence of unnecessary visuals, their plight is made real, landing sci-fi material safely in drama space.