Film review: Absentia (released 2011)

When you think of indie horror films your mind might end up wandering to either one of two places. One could be an artful horror thought-piece like the legendary Vertigo (1958) directed by Alfred Hitchcock where the budget is larger than one would expect for a film like this and where the definition of 'indie' is generally a bit stretched. And secondly, your mind could end up conjuring up thoughts of films that use their smaller budgets to their advantage by allowing simplicity and use of camerawork to enhance the atmosphere.

This is where today's topic, the 2011 release Absentia comes in. And where it nearly wastes the oppourtunity to make its simplicity and interesting camerawork enhance the film to the fullest extent.

Image source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1610996/mediaviewer/rm1922807552?ref_=tt_ov_i

Now let me just say that this is not necessarily a bad film.  It could have been so much better and is generally let down by some flat performances in certain scenes and bizarre plotting towards the end of the film. BUT, it and the filmmakers try their damned hardest to make a truly great horror/thriller. I always prefer a film to fail ironically while being unironically serious wether it turns into a befuddled mess like this film or becomes an unintentional comedic masterpiece like Manos: The Hands of Fate  (1966). If you have a film that is just straight up bad and aware of it while trying to do nothing to at least try and be good or change certain things, you just end up feeling drained and bored.  Wether Absentia turned into a comedy or not because of its failings, I still would admire it for its artistic vision and interesting concepts both in cinematography and plot.

The cinematography, I personally feel, is this film's strongest aspect. Whereas many indie or low-budget horror films would simply rely on shot-reverse shot or close-up camerawork to convey scares, Absentia rarely relies on this kind of filmmaking unless it ABSOLUTLEY has to. Many of the scenes where a particular mood is being set are shot from the back so that we get an impression of the character being framed is going though a thought process on how to approach the situation that they are faced with. Its a bit difficult to describe more than that, but, for most of the film, you feel like you're watching what is going on screen along with the character being framed in the scene. As a result, even in some of the more dour and less-interesting scenes, the mood is enhanced by pretty damn solid cinematography.

Another area where the film might not be as strong, but still deserves praise, is its plot. Despite my misgivings, the concept of the plot at least is a thoroughly engrossing draw. Tricia (played by Courtney Bell) has been living in her house for 5 years debating on wether or not to declare her long-missing husband Daniel (played by Morgan Peter Brown) dead while also coming to terms with her own pregnancy and the possibility of moving out. Just as she decides to follow through with signing off the paperwork for both of these big decisions, Tricia's former drug-addict sister Callie (played by Catherine Parker) comes to stay and help her through moving house and the emotions of declaring Daniel dead. But, just as this and the romancing advances of Detective Mallory (played by Dave Levine) begin to develop, mysterious incidents start popping up around Callie and Tricia in ways that reveal a great deal about their flaws. This sounds like the perfect plot for a narrative threaded together with plot twists and intrigue and, for the most part, that is the case. However, towards the end of the film, this aspect of the whole feature goes and craps its breeches.

If there was one major criticism I could levy at the film, it would be the thoroughly disappointing ending/third act where any semblance of realism or mystique goes out the window for some baffling exposition. The moment when the film has a metaphorical stroke is when Callie breaks character from being a nervous but steady-headed quizzical woman of faith into being a raving nutcase when she reels off some crazy theory about the walk tunnel near Tricia's house. A theory that, despite lack of real evidence, Callie and the film treat absolutely seriously without questioning it despite her sources all being alternative and minor news websites. This moment is sandwiched by insane moments that contradict the theme and style of the film where visions of monsters haunting Tricia's neighbourhood are revealed to possibly be real and not just the understandable hangover hallucinations from when Callie still abused heroin. From here on out towards the end of the film, the whole feature just forgets what its been building up and shits the bed and in turn becomes a most generic thriller in the third act. Aside from a genuinely haunting last couple of scenes, the final act of Absentia is definitely the movie's weak link.

But is this damming enough to make the film a bad one? In terms of its finish; yes. In terms of the film overall?; a little bit but this shouldn't downplay the other qualities that Absentia has on offer. Like I said above, the cinematography is great as is the writing and plotting for the first 75% or so of the film. On top of this, in combination with the camerawork, the music/soundtrack helps enhance the ethos and theme of many scenes to a fantastic extent as does the performances of Morgan Peter Brown and Catherine Parker who are the two powerhouse performers amongst the cast. However, the lack of a quality final act is still galling and really drags the film down, had this not been the case I would have said Absentia was the best horror film of 2011.

Direction: 7/10
Writing: 6.5/10
Camerawork/cinematography: 9.5/10
Plot: 4.75/10
Acting: 6.85/10

Personal enjoyment: 6.25/10

TV first impressions #1: Hannibal (2013-2015)

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-tv-series/images/34599546/title/hannibal-lecter-wallpaper

As with the last few reviews of films on this blog, many thanks to the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for giving me the opportunity to see this TV show for the first time.

I just wish I could give the same level of thanks to the makers of the 2013 horror/thriller TV series Hannibal for the quality of their project's final form.  This isn't to say that Hannibal is a bad TV show but I feel that it is pretty dull a lot of the time and has a lot of unfulfilled potential.  Now there are a few good points about this show from the first few episodes, so I'll try as best as I can to give them due credit.

First off, I have to give massive credit to Mads Mikkelsen for this inexplicably Danish but nonetheless highly impressive performance as a young Dr Hannibal Lecter.  While his performance as the iconic horror character is somewhat more restrained than that of Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Mikkelsen's performance still resonates buckets of charisma and heavy atmosphere.  When he slowly and smoothly walks into the scene, you can feel that something drastic or haunting is about to occur.  Even when your boy Hannibal is just making someone breakfast in this show he reeks of subtle and deeply psychological threat.  Mikkelsen combines this with a greater emphasis on having a hauntingly stony-faced persona than how Hopkins relied on portraying a highly-intelligent but nearly-at-the-breaking-point persona in the 1991 movie.  If it wasn't for Hopkins performances in both Silence of the Lambs and the 2001 movie Hannibal then Mikkelsen's performance as the eponymous Dr Hannibal Lecter would be the very best in the series.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/hannibal-lecter-tv-show-quotes/

The other main aspects I have to give credit to is the sound design and soundtrack.  The soundtrack does not have a great many memorable tunes but it does its job of amplifying the mood of a certain scene admirably.  Where the series might have a scene that is lacking to, for example, have an atmosphere of tension, the soundtrack for the most part helps amplify this purpose and elevate otherwise lacklustre scenes to being genuinely entertaining.  This is in no small part also helped along by the equally solid sound design.  Admittedly, I feel this is an aspect of the show that may go over people's heads as it did certainly mine before I had some time to think about the first few episodes.  However, it is undeniable that the atmosphere of a horror show or film rests heavily on good sound design.  Granted, this is to different extents depending on what kind of horror we are looking at but the aim and purpose of sound design in horror or thriller films and shows is all the same.  And, fortunately for Hannibal, the show has top-notch sound design that really brings out the best in the most intense and harrowing scenes which really helps with some of the more visually and vocally dull moments.

This dullness unfortunately is something that seems to pop up during the first few episodes a fair bit.  I feel this is in large part down to three major issues I have with the first few episodes; the directing is uninspired for the most part, most of the actors are dull as dishwater and the dialogue is mostly grey and pretty boring.  

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-television-series/images/36351719/title/hannibal-tv-series-wallpaper

I do feel, at the very least, the less-egregious aspect of these three is the poor-quality direction which does a bad job of grabbing attention in the first few episodes of the show.  The direction might improve later on into the series but the interest of an audience in a TV show heavily relies on it making a deep and lasting initial impact on the viewer.  And despite the best efforts of the director of the first few episodes, I just did not get such a feeling from this show at all.  Even with poor acting talent at hand and a lacklustre script, I firmly believe that a competent director can at least squeeze something entertaining out of such a conundrum.  However, the directing in the first few episodes has little such direction and thus fails to make itself entertaining be that in a genuine sense or being something that is 'so bad its good'.  In all honesty, I would take good-bad over what we got here but to be fair, the show is still generally competently made so I can't be too harsh on the directing.

What I feel that I definitely CAN be mean and nasty to though is some of the mostly horrendous acting which for me, has to be the worst aspect of the initial episodes of the show.  Despite the best efforts of Mikkelsen and Hugh Dancy to provide decent performances in their scenes, which I feel that both men definitely do, they are not above having some bad lines and this goes quadruple for the rest of the cast.  The rest of the cast in the initial run of the show are guilty being either uncharismatic as unbuttered Sainsbury's basic white loaf or skin gratingly annoying.  Most performances like Lawrence Fishburne, Brian Zeller or Hettienne Park are just simply good actors not performing at their best or at least not being given enough opportunity to do so.  But, the worst performance for me has to go to Lara Jean Chorostecki as thoroughly unpleasant reporter Freddie Lounds.  Now I'm not saying that a slimy, loose-on-morals undercover reporter character is out of place in a show like this and I think that Lounds could have been one of my favourite characters if Chorostecki did not play her as unlikeable as possible.  Plus, in fairness to her, this is not entirely down to her as she and the rest of the cast are given a bad script with uninspired direction.  But, I can't shake such a feeling about such an unappealing character as the performance itself really isn't good.

Image source: http://rockmyvegansocks.com/hannibal-the-vegan/

But perhaps the saddest aspect of this show to compare to previous entries into the Hannibal Lecter franchise is the lacklustre script and writing in general.  Even the poor-quality previous entries into this franchise have had some memorable lines but when you compare the 2013-2015 series to entries such as The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal (2001), you begin to realise that the dialogue in this entry is just not memorable enough to make any significant impact in the beginning.  This all adds up with the acting and directing to make a first few episodes that could grab the viewer by the nose and wrench them in but it falls so short of that supposedly easy task.

In conclusion, I wish I liked this TV show a lot more and its not like it doesn't have good things going for it.  In a way, I wish the series was given more effort into its first 2 to 5 episodes than into the style of the whole show or its advertising.  As a result, the show relies heavily on nostalgia, name recognition and a generally talented cast without focussing on the spine of what makes a good show; a good script, direction, acting and an immediately grabbing initial run.  Either these aspects are missing or are not prominent enough in Hannibal which isn't too much of a surprise that it only lasted a few dozen episodes over just under 3 years.  I kind of wish this wasn't the case but the show really is as sleep-inducing as Mads Mikkelsen's recent Carlsberg adverts.

Camerawork/cinematography: 6.5/10

Directing: 4.5/10

Acting: 4/10

Writing: 4.25/10

Soundtrack and sound design: 8.25/10

Overall rating: 27.5/50

New film review #25: Get out (Released 17th March in UK)

 

Image source: http://mikesslowroad.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/scary-movies.html

While I haven't seen a new film in a fair old while I feel now is as good a time as any to review this cinematic escapade directed and written by Jordan Peele that was released earlier this year.  I saw the beginning of this film at the most recent meeting of the Sussex sci-fi and horror society at which point I remembered that I had seen the film a couple of times recently.  Those couple of times sadly not being enough to leave enough of an impact on  me to remember the film all that much.

One of those times was on a flight back from holiday in the US and the other was recently when I was drunk and watching a bunch of films on streaming services with a bag of McDonalds cheese bites in hand.   Probably not the best scenarios to watch such an inventive film as this.  However, upon further reflection after viewing the first third of the film with the people at Sussex Uni I came to the sad conclusion that I just don't like this film a great deal.  Again, I need to reiterate, this may be because of what the circumstances were in which I saw the film but I can't help how I feel about it.

And this is unfortunate considering what a talented and attractive cast we have on hand here.  Daniel Kaluuya's turn as main protagonist Chris is one of the most endearing turns as a main character to come out of a new release this year or in 2016.  Other standout performances include Bradley Whitford as a mysterious and somewhat unsuspecting father figure, Betty Gabriel as a strangely repressed individual who looks like she's about to crack in every shot or Allison Williams playing Chris' girlfriend Rose.  However, an inventive setting for a horror/thriller film and a talented cast cannot save a film if it is not well executed or delivered.

And while Peele clearly cares about his craft and puts his all into the writing and directing of this film it just comes off as a bit clunky.  Now this isn't to say that I do not think he can write or direct well but this isn't the best example of his talents in this area.  I do personally prefer his comedic talents when he's acting off of his buddy Keele on the TV.  But in all fairness, I do think there is still plenty of time and space for improvement in his cinematic writing and directing.  Actually, one of the stranger examples of the writing and directing not always being on point in Get Out is Lil Rel Howery as the comedic best friend sidekick to Chris named Rod.   Rod isn't the most positive impact of a character in the film because his light-hearted comedy does not gel well with the dark tones of the horror scenes.  Now this isn't to say that a comedic character contrasting against dark tones and imagery can't be done well or at all but the mark was missed by some distance here.  When we get the comedic scenes as compared to the horror counterparts throughout the film, it feels like Peele is making horror film and a comedy short at the same time but mashing them together without any proper unity.  The horror is good and the comedy, while not great, is still decent but they are just not well put together both individually or in combination.

If there is anything to say about the plot its that it may be the best thought-out part of the film, at least in concept.  If anything, I would recommend seeing this film for its creative narrative.  While the majority of the individual aspects constituting this film are not all that well combined together, the narrative is the one main constant that keeps the spine of the movie glued together.  I'll leave most of it to you lot to find out for yourself for when you come to watch the film (if you choose to of course) but I would recommend reading one or two synopsis about Get Out to at least get a good sense of what you're in for going into this experience.  To put it briefly though, Chris is going with his girlfriend out into the countryside to meet her family and parents in particular but out intrepid young hero starts noticing strange behaviour among the helpers and housekeepers of the local estate.  With his mind wandering to suspicious horizons, Chris must figure out if he is under threat and if he is, how much time does he have to realise to what extent he is in danger?  A great setup to be sure, and one that is, at the very least, interesting to study.

To conclude, Get Out has one of the most creative narratives of any film released this year but its let down by a great deal of unrealised potential and unbalanced execution.  There is a lot of talent on show here, especially in regards to the lighting, acting and sound design but most of the individual aspects, as good as they are, aren't cohesive enough.  The film isn't flat out bad though and like I said above, the acting in many cases is genuinely really good.  Add to this the aforementioned cool concept of a story, atmospheric lighting and sound design and you have a decently tense thriller.  At least the film succeeds in that regard.


Camerawork/cinematography: 7.5/10
Directing: 4.75/10
Writing: 4.5/10
Acting: 8/10
Concept/narrative: 8.5/10

Overall rating: 33.25/50

Old film review #10: John Carpenter's The Thing (Released 1982)

Image source: https://vicsmovieden.com/2014/10/09/john-carpenters-the-thing-1982-lobby-cards/

Hey ladies and gentlemen!  Sorry about the lateness of this most recent film review but now is as good a time as any to release it considering its a bit late eh?  Kind of what happened between each version of this legendary film (The original The Thing being released in 1951, this one in 1982 and the 2nd remake coming in 2011).

Once again, as with the last film review on this blog, thanks a great deal to the University of Sussex sci-fi and horror society for giving me the chance to see this cinematic cult classic for the first time.

As with the 1951 original and the 2011 remake, John Carpenter's The Thing has a nicely simplistic plot that is delivered with gusto and skill, supplemented by a witty script and superb acting.  I mean...less so in the case of the 2011 remake because that one was about as disappointing as getting a book you've already got for Christmas.  But thankfully, the tone, story and narrative of this 1982 version is much more similar, in a good way, to that of the 1951 black and white classic. 

And speaking of that plot;  An observation team from the USA are holed up in their secluded but strangely cosy arctic observation post out in the arctic tundra when their duties and quiet are savagely and terrifyingly interrupted by an acid-spitting and shape shifting alien that picks off the crew one by one while disguising itself in order to spread chaos and allow itself to continue killing our heroes.   A simple plot to be sure and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

However, in order to make the plot not be an overly-simplistic dud, a story this simplistic would require at least a few aspects to be delivered to such a high level of quality and creativity that over-simplicity is either overshadowed or not a problem in the narrative.  Fortunately, that is something which is present in the final product of this movie in spades.  It is clear that legendary director John Carpenter knew what he was doing with this remake of the 1951 original The Thing From Another World and took some steps to learn from the pros and cons of that film.  Because of this, while Carpenter's 1982 version may lack the same level of regal class and iconic influence as the original, it supplements this vacancy with a witter script, generally less wooden directing and dialogue.  And not to forget, an ending that arguably trumps that of Christian Nyby's and Howard Hawks' original.  An ending that, I believe, is possibly among the very cream of the crop when it comes to tense and ambiguous endings to either horror or thriller movies.

Image source: https://www.tumblr.com/search/richard%20a.%20dysart

And that ending isn't just a random gem in the film, its given a good foundation to base itself upon thanks to the sense of horror and tension throughout the film that is in no small part helped by the legendary practical effects of this movie.  If you are going to look into or study the history and art of practical effects in movies, this film must come up at some point because its ability to make you feel fear with expansive and gruesome models and practical gore is sublime.  The models and make up used to portray the gore are rightfully regarded as some of the best of the 20th century, especially the 1980s, and even more so considering the film's very minimal use of special effects.  The effectiveness of the models and make up is given even more effective muscle to work with because of how the colours of blood, gore and deformed corpses stands out against the white background of Antartica.  Add to this some scenes where the reveal of plot twists and horribly deformed corpses is hidden by mist, steam or smoke and you have a scenario where the practical effects are given as much of a chance to enhance Carpenter's theme of isolation, mystery, tension and gut-wrenching surprises.

Image source: http://www.theaceblackblog.com/2012/05/movie-review-thing-1982.html

Perhaps the other aspect of the film that could rival the direction, script and practical effects in terms of enhancing the themes of the film is the talented cast on show.  A cast that easily has its jewel in the crown being a top-of-his-game Kurt Russell.  With a cast brimming with talent like Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David and Donald Moffat among several other big names, it'd be suprising if such a talented cast was not able to at least produce a competent collective performance.  Granted this can happen sometimes with certain films depending on circumstance, timing and poor directing or scripts. Thankfully, and once again in part thanks to Carpenter's top-class directing, we have a highly talented cast that are directed to the best of their capabilities and all supplemented by a script that fantastically slips from darkly witty to nail-bitingly tense.  Kurt Russell really is the star of the show though.  This isn't too surprising considering how talented the man is.  But, considering that he's just one man in a case of highly-respected and talented actors, some of whom, at the time, had far more experience, is a testament to how impressive his performance in this cinematic classic is.  His mixture of empathetic and ruggedly tough is a real trademark of Russell's acting, especially during the 1980s, but there is possibly no other greater example of this, at least outside of the Snake Plissken films, than John Carpenter's The Thing.

Image source: https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/1091-the-thing/images/backdrops

To conclude, this is one of the greatest films of the 1980s and was able to make itself a cult classic very quickly despite being released in a year that was stacked with fantastic films being released.  There are a few weaknesses like how one or two instances of practical effects show their age and how not all of the dialogue really works but the pros far outweigh the cons in this case.  Furthermore, if you do not like horror or thriller films, I still recommend looking into how this film was made as that in of itself is an interesting tale of skill and creativity.  On top of this, I would still recommend seeing the film just for its star-studded cast and high-quality acting performances by everyone on board for the vast majority of the film's running time.  And hey, if you want any other reason to see this film I can think of a real golden one.  A BEARDED KURT RUSSELL FIGHTING A SHAPE-SHIFTING ALIEN WITH A FLAME THROWER.  Now THAT, is just one very big reason why I love action and thriller films from the 1980s.

Camerawork/Cinematography: 6.5/10

Directing: 8/10

Writing/script: 7/10

Acting: 8.15/10

Practical and special effects: 9/10

Overall rating: 38.65/50

Old film review #9: The Silence of the Lambs (Released 1991)

Image source: http://www.goldposter.com/9168/

Before we get into proceedings I would once again like to do as I did with the last film review on this here blog.  Many thanks to the University of Sussex Horror and Sci-fi society for giving me the opportunity to see this film because I had never seen The Silence of the Lambs before this past Monday. 

Through some source of media or another, many of you by this point may have been exposed to pop-culture references to this 1991 cinematic thriller/horror/psychological classic.  Especially considering that as of this review,  the film has now been out for 26 years.  When you think about it, the movie has had plenty of time to expose its wide reach to the masses.  Something that the main character does in regards to their mental psyche and emotions.

Image source: https://thesouloftheplot.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/the-silence-of-the-lambs/

The main character I am referring to of course being Jodie Foster's career-making turn as trainee FBI investigator Clarice Starling.  Now it is true that Foster's truly big first break in film was with her teenage powerhouse performance in Taxi Driver (1976), but I personally feel that her wide range of acting talents is no better shown than in The Silence of the Lambs.  Simply put, this cinematic classic contains what is easily the best performance in Foster's career to date.  Well...at least that's my takeaway from it.  But really though, Foster really makes Clarice a convincing character in both a realistic as well as cinematic manner.  The dramatization of a trainee FBI investigator being thrust into a dangerous investigation and unwanted limelight from the media is portrayed superbly by Foster who shows Clarice to be a real go-getter but also prone to mistakes and the adversities of inexperience.  A cinematically enthralling but ultimately relatable and realistic character representation.  In turn, Foster also shows a more human side of Clarice's character by portraying her role as determined and fatalistic in one sense while also being considerate, kind and rational in the other.  I think most people want to see themselves as a good balance of reasonable and determined and combined with a cinematically dramatic setting.  Because of this, I felt genuinely concerned when Starling would do something that puts her life or job in jeopardy because it seemed all the more believable thanks toJodie Foster's performance.  A scenario that happens in agonisingly tense detail in the film's climactic showdown between Clarice and the maniacal serial killer 'Buffalo Bill'.

This performance is so resonant and good that I feel there is only one performance in the film that matches or surpasses it.

Image source: http://picphotos.net/silence-of-the-lambs/

That other standout performance being the great Anthony Hopkins' turn as iconic film villain Hannibal Lecter.  Its no secret from the previous entries into this franchise, both book and film, that Lecter is a sneaky, slimy and manipulative butcher who adores toying with the emotions of both his victims and even those who end up helping him.  His cannibalistic tendencies being the amalgamation of his more psychotic side. But what I feel is sometimes underappreciated, and something that neither Hopkins or the makers of this film miss thankfully, is Dr Lecter's intellectual streak which gives him his psychological supremacy over most if not all of his adversaries.  Hopkins has this aspect of Dr Lecter's character nailed down to a T as his performance in this film, much like Jodie Foster's, is easily the best of his career to this date.  In a long career which includes many marvellous performances, again like Foster, I have to applaud Hopkins in getting every scrap of tension and cinematic quality out of his direction and script as possible through his performance.

Now this isn't to say these are the only good performances or that there is a marked amount of bad ones.  Even the weaker actors are still given room to flex their acting chops a bit thanks to the already-mentioned high-quality directing on behalf of seasoned director Jonathan Demme who sadly passed away this April at the age of 73.  A good way to note Demme's legacy though would be to note his trademark use of steady-cam shots in close-ups particularly during scenes that are both quiet and dialogue-heavy.  There are scenes like this dotted throughout The Silence of the Lambs where they are used to magnificent effect for character building and exposition.  These are aspects of filmmaking which I've always implored that; if you do moments regarding these aspects of film, you have to do them well or else you risk losing the audience's attention.  Fortunately, in combination with the tense atmosphere throughout the film and a magnificent musical score, the camerawork really shows its quality through the steady-cam scenes as well as some more mobile scenes of intense action towards the end of the film.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/silence-of-the-lambs-quotes-fava-beans/

I suppose that I should talk about the plot a bit before wrapping things up and when thinking about it, I guess I should've done that after the introductory thank you line to the Horror & Sci-fi society.  However, as far as I can tell, the film's secrets and twists have been a tad spoiled by the immense mark of popularity that it left on pop-culture and cinema as a whole.  This is what I mean when I sometimes say that popularity is a double edged sword.  I really don't want to sound like a stuffy-minded hipster spoiling films for some ironic reason that amounts to me liking the sound of my own voice or saying that every film pre-1992 was better than anything post-2000 or so, instead I'm just saying that the more popular and mainstream something gets, the more unwieldy its influence and popularity gets.  Regardless of this waffle, I recommend you go into seeing this film with as little info as possible other than the briefest of summaries.  Clarice Starling is a trainee FBI agent who is tasked by her boss Jack Crawford (Played by Scott Glenn) with capturing the savage murderer 'Buffalo Bill' while bargaining with the caged criminal genius Dr Hannibal Lecter in order to get as much info on Bill in order to capture him before he kills again.  I could go into more detail and as lightweight as this sounds, I want you all to experience this film to the maximum for yourselves by going in blind.

Image source: http://www.pophorror.com/727-2/

In conclusion, The Silence of the Lambs is possibly the best film of 1991, easily amongst my top 10 favourite films of the 1990s and is definitely ranked up with my top 3 psychological and horror thrillers ever made.  If you want to see how to do a suspenseful thriller properly with efficient use of all aspects of the film at hand, look no further than this nail-biting super-classic.

Cinematography/camerawork: 10/10

Directing: 9/10

Writing: 8.75/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Theme of suspense: 10/10

Overall rating: 46.25/50

New film review #13: Gravity

Many times in the past when I have reviewed films they have either had a small amount of plot development (see Man of Steel), a medium amount of plot development and character interactions (see Iron Man 3) or a sense of interaction between the main characters and their relevance to the plot that shapes the film as a whole (see Philomena).  What is refreshingly pleasing sometimes however is when a film comes along that proves that a film does not always have to possess s huge amount of inner context in order to be gripping and proves in turn to be not only gripping but also as enjoyable as a hot shepherds pie with a glass of mulled wine served to you on a starlit winter evening by Jennifer Connelly.  As you might have guessed from my slightly pretentious opening there, Gravity is a good film, a really good film.

Now as you might have gleaned, this jewel in an increasingly formulaic film industry has a simple, almost non-existent plot.  Weird right?  It surely isn't that often that we get films such as this where it grips us with virtually no context.  To give a synopsis (although you could recount the whole expanse of the plot broadly and it would still seem like a synopsis), Sandra Bullock plays the hard-working, strangely relateable and space-sick doctor Ryan Stone working on a NASA space shuttle as the chief medical officer of a mission led by the enigmatic and veteran astronaut commander Matt Kowalski (played in a humorous but compelling manner by George Cloony).  However, despite their routine schedule, the NASA team soon falls foul of a cloud of debris caused by a Russian satellite crashing into a series of other satellites that then causes a chain reaction which in turn produces a huge cloud of debris to crash into the NASA shuttle utterly destroying it and leaving only Kowalski and Stone alive.  The rest of the film then sees the two astronauts, with much of the action centred on Stone, cross from station to station through the use of improvised propulsion systems in the increasingly desperate, higher-stakes and nail-biting race to find a working space pod before the shrapnel storm turns them into space-frozen hamburger mince.

While the simplicity of the plot in a film can usually spell the death-knell of a film from the start as the title first appears on the screen, this film doesn't have that problem.  For starters, the action is as amazing as the idea of M Night Shyamalan ever making another good film after The Sixth Sense (1999) and Unbreakable (2000).  As the name would suggest, the driving force behind the action of the film's plot revolves around the tremendous force of gravity or a zero-gravity situation in space thereof and the dangers that can be found working in the great black sea above.  Therefore, when we see Bullock's character hurtling through the deep of space, we can see that it is merely timing and a little bit of ingenuity that is either going to get here to the next space station or turn her into a human comet.  Therefore, the action really makes you grip your seat and realise that there's a rim of seat on your seat when you stand up, as you and the main characters can clearly see that the smallest of errors in judgement of mathematics and timing could mean the difference between heroes being made, or the film ending early.  This is all propelled along, literally and figuratively, by the ever present threat of the shrapnel storm created by the destroyed satellites and other stations as Dr Stone desperately tries to make her way along the desperate path to safety.  The action might have some holes in it in terms of realism but regardless, the tension that it exhumes is very palpable and will compel you to have a whole bottle of spirits let alone a small glass in order to steady your nerves after the credits roll.

One other factor that drives the tensions to bone-chilling and back-sweating heights is the acting skills put on show by Sandra Bullock herself...wait...really?  How is this possible?  I thought Sandra Bullock's last several films were terrible and here acting skills in them were dreadful!  (for examples see Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997), The Proposal (2009) or The Blind Side (2009, man that was just not her year)).  Yet despite all the examples of Sandra Bullock putting on a lacklustre acting performance devoid of any real drive and believable emotion in many of her previous films (excluding the first Speed (1994)), her performance in this film is just about one of the most compelling, realistic and relateable showcases of human emotion and the limits thereof and of human psychological durability.  It's really surprising that Bullock's acting therefore, is one of the centrepiece factors that made this film so gripping and made it so much so that I really felt like I was in the space suit of the main character, living out their experience with my own eyes.

On top of this there are other people that must be congratulated on their work besides Bullock on her own astronomically brilliant performance (pun-abso-fucking-leoutley intended).  Firstly, Clooney himself makes the part of astronaut commander Kowalski really come to life and leap out of the screen by giving him a more enigmatic yet still believable performance as the film's joker and main centrepiece of can-do attitude when the aforementioned shrapnel storm strikes our main characters.  On top of this, I feel it is only necessary to heap well-deserved praise onto director Alfonso Cuaron  as his direction of the plot and action, actors and special effects is truly an exemplary performance in of itself and as an example of directing a film with little plot and still managing to make it still gripping and compelling and emotionally riveting as your first viewing of The Lion King (1994).  Subsequently, an equal amount of praise must also be heaped upon the special effects department in this production as they too have absolutely done a beyond-brilliant job of making the deepness of space and the movement of the characters through the black void thereof seem more realistic than much CGI which has appeared in other such films over the last 20 years.

In conclusion, Gravity is one hell of a ride both visually, audibly and even psychologically.  Not only is the acting, action and directing great, but the special effects really put you in the film and let you feel immersed in the experience. On top of this, Gravity is one of the few films that I will remember in time where it was necessary to be seen in cinemas in 3D.  No really!  It really works well when viewed in 3D and allows you an even more increased experience of feeling like you too are living out the events of the film alongside Bullock's intense bouts of panic as her character tries to survive, Clooney's odd search for vodka in space all culminating in what has to be the best thriller of the entire year.  Let's hope then that Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues can also step up to the mark as one of this young decade's greatest films.

Plot: 8.5/10
Action/set pieces: 9/10
Directing/special effects/camera work: 8/10
Acting/characters: 9/10

Overall: 34.5/40