hunger (2008)

steve mcqueen meant a lot to me as a young art student. his work was much more accessible to the eyes of someone who held godard in as high a regard as an artiste like klimt, and especially stood out when compared to the late nineties round of british enfant terribles, a group with whom i just couldnt relate. it was with great pleasure that i left "hunger", an oxymoron if ever there was one, and perhaps not the right word.

as mentioned elsewhere, the way in which mcqueen brings european sentimentalities to a british film production is inspired, with the complete picture bringing together a largely unique final piece, especially for a film that was a borderline commercially successful product. visually the film reminds of bruno dumont, with his stark yet epic visuals that draw upon bringing the beautiful out of the less than average.

german actor michael fassbender is the closest thing the film has to a "star", asbobby sands, and charts the hunger strikes that lend themselves to the films title. fassbender is outstanding, going to the lengths of suffering for one's role that would impress even de niro. while the after thought of the film is all but concerned with the plight of bobby sands its easy to forget that sands doesnt appear until the films second act. much of the lead into the film revolves between that of a young inmate arriving at the maze prison, and the story of one of the prison guards. the story of the prison guard has an especially interesting body, showing that the film isnt completely one sided and unfairly sympathetic towards the other side.

the success of the film has been a great indication as to the quality of films that audiences are seeking out in britain at the moment, its taken me by surprise actually, but is no doubt a great thing.

jamaica inn (1939)

while the opening scenes of the film impressed and charles laughton's performance was the usual combination of bombast and emotional believability, the rest of this early example of hitchcock's british period failed to work for this viewer. the storming of a capsized ship could have come straight from a silent film, so well constructed was the section in a visual sense, but soon after i found myself in a uniue situation thus far associated with hitchcock; i was struck down with boredom. the "twist" is seen coming from a mile away, with its revelation coming so early on that i actually thought the third act was in full swing. disappointing to say the least, the premise really hooked me, yet the execution failed terribly.

frenzy (1972)

this is the most modern hitchcock film that i have watched of late, with it actually being his penultimate picture. the relaxation of censorship laws between the 1960's and 1970's is displayed incredibly well in the difference between "frenzy" and hitchcock's own "psycho", a film which saw release some 12 years earlier in 1960. both films are examinations of sexual-based slayings, yet the later film is much more provocative in its visual language. theres the famous old misconception that in the infamous "psycho" shower scene there are brief glimpses of a breast and an entrance wound, which is rather funny consider the nature of the graphic murder sequences in "frenzy" (in which there are several breasts on show).

hitchcock's return to his homeland is marked by a momentous opening shot, soundtracked by an equally huge score. london is very much a character in "fenzy", much in the same way that san francisco is in "vertigo". the camera work is beautiful, especially significant considering the challenges of filmmaking in such high profile locations as covent garden. the most impressive moment comes at the point were the character of 'babs' goes into the bedsit with the killer. the pullaway shot, leaving the dank house and ending on the street outside is very impressive, especially with traffic and people flowing between the camera and source.

to be perfectly honest i found "frenzy" to be too much hard work, it actually took me several none-starts to get through the whole thing. and while its ambition is great it lacks the heart and downright style of hitchcock's earlier work.

slumdog millionaire (2009)

danny boyle is a filmmaker i have never really been able to let myself get to excited about. dont get me wrong, i think hes made some genuine modern classics, with "trainspotting" an obvious gem (and a milestone in british cinema), "28 days later" the reinvigoration that its particular genre definately needed, and my personal favourite, his most recent film "sunshine". the quality of his work isnt the reason that he fails to excite me, its the lack of a distinctive style to his work that maintains that i cant follow him closely enough to be a fan. for example, i know what to expect with a filmmaker like martin scorsese, who has prevailing themes and an incredibly personal look throughout all of his work, meaning that films as diverse as "the last temptation of cgrist" and "raging bull" are both obviously the work of the same artiste, whereas with boyle i dont.

in spite of this i had slowly been garnering excitement with regards to "slumdog millionaire". the press have praised the film en masse, and the general consensus claiming it worthy of this years best picture oscar, so obviously my interest was there. im happy to report that i enjoyed the film immensely. it flowed perfectly throughout its two hour run time, the film looked incredible, with mumbai making for one of the most interesting location "characters" in recent memory, and the cast all put in amazing performances, with special note being made of the younger children (made all the more impressive after learning that only two of the performances are by actual professionals). the one thing that impressed beyond all else was the joyful nature of the film, which is especially striking when the dark tone of the material is taken into account; rape, prostitution, murder, infant coercion and more are explored, yet still the end result is that of overwhelming joy.

i have decided to edit this entry in the knowledge that "slumdog millionaire" last night won the golden globe for best picture, best directo, best score and best adapted screenplay. i was watching the ceremony live, and cant think of a more apt winner. everyone seemed so overwhelmingly happy about winning, and excited just to be there. i cant help but think that the scenes referred to in india, where everybody involved in the film was apparently gathered watching, would have been similiar to the scenes at the end of the film. a deserved winner.

withnail & i (1987)

bruce robinson's finest moment "withnail & i" still stands up, over 20 years after its initial release. richard e grant gives a career best performance as the thespian libertine, made all the more impressive when one realises that grant himself is actually tee-total, with paul mcgann enchanting as the eponymous "i".

in bruges (2008)

i picked this up as a case of light entertainment post-changeling, and while i didnt expect much, it really impressed. it also contains possibly the finest joke heard in a fim this year, in the shape of -

"what is belgium famous for?" chocolate and child murderers, and they only made the chocolate to attract the children."

or something along those lines.

blow up (1966)

my first experience with antonioni proved a great one (inspiring the decision to pick up his "the passenger" and "red desert" off of the back of this successful viewing!). a filmmaker that i had never been greatly attracted to, antonioni has always alluded me in the past, with blow up long being criminally ignored as i was under the impression that it was simply a product of "the swinging sixties", a period of time i find to be incredibly embaressing (witness the finale of 'carry on camping' for my reasons as to this conclusion).

david hemmings plays a hip young photographer, who MAY have accidently photographed a murder in a park. as to whether or not this is true its never literally revealed, although im inclined to agree with the metaphor carried at the end of the film (that 'you can see what you want to see, even if it doesnt exist' being the message).

for a film prided on its score, and considering the cultural impact of music at the time of the films production, blow up is a very quiet film. entire chunks of the film carry no sound whatsoever, before crashing into the following scene with oral hell, in what are chaotic and loud scenes. the pacing of the film is beautiful. its a bit of a cliche, but blow up is one of those films that you simply dont want to end. i found the world encapsulated totally believable, in a fantastical sense, and felt like i could watch david hemmings break down emotionally all day long! now if that isnt a compliment...

goldeneye (1995)

the second in my bond season of sorts, goldeneye, was the one that was most anticipated by myself. like most of the series i hadnt seen the film prior to this screening, aside from the occasional section here and there, but was aware of the tone of the film.

the pre-title sequence was perfect. in fact i wouldnt hesitate to presume that there isnt an opening sequence quite as good. at some point in the future i'll explore the concept of the pre-title sequence, alas it is practically eleven thirty and i have another review to write tonight!

sean bean as borderline-generic bond villain number 314 is a charm too, easily the most effective of the villains iv seen so far, and the strongest element of the film. the concept of a rogue double-O agent is presumably the injection of originality that the series needed, although my relative lack of knowledge of bond etc means that i cant be sure of this. as a concept alone tho, it is fairly post-modern, and definately telling of the time it was produced. theres a part of me that cant help but feel that this film was actually a much more successful attempt at relaunching the bond series than casino royale was. the tone and charm of the series was retained, without neglecting the areas that casino royale arguably did. casino royale was a much more successful film and an all-round better picture, but as a james bond film, goldeneye was the greater success.

goldfinger (1964)

with the release of ''quantum of solace'' now just under a week away the decision has been made to trawl through a bit of mr. bond's back catalogue. aside from the obligatory bank holiday semi-viewings with my father i have little history with 007. despite the fact that the decision to pick up all of the films in the last round of the annual "buy bond - get bond free" offer was made, i only managed two films (''moonraker'' and ''you only live twice''), after realising half way through the second film watched ("you only live twice") that bond films really werent my thing, the dated views on certain topics being the main culprit to our lack of connection. anyway, since then i have seen casino royale, enjoyed casino royale and as a result of casino royale decided to give him another chance.

first up is goldfinger, one of the archetypal bond flicks. aside from the disturbing use of women as shields, and occasional punchbags, i managed to get through goldfinger and enjoy it very much. the ending was fairly anti-climactic and i don think i will ever really get on with sean connery, but nonetheless it was a rather painless experience. and the theme has remained in my head ever since.

next up goldeneye.