Rating: MMMMM

Clint Eastwood’s latest film, Invictus tells the story of the true events that followed the 1994 election of Nelson Mandela as President of South Africa, and Mandela’s subsequent attempt to unite his fragile and divided country with the help of South African rugby captain, Francois Pienaar.

Director: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Matt Damon,
Running time: 133 mins

Based on John Carlin’s bestselling book, ‘Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game that Changed a Nation’, Invictus begins just after the release of Nelson Mandela from prison – with one scene in particular capturing the separated nature of the country, presenting two playing fields bisected by a long road – on one side white schoolboys play rugby, on the other black children play football. In this scene along with many others (and coupled with the use of real archive footage) Eastwood clearly and simply presents South Africa as a culturally divided nation torn apart by apartheid, but one that Mandela (Morgan Freeman) aims to rebuild.

Following the dissolution of the apartheid system and the oppressive politics that went with it, there is feeling in the country that all symbols and remnants of white Afrikaner power should be disbanded in order to build a new South African identity. However, Mandela recognises that this could potentially deepen the cultural rift between whites and blacks. While attending a Springboks rugby match, Mandela realises that uniting the country behind the national team would be a great foundation on which to build the new South Africa. President Mandela therefore enlists the help of the Springboks’ captain, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) and the two work together to make the rubgy team an emblem of national unity and one that all South Africa could support.

From the outset, Invictus is a warm, intelligent, inspiring film that presents its vision of hope with impressive conviction and overwhelming power. The film boasts a great script, (which is in fact surprisingly funny as Freeman is given some charmingly pithy one-liners as Mandela) great performances and a wonderful spirit that will win over those not au fait with rugby, sport or knowledge of the period in South African history. Eastwood has delivered a beautiful film that combines wonderfully directed personal scenes (those between Mandela’s security team are great, as are those between the President and Pienaar), emotional and haunting moments (where Pienaar visits Mandela’s cell on Robben Island is wonderful) and fast-paced adrenaline-charged rugby sequences.

In a role he was seemingly born to play, Morgan Freeman is completely convincing as Nelson Mandela, possessing all the gravitas and presence needed to play the man who has become such a symbol of greatness and goodness around the world. While Freeman’s accent does falter at times, this is a minor problem in a performance that is otherwise pitch perfect – Mandela is never presented as all-knowing and godlike, but a man struggling with his own problems, living apart from his family and estranged from his wife.

Matt Damon is also very good as captain Francois Pienaar, lifting what could have been (in the face of the Mandela character) a fairly dull and quiet role into the realms of inspiration, particularly in the Robben Island sequences and the closing stages of the rugby world cup final between South Africa and the fearsome New Zealand All Blacks.

Invictus is a wonderful, charming and uplifting film that will satisfy sports fans and newcomers alike. Eastwood has produced a piece of work filled with moments of sheer joy that will have you misty-eyed and a sense of hope that will stay with you long after the credits have rolled. One of the best films of 2010 so far, just fantastic.

Rating: MMMMM

Review of extra-terrestrial sci-fi thriller District 9 produced by Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings) and directed by Neil Blomkamp

Director: Neil Blomkamp
Starring: Sharlto Copley, Vanessa Haywood, Jason Cope, Louis Minnaar, David James
Running time: 112 mins

WARNING: This review contains PLOT SPOILERS

In District 9’s fictional 1980s, an alien mothership comes to a mid-air standstill over the South African city of Johannesburg, subsequently bringing an alien species to Earth – the residents of a far distant planet who soon come to make their homes in the city’s outlying scrubland, district 9. The human inhabitants of Johannesburg however become prejudiced, intolerant and aggressive towards the new alien immigrants, becoming hostile and giving them the slur of ‘Prawns’ for their Piscean appearance. This prejudice develops into outright social unrest, forcing the government to serve ‘eviction notices’ and re-house the aliens. However, as one might expect with moving an entire colony of people, the government’s plan is met with unexpected problems.

District 9 begins with documentary-style footage of the mysterious alien spacecraft coming to a halt over South Africa’s second city and talking heads discussing the social and cultural impact the alien visitors had on the country, thus presenting the film’s premise  - a plot which has many elements of a more pedestrian film but is never clichéd, having a certain quality of freshness about it. This is partly due to the distinct socio-political commentary that runs throughout the film, touching on themes of racial intolerance, discrimination and autocracy, the plethora of social problems still alive in South Africa in the aftermath of apartheid – a commentary which to this critic at least, is one of the film’s trump cards.

The other is the performance of Sharlto Copley as main protagonist Wikus van der Merwe – the head of the government led team in charge of moving the alien community from their homes in district 9 to what is effectively a concentration camp. Copley plays Wikus as essentially an everyman, but one for which there is great deal of of moral ambiguity, rendering him a more intriguing character as a result. The supporting players are also very good, in particular Louis Minnaar and David James. However, credit must go to the CG artists in charge of rendering the facial expressions and twitches of Christopher Johnson (the main ‘Prawn’ character), conveying as much emotion and inner turmoil as we see in his human (and non-CG) counterpart Wikus.

District 9’s shaky, steadi-cam driven visual style, while not being in any way innovative (seen memorably before in The Blair Witch Project and more recently in Cloverfield), seems fresh, unique and completely in keeping with tone and plot, making a perfect marriage between the two. The presentation of the Alien technology and weaponry is equally good, as is Wickus’ agony and visceral disgust at his physical transformation into one of the ‘Prawn’ species, presented in horrific detail that will have those more lily-livered audience members squirming in their seats. As thrilling as all this is however, the film loses pace in a tricky third act which plods along comparatively slowly compared to the rest of the film.

District 9’s climax sets up the possibility for a sequel naturally, in a subtle way that leaves room for the story to continue, an exciting prospect with a film this promising. A well structured, thought provoking, thrilling and thoroughly entertaining alternative to the regular Hollywood sci-fi gloss – hopefully in the future we might see a District 10.

Rating: MMMM

Co-created by an ex-Police reporter David Simon, HBO’s crime series ‘The Wire’ (set on the streets of Baltimore, Maryland) boasts a multi-layered narrative framework and an excellent ensemble cast, including British actors Dominic West as Det. Jimmy McNulty and soon-to-be-huge-star Idris Elba as the charismatic Stringer Bell (who in fact was tipped to be a future choice for James Bond in the G2 section of The Guardian a few months back). Not only does the show feature standout realist performances from each and every actor, but the show is brimming with a richness and depth not seen on the small screen in a long time. This may be due to the fact that the show is based on the real-life experiences of both of the show’s co-creators, Ed Burns (a former homicide detective) and the aforementioned David Simon – however, I feel the show’s potency is more than somewhat linked with what it expects from its audience. In comparison with other high-profile television drama such as ‘ER’ which presents the audience with a short recap of footage from previous episodes (“previously on <insert drama series here>…”), not once in its 5 seasons does ‘The Wire’ offer its audience a chance to refresh their memories.

It expects us to keep up with the complex and multi-layered plot strands and character arcs, and if we can’t, well tough. As odd and demanding as this sounds (and even damn right incongruous to the way we approach serialised television), this apparent expectation is certainly to the show’s credit. ‘The Wire’ knows it is an intelligent piece of drama, and therefore expects a certain intelligence and amount of concentration from those who choose to watch it.

Another area that the show excels in is the depth of its characters. Initial viewings may prove difficult, in that the sheer number of characters is slightly overwhelming, but after a couple of episodes it becomes easier to identify character from character and to understand the complex plot. But not only are the plots and narrative strands rich and multifaceted, the character development seen in ‘The Wire’ is next to none. In comparison with various other crime television franchises employing a black-and-white moral environment where the police are the upstanding heroes and the criminals are the ruthless villains, ‘The Wire’ refuses to subscribe to this outdated and essentially preposterous view. Instead, the show deploys a striking vision of moral ambiguity in the presentation of the citizens of Baltimore. In place of valiant and noble police we have a rag-tag group of officers, each with their own approach to their work (which often seems to serve only themselves) – leading to corruption and egotism throughout the force. On the street, the drug dealers and gang members are not the evil blackguards that other media has led us to expect; they often display more integrity and decency than the cops pursuing them. It must be said however, that the show is primarily male focused, which is a definite problem. Arguably the show features Sonja Sohn as Det. Kima Greggs as a key member of the police team, but really this does not make up for a distinct lack of female characters.

As acting goes, performances featured in ‘The Wire’ are second to none. British actor Dominic West (seen recently in ‘Breaking the Mould’ for BBC4 and ‘The Devil’s Whore’ on Channel 4) is excellent as Det. Jimmy McNulty, as are Clarke Peters and Wendell Pierce as Lester Freamon and Bunk Moreland respectively. The only major detraction in terms of the actors’ performances is that the language used by those portraying characters from the ‘street’ tends to be esoteric real slang and dialect specific to the Baltimore area – as a result it is sometimes difficult to understand just what it is they are saying. Therefore it is sometimes useful to watch the show with subtitles on so you can catch every word and keep up with what is undoubtedly one of the best, most sophisticated and engaging television dramas ever made.

Review of Brüno, the latest character-driven film from Sacha Baron Cohen.

Director: Larry Charles
Starring: Sacha Baron Cohen
Running time: 83 mins

Brüno is the silver-screen spin-off of Sacha Baron Cohen’s television character of the same name. And as with the 2006 film devoted to his other creation Borat, Baron Cohen’s Brüno suffers from its eponymous star being an essentially unlikeable character.  The Austrian fashion expert has very few redeeming and endearing qualities – even less than Baron Cohen’s Kazakh ‘hero’. Where Borat could be loveable and sweetly naïve, Brüno manages to maintain a level of near-constant irritation throughout. The only way the character manages to engage with the audience is by the broad comedy (and more often stupidity) and ridiculous scrapes he gets himself (and others) into.

Having said this, the bellylaughs generated by Brüno’s antics only just outnumber the head-in-hands moments where one wonders if the tone can really be lowered any more. Though Baron Cohen’s film and television work is arguably not for the easily offended or those of a nervous disposition, it does at times seem that Brüno aims to shock and appal somewhat arbitrarily – superfluous crassness exemplified in numerous sequences where our protagonist and his partner engage in various sexual acts, Brüno’s television pitch and his visit to a fortune-teller. These moments of sheer crudity detract from an otherwise very entertaining and without a doubt hilarious film.

Again (as seen in Borat) it must be said that the American people do make for excellent comic fodder, demonstrating various levels of socio-political ignorance and stupidity that never cease to amaze (although this may be down to slick editing), with Brüno talking to a pair of bimbo PR agents in Hollywood who seem to believe that Darfur is in the Middle-east. Other foreign policy issues are similarly gaffed and played with to great aplomb, pinpointing with worrying accuracy the areas of social cluelessness apparently prevalent in the US. Other winning sequences see Brüno in conversation with the parents of child models, pointing to celebrities and referring to them in Germanic names – Wilhelm Schmidt (Will Smith), Bradolf Pittler (Brad Pitt) and der Fuhrer (Mel Gibson) -and an ill-advised interview with a real terrorist. These triumphant scenes are welcome relief from a film comprised almost entirely from thoroughly hit-and-miss sequences, with the funniest moments due to Baron Cohen’s comic timing and not from forced cringe-worthy vulgarity.

Brüno is an enjoyable and entertaining comedy that is likely to polarise audiences, stuck between shocked offense and peals of laughter.

Rating: MMM

Review of Frost/Nixon first published in a January 2009 issue of Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Ron Howard
Starring: Michael Sheen, Frank Langella, Kevin Bacon, Sam Rockwell
Running time: 122 mins

Admittedly I haven’t seen Peter Morgan’s original play, but it really is hard to imagine any medium other than celluloid for which to present the drama played out between Richard Nixon and David Frost in their 1977 televised interviews. The film opens with newsreel footage of the social and political conditions of 1974 and the resignation of President Richard Nixon, then in disgrace following the discovery of the Watergate scandal. For those not familiar with this period in American political history and the events that preceded and followed it, there is helpful narration from characters which form the support teams of both Frost and Nixon. Three years later, Frost embarks on an ambitious project to interview the hated former President.

Before the interviews take place, there are some excellent moments of comedy and drollery, surprisingly more often than not in the form of witty one-liners from Nixon (Frank Langella), delivered with perfect deadpan humour. Sam Rockwell is refreshingly cast against type as James Reston, Jr. researcher keen to uphold the ideals of democracy and freedom, to ultimately procure a confession and apology from the man who he sees has shamed and degraded the presidency. Michael Sheen is very good, mimicking David Frost’s voice and mannerisms exactly. It is Frank Langella’s film though, putting every last ounce of energy into arguably what will be one of the best performances of the year.

Director Ron Howard, it seems, has lost much of the self-indulgent tone displayed in earlier work such as Apollo 13 and A Beautiful Mind, subsequently rendering Frost/Nixon all the more potent and tense as a result. And tension is the unmistakeable motif here, seen from start to finish. Sexual tension seen early-on between ‘playboy’ Frost and new flame Caroline Cushing (Rebecca Hall), economic tension for the financing of the interviews (Frost practically financed the interviews out of his own pocket), and the most important tension of all: that between a disgraced and crooked President and the misled American public that he deceived. At the climax of the fourth interview, we see the broken image of a man, bitterly depressed with self-loathing finally and desperately apologise to the country he lied to – and what a mesmerising moment that is.

Rating: MMMM

Rating: MM

Review of “W.” first published in November 2008 issue of Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

Director: Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Dreyfus, James Cromwell
Running time: 129 mins

Oliver Stone’s long anticipated biopic of President George W. Bush, simply titled “W.” is finally here. I’d like to be able to say that its worth the wait, but sadly it just isn’t. From the get-go “W.” just doesn’t feel right, with a sense of uncomfortable awkwardness lurking in the background like Sarah Palin on Obama’s victorious election night. The film’s first proper scene has all the ingredients of a snappy opening salvo, yet the cast’s efforts simply fall flat. Stone hasn’t been able to get the tone right, with the film seeming like it just can’t make up its mind what it wants to be (an eerie echo of Bush’s early life and career), an out-and-out mocking indictment of the bumbling President we all love to hate or a more insightful and sympathetic drama telling his life story. In light of all the pastiches of Dubya that we have been exposed to over the years, it would have been far more interesting to watch a Frank Darabont-style portrait of the President’s life (although this again would have been hard to stomach and would arguably been shamelessly partisan). Stone instead presents us with an amalgam of the two that just doesn’t work.

Having said this, the cast do well with what they’re given. Josh Brolin in the title role is very good (he even has Bush’s walk uncannily spot-on), as is Elizabeth Banks as First Lady Laura Bush. Thandie Newton, although having a small role is so convincing as Condoleezza Rice that I thought at first it really was her. However, James Cromwell as George Bush Snr. is a let-down, seemingly pulling the same pained expression of paternal disappointment when addressing his son throughout the entire film. This though, the sense of disapproval and constant disapproval from his father that Dubya lives with does inspire some sympathy. It seems all he wants to do is make ‘Poppy’ proud of him, try to be the perfect son and move out of the shadow of his older brother Jeb. It is from this, and some other genuinely poignant scenes that we see Bush as just a simple guy, way out of his depth, trying to do the right thing but getting things very very wrong. In Stone’s presentation of this we find the most uncomfortable scenes of the film which, simultaneously are the funniest – but then that’s not saying much, as the only comedy to be found is in the gaffes made by Bush or the dark irony of the ill-judged foreign policy cabinet meetings. And these meetings in fact, despite a few witty remarks were very uncomfortable to watch, seeing an inept and falsely elected government take steps to effectively legalise torture (evidential in the treatment of the prisoners of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) and start an illegal war for oil and empire on false grounds without a second UN resolution and with no exit strategy whatsoever. Disappointingly it must be said that Oliver Stone, a director who has in the past dealt with lives of Presidents (Richard Nixon, JFK) with flair and intensity has really misfired with this one.

Rating: MM

Director: Edward Zwick
Starring: Leonardo Di Caprio, Djimon Hounsou, Jennifer Connelly
Running time: 143 mins

Only two years on from its original release, it may be hard for some to regard Blood Diamond as a ‘classic’, but classic it is. With its powerful mix of shocking ultra-violence, poignant scenes, liberal political message and standout performances, the film delivers on every level.

Blood Diamond begins with the dramatic and shocking assault on the village of Shenge by the Revolutionary United Front (the rebel side of the civil war), machine-gunning all in their path, murdering and maiming at will – these opening five minutes are hard to stomach, as the violence is almost too realistic. Women are raped and tortured. Children are abducted and torn from their families. Villagers are not killed have their hands cut off to prevent them voting in the Sierra Leone elections. Those with a nervous disposition or an aversion to blood, look away now. Along with seminal war films such as Saving Private Ryan, the bloodshed and gunfire in Blood Diamond is unsettling due to the fact that it really happened. What makes it even harder to watch is that we know that needless conflicts and atrocities like those witnessed in Sierra Leone are still going on.

Another element of near-the-knuckle realism is the film’s depiction of children being forcibly taken from their homes, brainwashed and indoctrinated (with shouts of “shed their blood! Shed their blood!”) and handed an AK-47. These are children, being taught to kill their parents and to relish the acts of murder they commit: making it all to easy to understand what Oxfam and Amnesty are fighting for when they say “children are born with these arms (hands), not these arms (guns)”.

The eponymous ‘blood diamond’ in question is a pink golf ball sized rock, which although on the face of it might sound impressive and beautiful, it becomes no more than an object of revulsion and disgust when we learn the lengths people go to obtain it and just how many lives pay for it. The diamond’s journey through the film forces the audience (this critic at least) to question why the hell we desire lumps of rock with which to adorn our fingers, necks and hands when people have to die in order for us to buy them.

The action sequences are gripping, terrifying, but more importantly ugly (the race out of Freetown in particular is adrenaline-charged) making a stark contrast with the majestic African landscape – the violence and hatred of the human conflict takes on a new devilry when set against the natural beauty of the continent.

Acting wise, the performances are spot-on. Leonardo DiCaprio as Danny Archer is excellent, with a fantastic accent to match. Jennifer Connelly (Maddy Bowen) is also very good, although she isn’t given much reign as either of her co-stars. However, Djimon Hounsou steals the show with a reprise of the noble humanity and power he found in Gladiator to shape a truly moving performance. Supporting roles from Michael Sheen and David Harewood (as the psychotic Captain Poison) are also very solid.

The only thing detracting from the movie is the predictable Hollywood-shoehorning of a romantic subplot between DiCaprio and Connelly, which feels gratuitous and out of place. This aside however, Blood Diamond is an intense and thought-provoking thriller that is both profound and wildly entertaining. If you take away anything from the film, let it be the conviction to boycott conflict diamonds. Make sure they are ethically sourced, and not from African war zones. If you’re not careful, you might just have blood on your hands.

Review of the first season of hit US television show ‘The West Wing’, article first published in October 2008 issue of Spark*, the newspaper of Reading University Students’ Union.

If you thought ‘political drama’ was the veiled attempt at a Labour party leadership bid, or the exhaustive BBC coverage of the Labour party conference, think again. Despite it being almost straight-jacketed into the aforementioned genre label, The West Wing is far removed from those dull notions. Poignant, thought provoking, thoroughly engaging and often hilarious, this is drama at its best. It just happens to be political.

The show’s pilot episode, ‘Premiere’ sets the tone, atmosphere and verbal pace for the rest of the series – and it is this, the verbal exchange that is the jewel in the crown of The West Wing. Aaron Sorkin’s whipcrack dialogue and clever verbal sparring fires from the mouths of his exceptional characters, making for witty repartee rarely seen on primetime television: “the President, while riding a bicycle on vacation in Jacksonhall came to a sudden arboreal stop” – how White House Chief of Staff Leo McGarry (the superb late John Spencer, who in fact sadly died during filming of season 7) describes how the President rode his bike into a tree. Although at times the lines are hard to keep pace with and the policy acronyms too copious (‘POTUS’, ‘DEA’, ‘DNC’, ‘ATWA’ etc), these are minor drawbacks in the face of such compelling viewing.

The primary reason for the show being so compelling (razor sharp dialogue aside)?  The characters. Each one, from aide Charlie Young (Dulé Hill), through to Deputy Chief of Staff Josh Lyman (Bradley Whitford) is exceedingly well cast, bringing humour, pathos and genuine humanity to the screen. Richard Schiff as Communications Director Toby Ziegler shines particularly in the episode ‘In Excelsis Deo’ where a winter coat he gave to charity leads him to organising a funeral for a homeless Korean War veteran. Even the supporting roles (Mrs Landingham, Admiral Fitzwallace) are played to perfection. And with the ‘Leader of the Free World’ himself, President Josiah Bartlet being so well portrayed, US citizens could indeed be forgiven for exclaiming “don’t blame me, I voted for Martin Sheen!”

Unafraid to tackle controversial issues (and matters which still hold sway in Presidential election campaigns), The West Wing pulls no punches. Early in the series, members of the religious right meet with staffers in an attempt to procure an apology for an on-air insult (“Lady, the God you pray to is too busy getting indicted for tax fraud”), and consequently enter into a bargain exchange for a crackdown on pornography, condoms in schools (they say it like it’s a bad thing!) and the implementation of school prayer. Unluckily for the representatives of ‘The Lambs of God’, they don’t get too far:

Reverend: “If children can buy pornography on any street corner for $5, isn’t that too high a price to pay for free speech?”

President Bartlet: “No. On the other hand, I do think that $5 is too high a price to pay for pornography”.

Pure genius. Accused by some for being too liberal (causing the show to be dubbed “The Left Wing”) and criticised for glorifying all things American, you can see how the tone might grate after a while. But with drama this good, you’re too engaged to care!

Rating: MMMMM