The noughties have come to an end and we have every reason to be happy. Most importantly, there’s no need to use that non-word ever again, but also, a whole new decade of exciting cinema visits lies ahead of us. Who knows what we will be watching in June 2018? Die Hard 5: Die Hardest? Friends — The Movie? Or maybe Rocky VII: Adrian’s Revenge will grace our screens! The fact is, no one knows and as we are only one month into the new year, there is no harm in creating a little personal wish list for 2010 and the upcoming decade in general, right? The noughties (last time, I promise) have produced many talents and positive trends which we would definitely like to see more of, some things we aren’t yet too sure about and plenty of developments that we won’t mind not carrying over into the new decade. So here’s just a few thoughts.

Originality
This is perhaps the most important one. Looking at the fifteen most successful films of the last decade, one struggles to find a film other than Avatar that is not a remake, an adaptation or a prequel/sequel. It’s likely that this has contributed to Avatar’s immense success, yet Hollywood doesn’t like taking risks. A-List stars, formulaic narratives and happy endings have rarely failed Hollywood and as much as we like to believe that it’s all about making the best possible movies, let’s not forget that it’s a business, after all. However, eventually audiences will grow tired of watching the same film over and over again; or at least that’s what I’d like to believe. The success of Pixar’s original and innovative films — The Incredibles, Ratatouille, Wall-E and Up to name but a few — are just one set of examples which demonstrates that we are willing to enter unknown territory at our own risk every now and then when the rewards are so great.

New talents and old comebacks
J.J. Abrams and Judd Apatow epitomise a new ingenious and fearless generation of filmmakers that has emerged over the last decade. Although Abrams and Apatow have very different interests, they have a similar attitude to filmmaking. There is no fear of casting unknown talent (Apatow) or leaving audiences in the dark (Abrams) and this has proved to be both a huge success for them, and allowed us to discover something new and exciting. However, not everything positive in the past ten years has come exclusively from the fresh forces of Hollywood. Although Robert Downey Jr. is only two years older than Judd Apatow, he is a movie veteran compared to the man behind comedies such as The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Whereas Apatow represents the “new”, Downey Jr. symbolises rejuvenation. Few actors have made a comeback quite as remarkable as his. After years of substance abuse the last decade saw him make is return with films such as Good Night, and Good Luck, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Zodiac and Iron Man. Ever since, his career has been going uphill and we can look forward to even more great performances from the actor with the perfect comic timing. Coincidentally, his next film Iron Man 2 will see him face Mickey Rourke, another actor who celebrated his comeback recently, as the villain. A mouth-watering prospect.

3D
Despite the massive success of Avatar, it doesn’t seem like 3D has won over the hearts of the audiences quite yet. It’s still a bit odd to wear glasses to the cinema and a lot of the time 3D continues to be used as a gimmick which sits slightly uncomfortable with the viewer. However, there are spells in Avatar which hint at the great potential of 3D cinema and a lot can happen in 10 years. So let’s see what 3D can do even if it’s just so we realise, at the end of 2019, that in fact, everything is actually better in 2D.

International films
The past decade has been exceptionally good in terms of the quality of international films, and this has quickened our appetite for more. Films such as The Lives of Others, Pan’s Labyrinth, City of God, Oldboy and The White Ribbon are just a tiny fraction of the incredible amount of great films that have been produced all over the world in the last ten years. Even though international films only account for 3% of the market in the UK, they should not just be an alternative when Hollywood is going around in circles, as they are often far superior in terms of what they offer to the viewer. Unconventional characters, innovative storylines and controversy; international cinema makes up for the dose of originality we don’t get all too often from Hollywood films.

HBO
Not really cinema, but also not quite ordinary television, series such as Six Feet Under, The Sopranos and The Wire are among the very best drama we have seen in the last ten years; be it on the big screen or at home in front of the television. Originally broadcast by the American cable network HBO, these shows reinvented television drama; in terms of depth and quality, few television programmes can match the creative genius of the HBO writers. Needless to say, this is a personal opinion (I honestly understand if a person prefers to watch Coronation Street) but over the years, HBO’s programmes have produced impressive DVD sales and huge fan followings, which speak for their success. If you’re looking for inspiring high quality drama, look no further.

As we slowly but surely approach the 23rd James Bond movie, I feel like I have actually been part of this monumental franchise. Unlike with the Die Hard, Alien or Rocky series, I was able to see a significant number of the Bond films on the big screen despite my tender age. I was there when Martin Campbell resurrected Bond with Goldeneye, sat through the abysmal Die Another Day and was blown away when Campbell, once again, reinvented 007 in Casino Royale.

It was always going to be hard to follow Craig’s Bond debut, yet I found Quantum of Solace to be hugely frustrating. Nevertheless, I have high hopes for number 23. Firstly, because every Bond film is an entirely different project and I am generally very happy with the new direction taken by the franchise and secondly, because Sam Mendes is in talks to direct the whole thing.

Let’s face it, the experiment of Marc Forster directing Quantum of Solace didn’t really work out. It reminded me a bit of Ang Lee’s Hulk (in all fairness, Forster still did a much better job). However, Mendes — having successfully directed plays as well as films — is more versatile and experienced than Forster. Although to be fair to him, it wasn’t all his fault that Quantum of Solace disappointed.

The writers’ strike was threatening to stall the production so the script was rushed and much of the confusing action was the results of ultra fast-paced editing (a stage over which the director himself has little control). I am convinced everyone has learnt from their mistakes and the whole project should be given a new chance.

The first positive step has been taken by allowing a bit more time for the production and adding Peter Morgan (The Queen, Frost/Nixon, The Damned United) to the already impressive mix of talented screenwriters. I believe these are crucial improvements as the sloppy Quantum of Solace screenplay gave the whole project an almost unfinished touch.

In terms of directing, Sam Mendes has proven many times that he is great with stories and characters. Kevin Spacey’s performance in American Beauty or Michael Shannon’s hilariously unnerving portrayal of an extremely clever but psychologically troubled man in the underrated Revolutionary Road are among the very best of the past decade. If Mendes can get performances only half as powerful from Craig, Dench — both of whom he has previously worked with — and whoever will play the villain, we are in for a treat.

As for Mendes, he once said about his aspirations as a director: “I don’t want to be known for one thing”. Well, here’s an opportunity to make something very different. Please take it!

Here’s an interesting challenge: name an actor or actress with a spotless resume. Not so easy, eh? In my eyes, the only one who comes even close is John Cazale. All the films he has starred in received Best Picture Oscar nominations, including The Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon and The Deer Hunter. Then again, had he not died prematurely at the age of 43 who knows where his career would have taken him (I guess it’s the same case with James Dean).

Most of the usual suspects, however, have committed at least one or two severe cinematic crimes, either at the very early stages of their career (George Clooney in Return of the Killer Tomatoes) or with advanced age (I still have hope for you, but right now, I’m looking at you Robert De Niro). Nevertheless, the trend is that great performances outweigh bad ones. Do we think of Al Pacino as a bad actor because he stared in Bennifer’s nightmare of a film, Gigli? No, we think of him as Tony Montana, Michael Corleone or Serpico.

You might wonder where I’m going with this. Well, it occurred to me recently that this rule doesn’t really seem to apply to Nicolas Cage. There’s no doubt that he has been in some terrible, terrible films over the years, but what people tend to forget is that he is also an Oscar-winning actor with a special talent when it comes to portraying eccentric individuals in a strangely funny and touching way.

If a character is complex, flawed or simply mad, Nic Cage will deliver a great performance. If he takes on a stereotypical role, be it the slick hitman, a treasure hunter or a loving single father, you can most definitely expect a cringeworthy portrayal as well as a Razzie nomination (my favourite: the nomination for worst screen couple which Cage and his bear suit received for the Wicker Man remake in 2006). Maybe there is something autobiographical about his good performances. No offence, but don’t you find it easier to imagine Nic Cage having OCD (like his character in Matchstick Men) than him being an astrophysicist (Knowing)?

Perhaps it’s not a coincidence then that he delivered one of his best performances in Charlie Kaufman’s Adaptation. Cage’s double role portrayal as screenwriter Charlie Kaufman and his less talented twin brother Donald Kaufman actually had me convinced that they were uncannily similar to himself. One half of Nic Cage simply wants to be respected for his work, the other half frustratingly compromises it by making stupid action movies. I guess this isn’t an inconceivable thought, as Cage himself believes that “there’s a fine line between the method actor and the schizophrenic”. I can just imagine the two Cages battling over whether to take on the lead in Werner Herzog’s upcoming Bad Lieutenant or to give in to the temptation that is Ghost Rider 2. As long as both halves get their say, I will remain a happy man.

At this year’s Cannes film festival, the controversy surrounding Lars von Trier’s Antichrist came at the expense of Austrian director Michael Haneke, who won the Palme d’Or over von Trier for his latest film, The White Ribbon. Funnily enough, it is the controversy of Haneke’s films that have made him a regular nominee at the prestigious film festival. With the release of The White Ribbon approaching on November 13 I want to pay tribute to one of Europe’s greatest contemporary directors.

To anyone familiar with Haneke’s work, it is needless to say that there have been few violent acts that he has been afraid to show in the twenty years since his feature film debut. However, we are not talking the kind of gratuitous uber-violence à la Hostel here, but carefully placed moments of brutality that are often over before you can avert your eyes. The shorter the scene, the longer it lingers in your mind. Even after leaving the cinema.

In his most famous works, which include The Piano Teacher, Hidden and Funny Games, he predominantly investigates the origins of violence and terror whilst not shying away from depicting them in gruesome detail himself. He believes that through dumbed down violence in contemporary media we hardly notice it anymore; hence his extreme countermeasure.

Some critics have labelled Haneke a hypocrite for condemning the use of violence in the media whilst adding his fair share of it. However, he believes that one has to be honest when making films and if the reality of the issues that are tackled is a violent one, then so be it; there should be no compromises in order to please a greater audience. Whether people choose to see this as glamorizing violence or not, it has to be said that if his aim is to draw attention to the obscenity of reality, he succeeds without fail. Be it Isabelle Huppert’s genital mutilation in The Piano Teacher, the slashing of a throat in Hidden, or the slow-motion execution of a pig in Benny’s Video, the violence in Haneke’s films is daring and relentless, but what matters most to him is that we are always aware of it.

What lifts Haneke’s films into the territory of European cinema’s finest, however, is not just his distinct and overt way of examining the origins of violence but also his ability to find the perfect balance between an engaging story, artistry and wariness of elitism (often associated with arthouse films). There is a fine line between cinema where brutality and controversy serve a purpose (Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, for example) and films that provoke in order to make up for a lack of quality (Larry Clark’s Ken Park spring to mind). Haneke’s films belong to the former category, demonstrating that intelligent, provoking cinema is not a phenomenon of the past.

The film’s plot is generic (peaceful townsfolk turning into zombie-like creatures), the actors/actresses are B-List (Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell) and generally a great part of me felt entirely indifferent towards the film (did I mention it’s a remake?) However, another part of me became quite engaged with the second half of the trailer which was somehow different from its beginning.

The trailer starts with a slow build-up, reaches a temporary climax and then changes quite drastically. A slow song sets in over a montage of explosions, people running and general chaos. I suddenly caught myself enjoying a trailer to a film I was quite sure I didn’t want to see. The reason for that was not the quality of the footage but rather the quality of the song it uses to complement it. That song is Michael Andrews and Gary Jules’ version of Mad World, originally written by Tears for Fears.

“But hang on,” you might think, “hasn’t that song been used before in a much more fitting and original way? That’s right, now I remember! It was used at the end of Richard Kelly’s film Donnie Darko when it summed up the characters’ lives and emotions oh-so beautifully!” Probably one of the most poignant moments of recent independent film history, few people will claim to remain entirely untouched when Mad World starts playing at the end of the film.

In Donnie Darko the song has a purpose and its tactful placement by Kelly is nothing short of a cinematic masterstroke. In the trailer for The Crazies, however, its unique emotional persuasiveness is shamelessly exploited in a desperate attempt to add some depth to a presumably brainless film. It felt wrong and cheap: if you can’t picture it, think Bitter Sweet Symphony played over the Transformers trailer.

In any case, I feel that Mad World is so powerful and manipulative that it can only be used in cinema once. To me, Andrews and Jules’ song belongs to Donnie Darko in the same way that Mrs Robinson belongs to The Graduate or Don’t You Forget About Me to The Breakfast Club. A great song for a great film and an even greater scene; truly inspiring.

In contrast, judging by its trailer, The Crazies won’t offer anything groundbreaking and its lack of inspiration already becomes evident in its selection of music. Playing a melancholic song over an action montage is an old trick; if that song is Mad World, it’s simply unimaginative and lazy. I believe the original ’80s Tears for Fears synthesiser version is still up for grabs though; not only would that have been truly original but also genuinely eerie.

Two years after his reboot of the Halloween franchise, rocker-turned-director Rob Zombie delivers a sequel to his vision with Halloween II. Whereas the 2007 film stayed more or less true to the horror film series, he is way off with his newest film which mediates between pure trash and disrespect towards the franchise.

The film picks up where Halloween left off. The film’s heroine Laurie has just survived an assault on her life by masked serial killer Michael Myers that left most of her friends and family, and presumably Michael, dead. A year later she suffers from post-traumatic stress and daily nightmares. Needless to say, Michael Myers is, in fact, alive. He returns to go on yet another rampage to kill Laurie and everyone standing in the way (actually, even those not standing in the way).

To get the positive out of the way, Zombie’s directing is quite nice visually. However, the direction is a bit messy at times, especially when the editing suffers an epileptic fit whenever someone is killed. Nevertheless, the film gets off to a decent start. While it promises nothing groundbreaking, it provides solid, thrilling entertainment with the violence reaching a Halloween all-time high.

However, once the plot accelerates, Zombie’s lack of writing skill becomes apparent. The characters are shallow and their constant cursing does not allow the viewer to develop any sympathy for them. Dr. Loomis, Michael’s former psychiatrist, has always been the heart and soul of the Halloween franchise (next to Laurie and Michael himself).

In Halloween II he is nothing but a caricature of his former self. Instead of dedicating his life to hunting Michael, he is now a greedy and dislikable character. In one of the film’s lowest points, he is ridiculed by Weird Al Yankovic in a talk show on which he is promoting his book on Myers. Good god…

Laurie experiences a similar transformation. The good-natured, sweet girl is now a tattooed, foul-mouthed party animal who lives in a dump of a house with a pentagram sprayed on her bathroom door and a Charles Manson poster over her bed.

It’s the bad writing and Zombie’s insistence on forcing his style onto the film that results in the franchise losing its two heroes (Laurie and Loomis). This creates an imbalance between good and bad, leaving the viewer with nothing to engage with.

Overall, there is very little left of the essence of Halloween. The theme tune is not played until the end credits, Michael’s face is revealed several times (for some reason he has a massive ZZ Top beard) and the plot is too far-fetched with some sequences reaching a level of absurdity that would make David Lynch proud.

These moments mostly occur when Zombie attempts to explain the motivations behind Michael Myers’ urge to kill. Where this already failed in his prequel/remake from 2007, when he gave Michael a background, it reaches a new dimension of stupidity in Halloween II.

A young Myers and his mother’s ghost frequently occur before him, ordering him to kill so they can be together again. Explaining Michael with these ridiculous scenes completely takes away his mysterious, dark and unknown side that made us fear him in the first place. But hey, Zombie somehow managed to squeeze in his wife (Sheri Moon Zombie) to portray Michael’s mother even though she died in Halloween, so everyone is happy, right?

On the bright side, Zombie has confirmed that he will not direct Halloween III (apparently in 3D). We can only hope that the series will move away from its new gothic style and give Dr. Loomis, Laurie and Michael their real identities back. I think we would all like to see a return to the minimalist style of Carpenter’s original rather than being smothered by an excess of gore and, let’s face it, trash.

Dear Mr. Mann,
Firstly, I would like to say that I have admired your work for many years. You have created unforgettable cinematic milestones when Manhunter taught us to be afraid of Hannibal Lecter long before The Silence of the Lambs. Or when you united Al Pacino and Robert de Niro for the first time on screen in Heat to deliver one of the greatest crime films ever made.

Whereas I wasn’t too happy about your switch from shooting on film to using high definition cameras, I still thought Collateral was a very engaging and entertaining film. By the end of it, I even had to admit that shooting on digital added very nicely to the nighttime atmosphere of Los Angeles and the film’s general mood. Then came Miami Vice, an utterly boring film with ugly digital cinematography. Surely a one-off mistake. It’s
Michael Mann after all!

I had already blocked out Miami Vice when Public Enemies was announced. Without doubt this was going to be Mann’s return to form; a kind of Heat set in the 1930s with Johnny Depp, who will have finally taken off his pirate costume, and Christian Bale, who could not wait to go on another set outburst. Even the trailer, officially confirming the use of HD cameras, could not affect my excitement. I was confident that shooting on digital was
not going to affect the film negatively as it did with Miami Vice. I had seen a few stunning looking films, such as David Fincher’s Zodiac and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, both of which were shot in HD, and regained my faith in it.

Did Public Enemies meet any of my expectations? No. While there were many things wrong with it, such as wooden performances, superficial characters and atrocious sound editing, it was the look of the film that spoiled it for me. The use of HD cameras in combination with the shaky camera, bad lighting and constant extreme close-ups created an unbearably ugly style that was more reminiscent of behind the scenes footage than the real deal.

Cinema evolves over time when new technologies become available and usually the viewer welcomes these changes as they improve the experience of watching a film. However, using cameras which we associate with television soap operas or student films, for high budget productions such as Public Enemies, is taking a step backwards.

One of the greatest things about Hollywood is that there is enough money to shoot on 35mm film, so please make use of it. Sure, if you are aiming for realism, there are some niche genres where the use of HD cameras might add to that effect. But when watching a 1930s period crime drama I’d rather sacrifice what might be regarded as more realistic for the use of old fashioned film stock and the unique look of cinema that it creates.

Leon Weber

After the horror genre has enjoyed a wave of original ideas and stories over the past years everything finally seems to be getting back to normal; that is, rehashing the same ideas (torture porn, handheld camera, evil child), updating classics from the 70s and 80s (Friday the 13th, My Bloody Valentine, Nightmare on Elm Street) and taking very low financial risks in the process. If horror films, usually one of the more financially reliable genres despite their bad reputations, do not even take in enough money to cover their relatively small budgets, this is usually a warning. Sorority Row, directed by Stewart Hendler, is the most recent film to meet these criteria and yes, it disappoints.

Based on the 1983 film The House on Sorority Row the story is a very familiar one, reminiscent of films such as Prom Night and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The film tells the story of six incredibly annoying and bitchy sorority sisters who pull a prank which goes horribly wrong and ends in the death of one sister. Her remaining ‘friends’ cover up the accident and on their graduation day 8 months later they find themselves
hunted by a mystery murderer who shares their secret.

While horror fans can probably find some appreciation in the originality of the gruesome deaths, most viewers will wish the film’s story, its characters and their dialogue were equally creative since this is where the film’s main weaknesses lie.

The obnoxiousness of the main characters is proudly dwelt upon as they deliver one pointless line after another. This does not merely result in indifference towards their fates but is also very likely to leave the viewer with a splitting headache. The acting is decent and certainly good enough for the portrayal
of the characters. It’s the clumsy story in combination with the ridiculous dialogue that stand out as the film’s greatest shortcomings.

There are a few funny lines which demonstrate the potential Sorority Row would have had as a decent tongue-in-cheek teen slasher had it used its feistiness sporadically to complement the story rather than to smother the audience with it.

The feeling that style is favoured over substance prevails throughout the film as the audience find themselves overwhelmed with gratuitous nudity, extensive party scenarios and violent kills. This works as mindless entertainment but as a horror film, Sorority Row fails.

At no point does real tension ever build up and instead it relies on cheap and loud scares. Soon enough you will be longing for the end where, surprise, surprise, an incredibly lame revelation awaits.