Persepolis (Marjane Satrapi/Vincent Paronnaud, 2007)

We want films that shake us up. That pulls us out of our slumber and knocks us into the modern era. Persepolis, an outstanding comic-book adaptation combining documentary and animation together, managed to achieve this. Causing demonstrations, banning and censorship in many places across the world, it is important to appreciate the criticism the film met with. From our perspective, the countless nods it achieved in end of year lists of 2007, awards nominations (including the Academy Awards) and festivals gives the impression that it bypassed such stern opposition. But it didn’t. Despite its personal depiction of a girl growing into a woman, Persepolis is a film that jumped from the screen and fought. It challenged views and caused disruption. Isn’t this what the best films do?

Marjane Satrapi is the woman waiting at the airport. In colour, she awaits a flight at Paris-Orly to go home to Iran. Her mind wanders back to monochrome-memories of Tehran and the family she misses so much. Her childhood is a mix of protests and inspirational talks with her uncle, Anoush (combined with a love of Bruce Lee and, in time, Iron Maiden). We see the changes in her world as Islamic Fundamentalists succeed in gaining 99% of the vote, and force strict expectations on the populace. This includes all women wearing headscarves and a no-tolerance attitude towards alcohol. Marj’s middle-class parents, Tadji and Ebi, seek a better life and send her to Austria for schooling. She meets punk-fan friends and falls in, and out, of love, before returning to Tehran and experiencing the regime as an adult, whereby Art classes are conducted with Botticelli’s Birth of Venus censored and a life-model covered from head-to-toe, leaving only the head poking out. We wonder whether Marj will stay. And how this all leads back to her colourful days in a Parisian airport.

Persepolis preceded the Oscar-nominated foreign-film Waltz with Bashir in 2008, and joins the ranks of international animated films that weave complex politics into digestible cartoon stories. There is always a worry that cinema can dilute, or take away from the seriousness and severity of situations abroad. Instead, Persepolis ensures that we access the story comfortably. The comedic flavour of the animation slips us into the era in a way that we can relate to. Her Guernica-chin jutting out as her body changes shape, or the change of animation as she recalls her relationship with a scumbag cheater, is something we understand. It isn’t too far to relate to the parties and risky games played, as Marj enjoys her younger years. Suddenly, a conflict that was almost exclusively on television screens, in unclear footage and news bulletins, becomes relatable and true to westerners.

Directed by Marjane Satrapi herself and Vincent Paronnaud (an artist who uses the pseudonym Winshluss), Persepolis is a triumph, succeeding in using the comic-book art-form to engage. At one moment, Marj tells a friend that she is from France – a momentary lapse in judgement that is regretted as soon as her Grandmother appears to chastise her. Satrapi has not only proudly stood by her roots, with a clear love for her homeland and its history, but she makes it a world that is full of beauty and character. Yes, Persepolis criticises the strict regime and expectations on women in Iran. But it is framed from the perspective of a woman who wants to desperately be part of a country that won’t accept her existence. More of love-letter to a time that won’t be forgotten, Persepolis is a story of brutal, heartfelt honesty and it’ll linger long after your first viewing.

150W: Cassandra's Dream

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Cassandra's Dream (Dir. Woody Allen/2007)

Social-status is rarely explicit in Allen’s films. Upper-class New Yorkers philosophising about life is more down his street, and placing characters in the top rungs of society mean relationships and death are the only things worth thinking about. Set within the cloudy and rain-sodden streets of London, Cassandra’s Dream bucks the trend as brothers Ian (McGregor) - a restaurant-owner - and Terry (Farrell) - a content car-mechanic - turn to their mysterious Uncle Howard (Wilkinson) for money. Ian and Terry just need to kill someone for Uncle Howard and the money is theirs.  Allen’s trademark cynicism and insight gives food for thought but it doesn’t make up for the lack of urgency in such a steady-paced film. The family dynamics toys with relationships between fathers and sons – and envy and expectation. Underrated, Cassandra’s Dream may not be his best – but it introduces a class attitude we have rarely seen before.

Rating: 6/10

Grindhouse (Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino, 2007)

"You see, we're both going left. You could have just as easily been going left too and if that was the case, it would have been awhile before you started getting scared. But since you're going the other way, I'm afraid you're gonna have to start getting scared... immediately!"

Introduction

Only recently was this released on blu-ray - the 'experience' with all the trailers (opposed to the separate releases which have been available for years). I was tempted to buy them both separately, but I held out - I bought it yesterday and watched it last night and I am whacking a analysis up now. Lets be perfectly honest - the 'experience' is the only way to view these films - don't you dare waste your time with the longer cuts! It made financial sense to break them up (damn you America! "three hours - no, I can't do it") but, artistically, this is the only way to view Planet Terror and Deathproof.

Last year, my favourite film of 2009 was Inglourious Basterds - some may disagree. I heard only recently how what was good about The Social Network was how classical it was in approaching the theme - no references to previous films, no constant pop-culture 'in' jokes - think of Scott Pilgrim VS The World - just static shots and clear story-telling built on an incredible script. Grindhouse was a labour of love from two filmmakers obsessed with film - and not just cinema as an art form, but self-referential cinema. I have a funny-feeling that could be a genre all unto itself. Scott Pilgrim, Pulp Fiction amongst many others are the starting points - the doors that reopen a genre again. What is different with Grindhouse is the deep love that both Tarantino have for the exploitation genre - blaxploitation in Jackie Brown, heist movies in Reservoir Dogs. Could you argue that the Grindhouse combo is taking those homages to the next level - verging on parody. I think so.

So, Machete trailer has passed and the Grindhouse experience has truly begun...

Planet Terror

I think that you split the two thus so - Planet Terror is a 70's exploitation film parody, whilst Death Proof is a 2007-movie with the attributes of an exploitation movie. This is a great way to explore the films (what a shame my 11-15 year old film-club can't enjoy this!) and, therefore, mentally analyse the genre. Without watching anything from the genre! You watch the Planet Terror and understand the nature of exploitation and, three trailers later, you get to see what would happen if such a film was made today - because the 70's nostalgia is much more apparent in Planet Terror than in Death Proof.

Planet Terror presents a world whereby a gas has leaked out and is infecting - 28 days later style - the populace. I think what Roderiguez does so well is choose what he wants to pay homage to - and simply does it. The down-and-dirty nature of expoitation means that the use of a 'missing reel' adds comedic effect - and clears up multiple plot-points without actuall showing what has happened. How did Marley Shelton's Doc join the group? How did the strip-bar owner join the clan? why does Michael Biehn respect El Wray? What exactly was El Wray a part of? I might even go so far as to assume Roderiguez splits everyone up - purely to make the missing-reel that much more ridiculous.

Rose McGowan is well-cast too - her not-comedic comedian schtick, the whole idea of 'playing things straight' fits perfectly in the film - a film whereby everyone plays it straight. It does feel a little too much - a small part of me wishes the film ended on the escape from the texan grill ... but alas it does not - ploughing into a breakout-from-jail final act whereby we find Bruce Willis, has in fact, killed Osama Bin Laden. Well done to you Bruce. Ridiculous, tongue-in-cheek, exploitation at the height of parody.

Death Proof

I prefer Death Proof. I know not everyone agrees with this but I think it ties in with my [potentially misplaced] attitude to comedies. Planet Terror is clearly comedy, whilst Death Proof less so - as I said, this film played is neccessarily played straight in Death Proof not for comedic purposes but for the story. When an explosion happens in Planet Terror you laugh - it is so ridiculous. When Zoe Bell is on the front of the car  you are gripping to your seat. It is the type of crazy-stunt that, I assume, these type of films offer - and a modern take is so much more gratifying. The Tarantino-references are not a problem either. We know that Inglourious Basterds has a character who is a film critic, we are suprised at the knowledge Samuel L. Jackson may posess about television series - but it is clear that in an entire double-bill obsessed with exploitation films, we will get a reference to other movies. And we do - Vanishing Point amongst other motor-head fuelled-filled films - "Gone in Sixty Seconds - and the original not that Angelina-Jolie shit". I really am perplexed at how people didn't like this part of the film - its Tarantino at his best. He makes some fantastic references and points you, as a viewer, into a back-catalogue of films to watch post-viewing. Believe me, if Vanishing Point is on TV, it is Tarantino who has inspired me to watch it. Thank you QT. 

Spectacular Double Bill

What is brilliant about these films - is the playful attitude towards cinema. Cinema can be entertainment - believe me, my Dad see's film as purely entertainment. A lot of people think that contemplating philosophy is simply too much - the multiple layers in The Dark Knight, the socio-economical issues that underpin This is England is simply too much. Batman is action film. Horror is just a 'scary' movie - no deeper subtext. Well, I think this is where Grindhouse comes in... it expects nothing. It is purely entertainment - and its nice for us film-junkies to know the references and to explore them more - but these films do this without any force. Simply by watching - and enjoying - the movie, you are soaking in the references. It is just  zombie-movie, it is just a car-chase movie ... but those who care... know the history and this simply makes us love the films more. No waiting around, no expectation or neccessary prior-knowledge - you can get scared - "immediately". 

Remember - you can always email The Simon and Jo Film Show directly using this email: simonandjoshow@gmail.com

We are also on Twitter  and Facebook.

This Is England (Shane Meadows, 2007)

"Lovely, lovely, love you for that, that's fucking great. A proud man, learn from him; that's a proud man. That's what we need, man. That's what this nation has been built on, proud men. Proud fucking warriors!"

Introduction

This is Shane Meadows masterpiece. Even since, with Somers Town and Le-Donk and Scor-Zay-Zee, he hasn't managed to top the epic-nature of This is England. Even now, a four-part drama, renuniting the cast of This is England is due to start of Channel 4. It has got rave reviews and does look awesome, but this is an ideal time to flash back to what started it all and what started real respect for Shane Meadows from the mainstream crowd. Having watched the film many times - and indeed I shall watch it moreso in the future - I have collected many notes on the film so I shall try not to ramble and keep them as concise as possible. Seriously, I beg all of you - especially the Americans and Canadians who may not know much about Shane Meadows - hunt this film out because it is a testament to British Cinema. One of the best films of the decade.

From 1983, we have reality ...

Documentary-footage from '83 shows footage of the policitcal climate - the Falklands war, Margaret Thatcher, etc, before cutting to Shaun (Turgoose) and angry and aggressive 11 year-old (same age as the two lads in A Room for Romeo Brass) who is the Son of a soldier killed during the Falklands War. Clearly he is a bit of a social outcast and we see him begin a friendship with Woody and his group. Woody and Co are older boys who clearly enjoy joking around with Shaun as much as he enjoys there company - rough boys who break into houses and fool around, give the impression that, although they are having fun, they are rebelling to some extent themselves. But who doesn't at that age? Its not long into the film before we meet Combo (A flawless performance from Stephen Graham) an ex-prisoner, recently released from prison with his own views on what he believes England is. This is where the film gets exceptionally sinister - and the lack of intelligence of the minor characters, and emotions of Shaun, gain a small few acceptance into Combo's elitest group of racist skinheads.

Combo's Deep Rooted Character

Shane Meadows neo-realist style mean that you can truly dig deep into the characters portrayed. Combo alone has such intricate plot details that fuel his jealousy and rage against immigrants. Akin to Paddy Conside's 'Morell' to Romeo in Romeo Brass, Combo becomes a semi-father-figure to Shaun and, through this very strong bond, Combo begins to let slip small details about his own father - someone who was clearly aggressive towards Combo. The finale, between Combo and Milky, reveals Combo's real frustration - the famiyl unit Milky has, the love between members is what supports Milky, whilst Combo never had such support. The friends he has, have SEN (Special Educational Needs), specifically Gadget and the older fella with the rimmed glasses.

The improvised acting forces the realism to a deeper level - as viewers you cannot help but feel that what you are watching is rooted in reality. Nothing is hidden - not the awkward moments as Shaun first interrupts Combo's stories from prison, not the awkward realisation that Shaun wants to stay friends with Combo rather than stick with Woody. Milky himself clearly wants to be accepted in society, but his naivety and brotherly-love is what places him in danger.

The Title

Named 'This is England', the title provokes anger into the situation Thatcher potentially created - the deaths of soldiers on the front line (a fascinating parrallel with soldiers in Afghanistan perhaps?) and the ignorance of some and influence they have on the minds of the uneducated. Combo's Nationalists use the term 'England' as a front - as the focus - of their racist campaign. 'England needs proud men', etc. This is, quite clearly, not England but it does explore deep-rooted racism and I know personally of how this continues today - simplistic attitudes towards immigration and no consideration for the country that believes in multi-culturalism. This is England shocks and appalls - and yet forces you to consider the national concerns raised. It is Meadows style that brings it to the forefront as we cannot escape the reality of the situation.

This bring us to the end of the Shane Meadows reviews but, suffice to say, I strongly recommend watching these films. If unsure, 'Netflix' (as you folks across the Atlantic say) This is England because I can guarantee - you won't look back.

La Vie En Rose (Olivier Dahan, 2007)

"If you were to give advice to a woman, what would it be?"

Introduction

I have found myself, more often than not, deciding to complete other blog posts these days rather than the back-bone reviews on the site. Having a scan through the notes I made for so many films, I thought with this Inception buzz continuing, it makes complete sense to revisit my notes for La Vie En Rose - the often-mentioned biopic on Edith Piaf and starring Marion Coutillard...

From Humble Beginnings ...

Like many strong biopics, La Vie En Rose begins from with a poverty-stricken family. Young Edith cries on the streets of Paris, she gets taken in by what appears to be a brothel and then moves onto joining a circus. These strange beginnings are all stuck together amongts this jigsaw of a film as we bounce between different stages of her life - but I have a funny feeling this is somehow representing the all-over-the-place nature of Piaf herself, as she clearly had severe mental-health issues. Unlike other

Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg, 2007)

"My name is Tatiana. My father died in the mines in my village, so he was already buried when he died. We were all buried there. Buried under the soil of Russia. That is why I left, to find a better life"

Introduction

Don't get me wrong, Cronenberg is great. I watched A History of Violence and realised that I have clearly missed out o a huge back-catalogue of a great director. Then I watched Crash and thought, huh, thats weird. The whole connection between technological metal and human flesh ... interesting. Something Leonardo-Da-Vinci about the whole thing. Nevertheless, by the time Eastern Promises was released I was well-prepared and found it important enough to warrant a full-price cinema ticket at the Camden Odeon. For two people, it cost something like £20. Thats the same price as a new-release DVD! It all even-ed out though, thank god, when I found the film on blu-ray for £5. So, in total, £25 for an opening-week release viewing plus a blu-ray copy of the film. Thats good value I think. Not to mention, how recently, the Mad Hatter from The Dark of the Matinee blog mentioned this on our Brit-Canada crossover of the Matineecast, whereby he placed this in his Top 5 Canadian films ... set in London, but completely a Canadian film.

Culture and Identity

Already this has begun to sound like a dissertation. "Culture and Identity in David Cronenberg's Post 9/11 Cinema". There you go folks, if you are studying, I have literally given you an amazing topic to rip apart - whereby Eastern Promises would inevitably be the centre piece. The assumption is that you have seen the film already but, to summarise the plot: Anna (Naomi Watts) is a nurse who assists in the delivery of a child whose Mother dies during birth - the Mother was under 16 and from Russia and Ana seeks out who is responsible for the child. This forces her to fall into the Russian underworld scene in London - and amongst many people she meets, she builds a realtionship with Nikolai (Viggo Mortenssen). Nikolai works for the family of Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) and primarily looks out for Kirill (Vincent Cassell) a confused young man in a world of crime.

Anna, as she explores the childs past - she explores her own challenges she has with her culture and identity. Though she has Russian heritage - she doesn't understand the language and has clearly adapted to Western life, becoming an accomplished Nurse. The whole story is sympathetic to Anna, namely as we can relate to her. Her Uncle, who translates the young Mothers diary is more in touch with his Russian past - but still has problems to adapt. For eample, he sticks to his racist attitude - grossly insulting both Anna and her previous partner by blaming Anna's mixed-race relationship for the loss of her child. This is the only indication of Anna's past - but this small point makes a clear Ana's motives and the lack of connection Anna has to her Uncle. You can tell this is not the first time the Uncle has said something completely inappropriate. Though we see the same narrow-view in Semyon - the lead 'Don' in this Russian mafia group. Semyon blames 'London' for Kirill's obvious attraction to men - though clearly he is aware of the contradiction in when stating how he wouldn't want to go back to Russia because of his health. The whole idea of losing your culture - even sacrifing it - to be in a more progressive country is an idea that is incredibly unnerving. Anna does not even know the language - but clearly holds on to her heritage. The young-Mother explains through her diary how she left Russia to be happier elsewhere - even Nikolai knows the small villages that have little to offer the young. Only recently, having read Mark Kermode's Its Only a Movie he mentions - very briefly - a venture he had to Russia. Put it this way - its all grey. Lots and lots of space. Though, clearly nobody from Russia would want to lose their heritage, they inevitably lose parts of their identity. The traditions. The family unit. The language.

Homosexuality and the Rennaissance


On my second watch I realised how tender the relationship is betweeen Nikolai and Kirill. Nikolai can see the struggles Kirill faces - he knows he is caught in the criminal life he does not want to lead (not that he is very good at it) but he is also trapped in the closet as it is very clear Kirill is homosexual. Nikolai doesn't mock him or shame him for his frustrations and obvious attraction to him - if anything, he assists in confirming the thoughts Kirill has by participating in the sex he is 'ordered' to conduct. My thought is that if he was so uncomfortable, I am sure Nikolai could have stood up to Kirill and either argued him down (even using physical restraint) explaining the situation to make Kirill understand - but Nikolai does neither and even chooses a position with the girl that must play into Kirills fantasies involving Nikolai.

Nikolai in that one situation helps the girl to escape - as we later find out - but also helps Kirill gain closer attraction to him. Nikolai's careful to not condone homosexuality nor attempt to change Kirills urges and natural feelings - helping Kirill find out who he is. Nikolai - in all the violence that surrounds his job - is tolerant as he understands the bigger picture, as he tolerates Kirills ongoing conflicts. But he uses this to his advantage as Nikolai tells Kirill that "either you're with him or you're with me" - hinting at living the life with his Father Semyon whereby he needs to hide his homosexuality or the possibility that he uses his options in the Western world to be openly homosexual with Nikolai. Obviously, Nikolai knows - and Kirill desperately wants - the latter.
Another homosexual (a very vague link...) is none other than Michelangelo - the Italian Rennaissance artist. The stronger link is the sequence in the sauna as Nikolai is mistaken for Kirill and is nearly murdered - he is forced to fight for himself. Mannerism was a period in art history that followed the Rennaissance and preceded the Baroque period. Michelangelo was one of - if not, the first of the - Mannerist artists. What separates Mannerism from the movements before and after is the use of the contorted bodies - distorted and contorted bodies. In some cases so extreme, it just looked strange - long necks, twisted torso's etc. If you really like this type of thing - and it really is interesting - do check out this website as it explains the movement. Michelangelo began the movement by showing many bodies, mainly masculine bodies (as I said, like Kirill, he had a tad of an attraction to young boys...), twisted and as you can see in Battle of the Centaurs (on the left) from 1492, the whole sequence in the sauna reeks of this type of distorted torsos and wrestling that littered so many works of art by Michelangelo. The fact that Nikolai was being mistaken for Kirill, and Nikolai effectively re-enacts a sequence indirectly 'created' with homosexuality in mind, adds another layer to an already complex tale of identity.

Bookends of Death and Rebirth

The film opens with two sequences. One whereby there is an explicit death at a barbers - a teenager with learning difficulties slitting the throat of a respected criminal (something on a par with 'made men' in the Mafia. Cut to the death of the 14-year old girl - one-minute later is the time of her daughters birth. This is the final theme to discuss - the idea that when one thing stops, another begins: when you start a new life, the old life is deceased. But this birth of something new must always be respected and supported. So, akin to the idea of a rapists child being aborted - this film is raising the point that a baby and a new start is to be given a chance. Your past - your heritage - does not make you who you are. By the end, it concludes to show that Nikolai has clearly given no weight to his past in Russia - selling it off to the British police - but he knows that he is building a better life in the process. Anna on the other hand has understood that she wants her past to be with her albeit as a cultural awareness rather than a desire to become a fully-fledged Russian mafia member - but she is still looking to the future with the child. And it is this future that is the bottom line - as a viewer, we can take away from this that it is only how we start afresh that counts - not what problems of the past can stop us. Maybe, we can all be 'reborn' if we want to ...

Saw IV (Darren Lynn Bousman, 2007)

"But with your survival, became your obsession. Obsession to stop those around you for making the wrong choices."

Introduction

I had very low expectations for this fourth installment. It is one thing thinking of sequels that topped the original ... The Godfather Part II, Aliens, Terminator 2, Toy Story 2 ... to name the very few I can think of. Then, we have Saw IV. Could the fourth installment be any good? Especially considering the lead character is dead. Oh yeah, spoiler alert. Having watched Saw III in Reading Vue Cinema, this one was watched in Finchley Vue Cinema having recently moved to London. Poor Jo had to travel from Brighton and then from Stockwell up to Finchley so we could see the film there. That was a lot to ask but it was a good cinema and, ultimately, a good viewing. I think it is the best sequel since possibly the first film. Maybe, because Amanda - an actress who doesn't rate very highly on my actor-rating - was absent must have helped. Not to mention, the lead actor we followed - Rigg (Lyriq Bent) - was incredible. An actor who was likabale since Saw II - I must admit, knowing he was holding the film this time, did fill me with a little happiness. So, how did in fare ...

What I reckon ...

In a similar way to Saw III the running theme is 'training' and 'how to train' an accomplice. We have already seen Amanda fail at being an apprentice to Jigsaw, but - as we aree told by Strahm - there is another person who has helped out. How else could cancer-stricken Jigsaw and not-very-strong Amanda hoisted Kerry into the harness of her death (seen in Saw III and Saw IV). The 'see what I see' and 'feel what I feel' statements splashed all over the walls for Rigg to understand indicates that if Rigg 'wins' the task he will be an apprentice for Jigsaw but, if he loses - which he does - he may be more human and, thus, more keen to save others (opening unmarked doors) but, ultimately die in the process. His human attitude - his attempts to save everyone is his fatal flaw. Strangely enough, this shows Jigsaws twisted - even hypocritical perspective. It makes his outlook not so glorious - you think about how 'appreciating life' is true and that, clearly, these people don't - it is a shame to see that such a character like Rigg is not appreciating life because he works so hard at saving everyone elses. And dies for that.

This gets us into the whole Capital Punishment territory and, ultimately, the death penalty. Who has the right to judge? Jigsaw who 'despises murderers' but appreciates how, sometimes, it is neccessary to put people into situations that force them to kill themselves. The death penalty argument - amongst many factors - raises the question of judgement. Why would a murderer be killed themselves as a form of justice? If 'the government' kills this person, does that not make them murderers themselves - and thus live by the same rules? No - because the government represents the people. At the end of the day, one person flicks-the-switch and takes a human life when someone is killed by the death penalty - and that person is as human as the drug-dealer in an urban-city who judges the value and decides to take the life of a thieving drug-user. Or, in the context of the Saw franchise - is as human as John Kramer, a victim of the drug-users and selfish people of the world.

Enough of that. The film begins with the autopsy of Jigsaw. Akin to the brain surgery of Saw III , this is a normal procedure of any autopsy unit. But for us normal folk, it is gore. It also goes against the cliche - the killer we fear is definitely dead. His brain is removed - there is no chance that he will suddenly appear. We still see some incredible transitions from Bousman - in one case we see Rigg put on a top and, as he does, the scene changes. I feel special effects were used and it keeps the films consistent and in line with the previous installments from Bousman. Initially, if I recall correctly, Bousman was not going to direct this initially and decided to upon reading the script. It makes sense, because it revisits half the sequences and details from Saw III giving Bousman a clear advantage - he knows those sets and details inside-out, so he will know exactly what would work well and what wouldn't. Saw V does not deal with III and IV as clearly and so bringing on board David Hackl was not a bad idea - but at this point, considering the outcome of Saw IV, it was important to have Bousman back.

Something not so important was the reuse of Eric Matthews. As much as I liked the character and I liked his attitude - using him in Saw IV could of either been better or it could have been replaced - saving the opportunity for a future installment. Don't get me wrong - it fuelled Rigg's purpose and arc but the character of Matthews himself - this, in no way, continued his arc. It could of been Tapp or Sing for all we cared. Maybe Sing's body was never discovered - Tapp saw it (as we saw it in Saw) but the police never found his body - and, akin to Matthews, he was loked after. well, c'est la vie, clearly Sing and Matthews aren't coming back. They are well and truly dead.

The whole story feels more sinister and darker too - more on the line of Seven that Mark Burg wanted it to be. The victims Rigg comes across are rapists (cliche fat, balding, middle-aged bloke) and child-beaters (annoying older man with weak dominated wife) - making us side more with Jigsaws vision. Its not just drug-dealers and paid-for-hire photographers. I wouldn't be suprised if Leigh Whannell always felt that rapists, child molesters and beaters were a bit too far ... because of all the characters in Saw II none of them were the aforementioned criminals. merely drug-pushers, prostitutes and self-harming drug-users. Clearly Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunston were prepared to go deeper and more dangerous in their themes.

More interesting though is the expansion of the Saw universe. If we want decent, intermixing narratives in the sequels, we need more characters and more of a world to explore. For one, how can we get further from the local homicide unit? Get the FBI. Enter Special Agent Strahm and Agent Perez. They know of a third accomplice and thinks they know who it is ... Rigg? Art Blank? But it obviously isn't Hoffman because he is part of the latest trap of Jigsaws... Strahm is not the focus of this film but is the focus of Saw V so I shall go into more depth in the next review. Suffice to say, these characters begin to look at different angles of the same killings and give us the opportunity to see sections anew - while also focussing on a different approach: Jill Tuck, Jigsaws engineering roots, Art Blank, the lawyer and his links to Jill Tuck. So many stories can get you a little lost - you see Hoffman and Matthews in their trap, Perez and Strahm on the case while finally you have Rigg's games. Then, to make it more complex, in each story we also have flashbacks - Matthews survival over six months, the crimes comitted by the child-beaters and Perez and Strahm visually understanding Jill Tuck's history with Jigsaw. I'll bet, at one point over twenty minutes, you see six different strands of story. Its a testement to Bousmans direction because it is clear and concise and you know what is going on ... most of the time.

The origins of Jigsaw is further explored - so using the allegory of a death-penalty-government in Jigsaw we see how he has cancer himself - the country has a deep-rooted disease that will eventually destroy itself, but the backstory of Cecil shows that it is others who force this death-penalty into existence. The way other peoples selfish reasons affect his life - and his wifes' life - through the loss of their baby shows, perhaps, the criminals existence needs to stop with the solution of the death penalty. But, by believing such a thing, maybe it is his incurable disease - his personal attitude (that he could have prevented the death of his child when, in reality it was a mistake) - that is part of the problem, not the solution. His disease being his attitude that people are not worth saving and that is shown more clearly in how he feels that Rigg's life is not worth saving. His hypocrisy is unmasked.

So we finish where we began, Hoffman standing over Jigsaw's corpse post-autopsy holding the cassette player in his hand listening to his last message. Hoffman is the true apprentice. Why? we find out in Saw V. Though we may understand Jigsaw moreso - this revelation raises more questions about Hoffman who believes in Jigsaw but has no clear motive ... or does he ...

Sunshine (Danny Boyle, 2007)

Introduction

As you are no doubt aware, from reading the 'A Life Less Ordinary' review, that I am a huge Danny Boyle fan and 'Sunshine' I have watched many times. I pretty much love everything about it and, for one, as soon as I get a HD-TV (a way off yet ... god damn overdraft), I feel that 'Sunshine' will be one of the first purchases. It looked stunning on a cinema screen and, no doubt, it will look stunning on HD. One thing I do love about Danny Boyle films is the little touches of spirituality explored and - according to Danny Boyle - the exploration of spirituality in a serious Sci-Fi movie is a must ...

Quick-Synopsis

Bear in mind, I am being brief and a little cynical in this synopsis, so I only advise you to watch the film and see how words cannot actually describe the brilliance of this movie so why bother explain it clearly when you should just watch it ...

We wake up on Icarus II a spaceship that has a job to do - shoot a nuclear bomb into the sun sun, thus reigniting it. This has been tried before, on Icarus I, but alas, their mission failed and no-one knows why. The crew are a diverse mix of professionals - amongst them Searle (Cliff Curtis) an on-board psychiatrist of the ship, Mace (Chris Evans), the macho-military engineer and, the lead guy, Capa (Cillian Murphy) a calm physicist who operates the 'payload'. There are many others on the ship: Kaneda, Cassie, Corazon, Trey and Harvey but that is all. The first act establishes all these factors until - oh, my, god - we hear a signal from Icarus I, breaking the equilibrium. It is unlikely that anyone is still alive, but is it worth going to the ship and having two 'payloads'? Doubling the chances of survival of the earth? Capa is given the choice and he decides 'yes' so off they go to Icarus I. They get to the ship with minor problems (well ... maybe not minor ... but ... ) and, once on board, they see that someone went mad and killed everyone. The ships captain Pinbacker (Mark Strong) who left a Kurtz-like message about God and failing missions. But he's dead so don't worry about it (well, he is burned from head-to-toe anyway). Then 'someone' separates the two ships from each other and a few lives are lost when they cross back to the original Icarus II. To finish Pinbacker turns out to be alive and well and sets off trying to kill everyone on board Icarus II and, after a lot of sharp razor-blade fighting, Capa manages to shoot his load (ho ho ho!) and Earth is saved.

What I reckon...

I make small cards every time I watch films and, for some silly - possibly pretentious reason - my first two 'lines' on this film were: "Ashes to ashes" - Sun, that is full of fire, "dust to dust" - Death and human skin. I don't know exactly what that means or where it came from. It just is what is, and I thought I'd share it with you.

One thing which is clear, is the appreciation of the beauty of nature, and how this links to a possible spiritual awareness. The Buddha-like pose of Corazon as she holds a part of nature is one such example, while the music itself from John Murphy and Underworld (Why, for godssaake, is the soundtrack only available for download!!!) is almost transcendent. But maybe, the almost-obsession with beauty makes people feel closer to God? The spiritual focus is primarily on Fundamentalism rather than glorification: Searle begging Kaneda 'What do you see?' as Kaneda, close to death, looks into the the light is the curiosity of God, opposed to the reality of His existence, while Capa - caught between the science and nature during the finale shows the awe of His creation. It all feels a little preachy, but I think this is part of the focus. Pinbacker on the other hand is Bin-Laden. He is the distorted - both physically by burns and visually by Boyle - version of a human, twisted and corrupted. Pinbacker himself breaks a certain element of realism that was established before his arrival, clarifying his strange existence - as I am sure we can all agree that the Taliban would be better off just not being here. One interesting point Danny Boyle raises in the commentary track for the film is that Searle is the complete opposite of Pinbacker in terms of faith - where Searle is willing to die for his faith, and indeed he does, Pinbacker will sacrifice everyone else for his faith. Pinbacker emerges from light when Capa first sees him and creates darkness in the ship with his distorted view - and that final act of the film with Pinbacker shifts the entire film into this fast paced, horror movie a credit to regular-Danny Boyle collaborator editor Chris Gill.

One thing that I found fascinating was the use of colour and the choice of colours to show the bleakness of inside the ship, while outside has so much colour and beauty you cannot help, akin to Searle, but be in complete awe of the sun and all its majesty - so a clap to cinematographer Alwin Kuchler for this! The overall tone of the film is influenced by 'Alien', '2001:A Space Odyssey' and Tarkovsky's 'Solaris' ('Solaris' being the only one I haven't seen...) and this is what makes it look so good - if you use such magnificent films to influence your work, then you can't go too far wrong. Might not be unique, but its how art progresses - art and influence.

Personally, films with a spiritual or destiny theme always intrigue me and I think this is why I lover this film so much! Why are we here? How can free-will and pre-destined fate exist together? How valuable is human life? These are big questions and Alex Garland regularly raises these topics.

One interesting note Danny Boyle made on the commentary: "Three Sci-Fi elements when you do serious science-fiction film: Ship, crew and signal (that changes everything)"