While the preview focuses on establishing Bane as the main antagonist, Nolan will also introduce Catwoman, a.k.a. Selina Kyle, portrayed by Anne Hathaway, to his Batman-saga. Since it is as of yet unclear what her eventual siding will be, it would seem Nolan has gone with the traditional cat burglar angle rather than Tim Burton’s supernatural approach. The most keen-eyed viewers of the new trailer noticed ms Kyle wearing a pearl necklace that looks exactly like Martha Wayne’s, Bruce’s deceased mother, necklace. Yet the internet is ripe with speculation over whether she will eventually side with Batman after assisting Bane.
Regardless, it is typical for Nolan to lead his viewers astray deliberately, so nothing can be confirmed before the movie’s premiere in July.

Slightly creepy poster, don't you think?

Hands up, who wanted to see a movie about the creation of Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg? Thought so, neither did I. Well, anyway, it got made, and by none other than David Fincher of Fight Club fame. And surprisingly, it turned out good though not in a way I expected it to.

Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is a socially awkward, quite like every other role he plays, Harvard student who is a genius in programming and knows a thing or two about classics of literature it seems. He’s dumped by his girlfriend Erica Albright (Rooney Mara who will appear in Fincher’s upcoming The Girl With A Dragon Tattoo), he goes on a drunken rampage on his blog about said ex and her family name and cupsize among other things (actually managing a funny joke about it all the while). This leads into him creating a website called Facemash in which pictures of college women are put side to side and visitors can vote which one is hotter. This eventually, through a few turns, becomes Facebook  and the movie follows the ensuing lawsuits that Zuckerberg faces for pretty much strutting over everyone else with his mighty intellect and balls of steel. So are we to believe he is Duke Nukem all of the sudden?

The story is pretty straightforward, although layered non-chronologically with the two different lawsuits and the history of Facebook, eventually including Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake, of Napster fame, portrayed as a paranoid and delusional young entrepreneur with inexhaustible creativity and vision. The other early help the Zuck has, financially, is Andrew Garfield’s Eduardo Saverin, ambitious yet greedy best-friend-turned-rival of the setting. It seems the story is cluttered with archetypes: Zuck is the (in)fallible hero, Saverin is the greedy knight who turns to the dark side, Parker is Satan luring the hero yet cannot escape his vices, and the junior lawyer, Marylin Delpy (Rashida Jones) is the fairy godmother giving good advice in the end.

The thing is though, it is hard to like Zuckerberg. At least in the movie. He manages to be so repulsive and an asshole, despite Delpy’s claims, of such magnitude it’s hard to believe he is so talented and genius. Well, maybe not since it seems that everyone thinks geniuses and greatly gifted people are complete douchebags. The Zuck just is always depicted as the brightest guy in any given situation and always has the solution to every problem and he knows it, and even willingly flashes it to everyone in the form of witty and dry remarks pissing everyone off, along with what I’d imagine would be most viewers. What makes it all the more creepier is the thought of this guy being able to access any of us’ Facebook profile as he pleases. Whether or not the real Zuck is anything like the guy that is depicted in The Social Network is another question entirely and the fact is I don’t want to know.

The movie is topped with an exciting, Academy Awarded score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross with a hint of Edvard Grieg thrown into the mix and with a sleek look and swift editing, again Academy Awarded. Despite the lack of a likable or relatable main character The Social Network works on a fundamental level, and that is as a story. Whether or not you like the people, or Facebook itself for that matter, the story surrounding it is quite intriguing, and despite Zuck’s complete lack of likability, he is nevertheless interesting as an on-screen character, and Eisenberg does make the character his own, even to the level of an uncanny resemblance to the actual Zuck despite not looking alike.

What nevertheless will happen after watching this movie is that you’ll most likely end up discussing the impact and issues of Facebook. And maybe fortune and women, like Parker and Zuck at the nightclub. Whether you like the movie or not will more than likely reflect your opinion on Facebook and social media in addition to your taste in movies.

If you flex your memory a bit more you might remember Bane, too. You know, that big, bulky, occasionally greenish bulk-of-a-man that hung around Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy from time to time? Now, you probably have heard as well that Nolan has cast Inception-star Tom Hardy to play the part of Bane in the Bat-trilogy’s final part, The Dark Knight Rises. ‘’How on Earth is that man going to pull off playing a brute like that,’’ you may say, and rightly so if you think that’s what Nolan’s going to do. But here’s the twist: Bane’s origins and character in the comics are not what they are in that film. He is a brilliant mind and strategist with knowledge of several languages, refined martial artist and equipped with a body honed to near-perfection during the time spent incarcerated since childhood to which Venom, a compound enhancing him to superhuman proportions and strength, is added. Bane is also the only villain in the whole Bat-verse to literally best the bat by breaking his back in the ‘Knightfall’ story arc.

Hardy as Bane; not most people’s first choice to play a towering hulk, standing at 5ft 9’’, and according to Hardy himself in an interview on Alan Carr’s Chatty Man, bulking up to 189-196lbs of mass as Bane, a combination of fat and muscle. Thinking of the proportions Hardy would hardly seem a menace to Christian Bale’s beefed up Batman. To top it off, Hardy is hardly a menacing looking fellow either, with pretty features and boyish charm that enchanted audiences in Inception. The gut reaction of many people on the Internet seemed to be of disappointment and confusion, some saying Nolan is desperately trying to fill the gap left by the demise of Ledger who portrayed The Joker in The Dark Knight. A poll conducted online addresses these issues, many commentators worrying about Hardy’s looks. ‘’He looks too pretty to cast as Bane, though I imagine he will have his mask on most of the time so maybe that won’t matter. Unless they do a fantastic job on make up or CGI then he just won’t look right as he seems too small. This is meant to be someone who has the strength to pick Batman up and snap him. Can’t comment on his acting though,’’ Nigel Payne said. Mitchell Slater thinks along the same lines, commenting ‘’ I like Tom Hardy, though I don’t think he’s fit for bane, but hey, with enough CGI I reckon he’ll look the part.’’ CGI-enhancements and prosthetics were mentioned several times in the comments, all agreeing that he looks too pretty to be a true threat. ’’With the right effects anyone would,’’ said James Barnard, with Raven Brookes adding ‘’a baby-faced Bane. With the right prosthetics/makeup and other such effects, it could work’’.

However, anyone acquainted with Nolan’s way of making movies would be aware that he abhors CGI trickery and avoids it as much as possible, a prime example of which would be the impressive flipping of a semi in The Dark Knight. Hardy has also played, unbeknownst to many, a menacing and brutish character before, the infamous Charlie Bronson in the movie Bronson. Hardly was nigh-unrecognisable sporting a waxed moustache. shaved head and a body like a heavyweight boxer rather than the slight physique he’s usually seen in. According to IMDb’s trivia page for the movie Hardy bulked up by doing 2500 press-ups a day for five weeks, an impressive workload to put into preparation for a role, and in keeping with the real Bronson’s physique which he’s built mostly in solitary confinement in prison with limited space.

Most people acknowledge his talent as an actor, like Lin Smith in her comment ‘’ he showed his potential for menace in Bronson, and he’s clearly capable of bulking up. Can’t wait to see what he does with it.’’ Paul Elliot, Hollywood cinema lecturer at University of Worcester, agrees on this, commenting ‘’Hardy’s roles in the past have been largely focused around a fractured, intense individual and so I assume he would be ideal for the role of Bane. Hardy, as he showed in Bronson, has a great physical presence which will be utilised for his role in The Dark Knight Rises’’. Not everyone, however, is convinced of Nolan’s casting, like Nigel Payne already commented. Mikel Koven, cult cinema lecturer at University of Worcester, also has his doubts about Hardy, saying ‘’I looked up Tom Hardy on IMDb, just to see who he was. I’ve seen a couple films he’s been in but he’s apparently quite unmemorable in any of them’’.

So what can we expect from Hardy as Bane then? Nolan’s take on the Bat has been fairly grounded in reality, creating a contemporary and psychologically dark world around Batman, so it is hard to say whether Bane will actually be Venom-enhanced in The Dark Knight Rises. My speculations, like so many other commentators’, would be that Bane will keep his origins as a felon jailed for a long period, possibly with a thing for bats like in the comics, which explains Bane’s fascination with Batman. Maybe he will actually take on Batman toe-to-toe after exhausting him psychologically as he did in Knightfall? However, rest assured that Hardy is more than capable of portraying a convincing threat to Batman, and in a realistic setting. Nolan has proved to be great at casting, which famously was questioned when Ledger was cast as The Joker of which many had similar doubts as now with Hardy, and which culminated in his ensemble cast of Inception. To actually see this one we will have to wait patiently until the announced launch in July 2012 (although a first picture has been since released of Hardy in a mask. Mysterious…).

Slightly flinchy at times.

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in a movie about aliens? Is anyone actually surprised? Most probably think Paul is the third part in Frost-Pegg-Wright’s hugely successful and lauded ’Blood and Ice Cream’ trilogy when it in fact is a buddy-movie by Pegg and Frost alone. According to Pegg the idea originated during the filming of Shaun of The Dead during breaks, and it became their dream which they finally realised.

Pegg and Frost play two British sci-fi nerds, not entirely unlike themselves, Graeme Willy and Clive Gollings, who are visiting Comic-Con in San Diego and go on a road trip after to see all the important UFO sights. The movie takes already early on a turn towards humour of bodily functions and fluids and does not really rise from that at any point.

Gollings and Willy, a sub-navel joke in itself, are mistaken for a gay couple several times, Gollings wets himself and this is later used to track the duo with the titular alien, Paul (Seth Rogen).  When Paul comes along for the ride is when the movie really takes a steep turn South, humour-wise. He likes mooning people, appearing out of nowhere in the nude, and swears like a sailor. From space, mind you. And this is the guy who gave you E.T. and other sci-fi pearls?

Knowing Pegg and Frost’s earlier accolades with at least slightly more sophisticated humour, the inclusion of Rogen in the cast just seems off-beat – why cast an American comedian known for his crude humour in a movie with two Brits who are known for their more elaborate sketches and language use? Rogen just seems too crude and feels out of place with the rest of the main cast. Pegg himself justified this in an interview by saying they tried to go for a less niche approach and go for a more widely appealing movie. But is selling out the right medicine for even greater success, when they have an established following and appreciation in an ever-growing niche audience?

Even with Pegg and Frost, it just seems like something is missing, a piece from a whole. Maybe it is that Wright is the missing piece that would complete the duo and make justice to their ideas. After all, Wright is the director behind Spaced, Shaun of The Dead and Hot Fuzz, which are arguably the most lauded works of theirs. Wright may have been able to hone and polish the turd that is Paul into something else.

Talking about polishing, the visual side of the movie is very refined. Especially the visuals on Paul are astonishing and the crew know that, which shows in several close-up shots of him and his eyes. It would be a pity if that much work hours of animation would be unused, since Paul is in most of the scenes in the movie from his introduction onwards.

Paul fails the expectations that were implied by the dynamic duo of Pegg and Frost although it had promise. It just does not get its head out of the bushes, or rather pants, and try to actually humour the audience. Science fiction fans will appreciate the nods to other works, like Paul’s craving for Reese’s Pieces similar to E.T., but even the geek appreciation carries the movie only so far and lacks true substance. Under its technical bells and whistles and spaceman balls-jokes Paul is a pretty straightforward buddy movie, and mediocre at that. Here’s hoping Wright will get them on tow and together they create a worthy third movie to their ‘Blood and Ice Cream’ trilogy.

Brothers Cavanaugh in the flesh.

Anathema with Awake by Design and North Atlantic Oscillation

First off, I’d like to apologise for the absence of new posts on this site. I’ve been quite bogged down with other stuff, and three of my stories I wanted to post here I couldn’t earlier as they were a part of my Magazine production course at uni. But I’m back now, here’s the first one:

Waiting for Anathema to play at the Slade Rooms, the audience is treated to two support bands before the main treat of the evening: local melodic metal band Awake by Design and Glasgow-based electro-rock band North Atlantic Oscillation.

Awake by Design as the starting act brings the adrenaline with a rock band’s 101 of brashness and ferocity. Singer Adrian Powell lively jets around the stage, occasionally actually standing on the barrier in front of the audience to liven up the crowd and the band itself conveys an image of hardness through dressing. The music itself is not bad, but not memorable enough for a listener that is not acquainted with their music, however talented and energised the performers and the performance itself is. It did not turn off the audience of the main event, but was not perhaps the most fitting band for that particular event although the choice is understandable, considering Anathema’s roots as one of the originators of doom metal which for some fans is obscure.

After the head banging fest along came North Atlantic Oscillation, a trio of drums, two keyboards, guitar, bass and vocals, an impressive array of instruments for just three people, though somehow they make it work and seem effortless. Sam Healy plays guitar, keyboards and sings, Chris Howard deals with the other keyboard, bass and backing vocals and Ben Martin plays the drums, together creating a compelling soundscape for the audience. After hearing their set it actually makes me want to get more familiar with their music, which they offer for listening on their website and Youtube. A promising band indeed and a wise choice by Anathema to have NAO as their regular support band on the tour, NAO compliments Anathema’s music quite well with their gloomy but hauntingly beautiful music. The band hardly communicates with the audience, instead preferring to stay detached from the crowd which in a way makes the players seem distant in spite of the intimacy provided by the small venue itself and closeness of the stage.

For a band that has played for more than 20 years Anathema plays with a surprising freshness of expression but with the confidence and skill of an old band. Usually when an old band plays an album release tour, like Anathema are doing now, the band plays a hit single or two off the album and then proceed to play their older, bigger hits. Not the case with Anathema though. They fire off the concert by playing through the whole We’re Here Because We’re Here album track by track in order, after which they play some of their older songs.

The crowd reaction is instant; most know these songs already really well. The amount of younger listeners in the audience was notable, but did not overtake the older listeners who presumably have been listeners for a longer time. No wonder Anathema attracts attention so well, as their latest album was awarded ‘Prog album of the Year’ by Classic Rock magazine. The old songs do not pale in comparison to the new material in their live performance but just as much attention and feeling is given to both new and old songs.

The attention is painstaking in a slightly negative way too, as it seems on further thought that the live renditions are exactly the same as they are on record. Nothing new was brought into the songs, occasional solo here or there not withstanding. The songs are good as they are, but one should be able to expect something new from a live performance rather than note-for-note performances of recorded songs. But even as the songs were almost perfect reconstructions of the recordings, this only occurred to me as an afterthought of the concert, not during it.

Despite of the nigh-complete lack of improvisation, the performance was thoroughly enjoyable. Anathema manages to instil some sort of magic into their performance and bring a sort of intimacy into their playing with audience contact and rapport. Singer-guitarist Vincent Cavanaugh even requested for the lights to be dimmed in order for them to see the crowd and not just a wall of light.

A rather pleasing and enjoyable evening with live music, Anathema is indeed a band worth seeing live if alternative/progressive rock is at all your bag.

Oh, and the guitar Vincent Cavanaugh is playing is from the same town in Finland where I’m from. It’s an Amfisound Custom.

”It’s biodigital jazz, man”. That line, delivered by his Dudeness, Jeff Bridges as Kevin Flynn, pretty much sums up Tron: Legacy. Just like jazz, it’s an experience overall yet consists of brilliant musicians, or areas of production in this analogy, even though you might not appreciate them all and some are better than the others. Tron is superb on many frontiers, yet still in a way seems lacking, like when listening to jazz and you don’t really know what’s going on. I’ll try and walk you through some of it to make a bit sense of the movie

Tron: Legacy is in theory a sequel to Tron from 1982, but in essence it could as well be a reboot of the series, especially with a looming sequel. The cyperspace, or Grid as they call it, of the original Tron is gone, as the ones who’ve seen it would know, and the Grid seen in Tron: Legacy is a new one created by Kevin Flynn, an ex-hacker turned CEO of Encom, a huge software company (think Microsoft or Apple). What is a bit misleading about the title is the nigh-complete absence of the titular character Tron (his story arch is definitely mishandled and left to hang to dry, possibly to make you crave a sequel), a programme created by Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner) in his own likeness, to protect users like him and Kevin. Instead, we have the Tron city on the grid, which is the centre of the Grid and the throne from which Clu, a security programme turned dictator of Tron created by Kevin Flynn, rules the Grid. In between the events of the original Tron and Legacy, Clu, in his quest to perfect the programme, tries to apprehend Kevin and get his identity disc to gain the information he possesses and finish his ultimate plan, which I won’t spoil for you. Because of this Kevin doesn’t make it to the portal and is stranded in cyberspace indefinitely.

Into the mix is thrown Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), the estranged son of Kevin, orphaned at age six when Kevin disappeared from the real world to the world of the Grid. He becomes a pawn in the grand scheme played out by Clu against Kevin and hopes to get to Kevin through Sam. In the events Sam is saved by Quorra (Olivia Wilde), a mysterious, almost human-like programme that is somehow affiliated with Kevin. This is where the big wheels get turning really fast and plot-wise the interesting part starts. However, that is where most of the action stops, which is what basically made up for the first half of the movie. The movie feels like the director couldn’t really mix up action and plot so decided to outweigh each other by dedicating each their own half of the movie. In a way it works, letting the audience dig the action and then focus on the subtleties of the plot, but then again it feels as if the excitement that was a big part of the beginning is almost completely lacking from the latter half which is a disappointment because the movie does deliver on both accounts. Too bad that the makers seem to be holding out for the sequel, it feels like they are laying the groundwork for a mythos like Matrix did before it. Let’s just hope Tron doesn’t go the way Matrix did with its sequels.

What is interesting in the movie is that it manages to mix in an allegory of totalitarianism, Christianity and Zen philosophy. Clu acts as the dictator of the totalitarian state of Tron and as the Antichrist of Christianity whereas Kevin is the resistance and the deity and Sam is both the son of God and the prodigal son. You’ll figure that all out when you see it. I don’t mind all that, since I thought they were rather fitting allegories, but I was not expecting to see such allegories in Tron although they are not really deep. Although I have yet to see the original, the Tron of 1982 doesn’t strike me as something as deep as to convey all those allegories, although it was in its time an optimistic prediction of the future of technology, all of which has now been surpassed by a mile. In a way it is still kind of fitting that Jeff Bridges gets to say he thought of Wifi over 20 years ago.

The score and visual effects get their merits as well. The proto-ageing Bridges is put through to create the visuals for Clu are impressive to say the least, although the eyes look empty at times and his expression a bit rigid, but there were occasions that I truly thought it was Bridges himself on screen somehow younger. Maybe it’s the Zen thing? The world of Tron is impressive as well, with stunning contrasts of light and dark and astounding architectural constructs that could well exist in a virtual world. The visuals do get a bit samey though, and the 3D constant darkness is magnified by the 3D glasses. The 3D by the way is brilliantly realised. I don’t remember a single scene in which stuff flies literally in your face, but it is used intuitively to create a contrast with the real world, shot in 2D, and the virtual reality, shot in 3D adding great depth to the world. The score by Daft Punk is also evoking, which rather struck me as exceptional as I don’t usually prefer electronic music. Yet the electronic flourishes in the midst of symphonic instruments add to the atmosphere of the virtual reality. The soundtrack is actually one of the few that I’ve listened to without the movie itself and enjoyed it, even as I’m writing this review.

Despite all of its brilliantly realised pieces Tron: Legacy fails to be an astounding experience, nevertheless captivating. Like a jazz band with all of its brilliant players can make a piece seem cluttered with all the brilliance. I really can’t put my finger on what was off with Tron: Legacy, but there definitely was something that failed to make it an amazing experience. It definitely is a good movie worth a second viewing, but somehow it just falls short of being brilliant, with all of its great parts.

Do you believe?

This is not your typical Christmas movie, although it is a Christmas movie anyway. Rare Exports is what began in 2003 as a short movie on Youtube about catching a Santa Claus and spawned a sequel short movie in 2005, and has now made its way on the big screen as a full movie, albeit full not quite meaning your average modern Hollywood movie with its length of 84 minutes.

Rare Exports tells the tale of the real Santa Claus, opposed to the contemporary, coke-indulging version with rosy red cheeks riding a sleigh pulled by reindeers. This Santa is everything but nice. He whips kids till they bleed to death and Santa’s little helpers are all but little. And naked. Most of the time. This mythos is the other side of the tale of Santa Claus in Nordic mythology, interpreted through a very dark lens, although the origins already are not really child-friendly. I’m nevertheless glad that for once there is a Christmas movie that is not like every other Christmas movie, all about gifts, families and joy, but a dark tale with fear and anguish thrown in the mix. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I’m a sullen misanthrope that hates Christmas, I’m all for family Christmases and presents that have a meaning, but I don’t like the general materialistic mindset and mumbo jumbo that has surrounded it.

The other thing that greatly pleases me about this movie is the originality of the subject matter at hand. It’s not every day you see what is basically a horror movie about Santa Claus and Christmas set in the wilderness of Finnish Lapland, beyond the Arctic Circle (regarding which there is a major flaw in the production: the movie takes place beyond the Arctic Circle and around Christmas. Polar night lasts from early December till New Year, so there shouldn’t be any daylight, yet the majority of the movie is set in broad daylight). Despite its premise and treatment, there is lots of humour thrown in, dark, Finnish humour at that, and that made the contrast between the suspense and the humorous side so captivating. A horror movie that makes you feel good in the end, wasn’t really expecting that. Although a horror movie isn’t what I was expecting at all, so that doubles the surprise.

The acting is good and the actors well suit their gruff, simple herder roles. Although the movie is almost entirely in Finnish, I’m sure people who don’t understand Finnish can enjoy this, purely because the movie is good despite the language barrier, and it actually makes fun of the stereotype of the angular accent that Finnish people have when speaking English. The production overall was good, including the score which was well suited to the atmosphere. The only thing that was lacking compared to other areas was the CGI, which was quite.. ancient, in a way, and that annoyed me a bit, especially in the run-up to the ending which utilised lots of computer graphics.

I really suggest that everyone who is able to should go and see this movie in the cinema. Whether or not you’re a Christmas person you might enjoy this movie, I surely did. Definitely one of the best movies of 2010, and is more than likely to become a part of my personal Christmas tradition. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hollywood made a remake of this movie in the future after it has gained a cult following across the Atlantic after it’s released on DVD. Mark my words. Before then, go see this movie. Whether or not you like it, I guarantee you an experience, an original Christmas movie.

Boulevard of Broken Dreams?

A movie that begins with a sequence that could be straight from a Tarantino movie or an unholy lovechild of one and a western cannot be bad, right? That’s what you’d assume at least, and that’s what I assumed. Well, I guess there’s a first time for everything. William Monahan’s London Boulevard, based on a novel of the same name by Ken Bruen and features Colin Farrell playing Mitchell, a man who’s just got out of prison and intends to stay on the straight and narrow and ends up falling for a reclusive movie star Charlotte, played by Keira Knightley. In between lots of stuff happens, a lot of people are introduced and many forgotten as fast, and yet the pace is not staggering.

The main problem is that there are lots of subplots and minor characters that come in and out of the main story. For example, Mitchell’s sister Briony, played by Anna Friel, is introduced early and features in a scene moments later but then she’s forgotten about altogether until over half the movie’s already gone. Same goes with one creepy paparazzi: showing him a lot in the beginning made me feel like he’s an important character, but then he’s forgotten about until the very end when it seems he might have had a story, but he was totally undeveloped in between. Jamie Campbell Bower as a character called White Boy? Where did I see him in the whole movie? Who is White Boy, I have no recollection of a character called that, nor do I remember seeing Campbell Bower’s distinct features? What am I to make of this then? Where did you put all the characters in the meantime Monahan?!

The only good characters in the movie are Farrell’s Mitchell, although even he is a bit stiff but is a convincing bad guy, David Thewlis’ Jordan, Charlotte’s aide and servant who is the only funny character of the movie, incidentally reminding me a lot of Alan Rickman which haunted me for the duration of the movie, and Ray Winstone’s Gaunt, a menacing mob boss, and menacing in the true sense of him giving me a real sense of dread and loathing. But even though they were the good characters of the movie, even they were inconsistent. Why is Mitchell so well known if he’s only a small time crook? Why does Jordan get involved so easily, he doesn’t seem like the type? Why is Gaunt’s homosexuality only briefly touched and hinted upon? It would’ve made the movie a whole lot more interesting if it had been expanded upon more, like his motives for wanting Mitchell to work for him.

The movie definitely had promise, especially as Monahan was involved in the brilliant The Departed, and at first the movie came off as something Tarantino-esque with a hint of Guy Ritchie, but then just deteriorated into a mess of poor choices and inconsistency. The only thing that kept me consistently amused was Farrell’s emotive eyebrows. Seriously, who has eyebrows that expressive and yet can be as bland as gray wallpaper?

The titular cast, including The Goat.

Hollywood needs more proper slapstick movies. Long gone are the days of The Marx brothers’ genius comedies that I greatly admire. The thought occurred to me when I was watching The Men Who Stare At Goats, an ensemble comedy starring George Clooney, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges, men who are interested in (para)psychic operations and their research allegedly conducted by the US Army.

The Men Who Stare At Goats is based on Jon Ronson’s book by the same name, crafted from the research conducted by John Sergeant about US Army’s study of New Age ideologies and concepts and their possible military applications. The premise itself already sounds ludicrous enough to warrant a few laughs when the producers discussed a pitch for a movie, let alone being allegedly based on actual events. It seems fact indeed is often stranger than fiction.

Ewan McGregor plays Bob Wilton, a journalist for Ann Arbor Daily Telegram, who in search for new things in his life after his wife leaves him for his editor decides to go to Iraq to cover the ongoing war. Bob flies to Kuwait to try and get across to Iraq and while waiting Bob meets Lyn Cassidy. Lyn reveals to Bob that he is actually a retired sergeant of the New Earth Army that was formed by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), who was turned to pacifism after being wounded in Vietnam. Bill believes that people have psychic talents, who Bill likes to call Jedi warriors, and Lyn eventually becomes one of his finest pupils. The unit is eventually torn apart by a jealous psychic operative Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey), who harbours feelings of regret and revenge over his inferior psychic skills. The comedy revolves around the various hilarious experiments and methods the New Earth Army conducted and taught and the way Lyn utilises them trying to convince Bob of his psychic abilities. You can imagine how ironic it sounds when McGregor, who played the iconic Obi-Wan Kenobi in the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, claims to have never heard, let alone know of, the Jedi.

Although the movie is far from a serious, pathos-filled pacifist movie, it nevertheless contains a lot of anti-war sentiments and, unintentionally or not, glorifies the 1960s and 1970s New Age ideologies and hippies. Another relatable topic is the meaning of defining moments. In the beginning Bob is pondering about what is the true beginning of his story and goes through several events in his recent life, like his divorce, yet ends up picking the decision to go to Iraq as the turning point in his life. I think defining moments of life is a relatable topic to almost anyone who has gone through their fair share of dire straits. Despite of these serious and weighty underlying ideas, the movie retains its positive air and fast pace, you never know what to expect next, especially when the movie finally picks up on the titular goats and the men who stare at them.

The Men Who Stare At Goats is an entertaining movie, although it does have its occasional brooding moments and few forced laughs. The movie is held up mainly by the charisma and brilliant performances of the star-filled cast, especially Clooney’s and Bridges’ tongue-in-cheek outlandishness as two hippies living in the modern age, and does indeed add to this (in Hollywood standards) exceptional comedy.

I have not seen Control, Anton Corbijn’s earlier movie, so the idea of a famous photographer directing a movie is quite interesting. The American is Corbijn’s first foray into fiction, as Control was based on the life of Ian Curtis, the late singer of Joy Division. The American is based on Martin Booth’s novel A Very Private Gentleman, telling the story of an assassin and gunsmith who flees and hides in Italy after a botched job in Sweden.

The movie kicks off in Sweden where Jack (George Clooney) is situated, apparently after a job, spending time with his girlfriend Ingrid (Irina Björklund). Jack is found by Swedish hitmen and because of this decides to go and hide in Italy. This is where Jack, appearing as a photographer and now calling himself Edward, intends to perform his last job, a custom gun order, and then retire from being an assassin. He also falls in love with a local prostitute and befriends an old priest with a dark past. Looking at the collection of characters it is apparent that the movie is no light entertainment, and probably due to Corbijn’s career as a photographer the movie is very static, both in suspense and slow pace.

The movie has a plethora of lingering shots and scenes both in the small town of Castel Del Monte and the surrounding landscapes, and the nature actually draws a few parallels to Jack, who has a butterfly tattoo in his upper back and studies them for his own amusement, going even so far that the two important ladies of the story, Clara the prostitute (Violante Placido) and Jack’s customer Mathilde (Thekla Reuten), nickname Jack as Mr Butterfly. An observant viewer may notice butterflies in the important scenes of the movie, some of them very apparent but some more subtle than others.

The music compliments many of the scenes very well, with a selection of pre-existing songs like Tu vuò fà l’americano (You pretend to be American, ironically), and score by Herbert Grönemeyer. There are lots of quiet moments too, and they are very suspenseful, even though there is only a slight amount of action and add to the paranoia that Jack feels, making the viewer relate to the character. The town itself seems to be an actor on its own, as its maze-like streets are narrow and full of turns and layers upon layers, much like the mind of a killer. Clooney also makes a convincing yet subdued performance as an assassin grown tired of his ways looking for some peace of his own.

What bothered me about the movie was the almost complete lack of a backstory, both character-wise and story wise. There are no clues given to what Jack has been doing before the events of the movie, why he is being persecuted and what it is that seems to be bothering him. Who are the people who keep searching for him, mysteriously only recognised as ‘the Swedes’, and what has Jack done to piss them off so that they’ll come looking for him all the way to Italy. The characters are hardly fleshed out, yet they somehow manage to feel like complete characters, in a way. Yet I couldn’t ignore the need to know a bit more about what has transpired before that has lead to these events. Maybe that’s what adds to the intrigue of the movie, which makes you want to come back to it again to maybe understand more of the story, the characters and their motives.

I did like the movie, although at the end I was feeling perplexed and confused, yet satisfied. It is refreshing for a change to watch a slow-paced thriller with hardly any action that still seems to hold a lot of events. The cinematography is very gripping and memorable, especially if European and Italian landscapes are your cup of espresso. What I don’t suggest you do is to go and see this movie with expectations of seeing George Clooney play James Bond or Jason Bourne packed with high octane action. This is a slow, thoughtful and quiet thriller about a man with a dark past on the getaway, a perfect choice if you want something to evoke your imagination and are bored of the regular glorifying Hollywood action movies of spies and assassins. It does have its flaws in the story, yet nevertheless being a captivating piece of European cinema.