It’s 2020 and boxing between men is prohibited and boxers have been replaced by robots. Cool huh? Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) owns a boxing robot and pits it in the ring for money, but business don’t turn out to be profitable and Charlie ends up babysitting his not so welcome son Max (Dakota Goyo) for money and only for the summer. He then spends the “earnings” on a new shiny robot. Unfortunately, the robot ends up badly wounded and Charlie completely bankrupt. Father and son wander between junkyards to find parts to fix their robot when Max finds and drags out of the mad an old robot (Atom).

Atom is an old fashioned Generation 2 robot designed to sustain massive damage, but unable to deal much damage it self. Max insists on keeping Atom and train it. Charlie on the other hand despite having second thoughts he needs money and Atom seems to be his only hope. After a few successful, underground fights the two men start to believe in what Atom can do, upgrade it to take vocal commands and pit him in a real tournament.

Will Atom make it to the end? Will Charlie take custody of his son? SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS ….of course Atom will win at the end and Max will stay with his father – this is a family movie people – only good things happen at the end.

So, what my thoughts are? Overall I was satisfied with Real Steel. The visual fx were top notch, the acting was bad but who cares in this kind of movies, I had a big bowl of pop corn, a few cans of beer, some friends around making jokes about the ala-Rocky style scenario and bottom line we had a blast.

-manoc-

It is impossible to approach the big screen adaptation of John le Carré’s masterpiece without comparing it with the epochal BBC series from 1979. That version starred Alec Guinness as MI6 spymaster George Smiley, along with a cast of peerless British thespians (Ian Bannen, Ian Richardson, Patrick Stewart, Siân Phillips) and is a perfect example of what great television can achieve. Luckily, Tomas Alfredson (Let the Right One In) is the perfect director for this story.

The novel is- among other things- a mythologized account of the Kim Philby scandal, perhaps the most famous failure in British counter intelligence history. It’s the early seventies and Smiley (Gary Oldman) is a retired top- lever officer in “the Circus” (le Carré’s name for MI6). He is called back in a hurry, to investigate the hypothesis that there is a traitor among the hierarchy of the service. Smiley has been ostracized- along with his boss “Control” (a wonderfully dessicated John Hurt), the former head of the Circus- after a disastrous operation in Hungary, where a British agent (Mark Strong) was shot. Smiley starts looking around, revisiting his old comrades and trying to find out the truth.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is complicated but rewarding. It demands your full attention as it gradually shows you the full picture through flashbacks and conversations. For someone who hasn’t read the book or seen the series, Smiley’s labyrinthine investigation will be a challenge. There is a lot of information and a large cast to keep track of. Like the TV version, the cast is essentially a who- is- who of great character actors of our time. Tom Hardy (Inception, Warrior, The Dark Knight Rises), Toby Jones (Doctor Who, Capote, The Mist), Kathy Burke (Nil By Mouth), Ciarán Hinds (Munich, There Will Be Blood), Colin Firth (The King’s Speech), Benedict Cumberpatch (BBC’s Sherlock), Stephen Graham (This is England).

It is one of the most impressive assortment of actors in years and they all do fantastic work. Only Firth struck me as a bit ordinary, compared to Ian Richardson’s playful, towering performance in the series. Espionage for le Carré is an automnal, chilly world, filled with paranoid Cold War functionaries, petty office squabling and occasional bursts of deadly violence. There is nothing exotic or James Bondian about it. Alfredson shoots this sunless environment with a Zodiac- level attention to the era and makes the existential desperation seem fascinating. In some respects, the cinema budget opens up the story and the surroundings. In other ways, such as the decision to not show the crucial meeting between Smiley and his Soviet opposite, Karla, it works less well. Here, Oldman recounts the story. In the series, it was a scene in flashback, made unforgettable thanks to an intense, worldless performance by Patrick Stewart. Nonetheless, the film’s most interesting moments are often silent and full of meaning and its’ centerpiece, a flashback of an old office party is genius. The film keeps going back to that event, subtly revealing more and more of the relationships between the cast until the last moment and it packs a real punch in an otherwise emotionless group of people. And Oldman deserves an Oscar. His George Smiley is a grey, unremarkable- looking man. Hidden behind owlish glasses (a touch of Alec Guinness), he coldly assesses everyone around him and always asks the right questions. Like Guinness, Oldman manages to convey regret and humanity behind a character who isn’t particularly likable.    

Bottom line, I still prefer the series, but the film version more than holds up on its’ own. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a serious, intelligent film that makes most of today’s blockbusters and Oscar contenders seem infantile and desperate. I guess a lot of viewers may be put off by its’ cool, cerebral detachment. I wouldn’t know, as I found it to be one of the best films of 2011. I hope they get to make the other two novel’s in le Carré’s “Karla Trilogy”, The Honourable Schoolboy and Smiley’s People.

(-Dimitris Kontogiannis-)

From the opening credits of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo- where dark, swirling digital imagery from the story uncoils to the roar of Immigrant Song (retooled by Trent Reznor), you know that Fincher means business. Stieg Larsson’s crime novel (the first in the phenomenonally successful Millenium Trilogy) was first adapted as a Swedish film in 2009 and normally I would be wary of yet another Hollywood remake.

Not quite in this case though. I found Larsson’s novel to be an averagely written potboiler, with a well- meaning but confused feminist message and some of the most ridiculous plot contrivances since Dan Brown decided (erroneously) that he could write. I could bitch at length about how the plot presents the reader with a “locked room mystery” and then resorts to the lamest solution imaginable, but I ‘ll spare you the rant. Lets just say that Larsson (who died before the publication of the books) may have been a great crussading reporter, but as a thriller writer, he is not in the same league as Thomas Harris or James Ellroy.

Well, Fincher and screenwriter Steven Zaillian do wonders with the material. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is a sleek, dark, tense thriller with a terrific cast (Steven Berkoff, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Robin Wright) and a distinct European edge that reminded me of Gorky Park. Fincher is clearly enjoying himself with the story of leftwing journalist Mikael Blomkvist, hacker goth genius Lisbeth Salander and their investigation into the horrific past of the rich Vanger family (Rape! Murder! Nazis!).

The film streamlines the novel and fetichizes a grungy, probably innaccurate vision of Sweden as a wonderland of snow, sleaze and deep secrets. Not everything works- compared to Zodiac, this feels far less mature, and the epilogue lasts for ages, as the script tries frantically to tie up loose ends- but I was very entertained. Daniel Craig injests some charisma into the role of Blomkvist, a rather bland character in the books, but the real test for the movie is of course how it handles Lisbeth Salander. Noomi Rapace was excellent in the Swedish version, but I was pleased to see Rooney Mara knock it out of the park here as well. Her Salander is a intelligent, sensuous creation and I could watch her beat people up and sulking in front of computer screens all day (she also gets a lesbian seduction scene that’s pure poetry- just sayin’…). It’s a star- making performance and it saves the film from being an empty exercise in stylish darkness.

(-Dimitris Kontogiannis-)

Fun fact 1: I haven’t seen the first movie. I refused to, after catching a glimpse of the trailer and thinking  “This isn’t Sherlock Holmes!”.
Fun fact 2: I was an idiot for doing that.
Summary: Watson, on the eve of his wedding, rejoins Mr. Holmes, in order to solve a number of recent crimes which will ultimately, help track down Professor Moriarty, that elusive, sadistic  bastard! A few gypsies added to that mix and what you have is a very… explosive cocktail! (wink wink- but no spoilers!)
As I am told, the first part lacked in pace. Not that it was bad; people actually recommended it to me. But, as they said, it was terribly slow and the movie suffered from it. The story was good and so was the chemistry between the actors. (I never doubted Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law for a second!)
Well, “A Game of Shadows” does not, I repeat does NOT lack in pace. Granted, the story may be a little thin buuuut…  for once, focusing on the action sequences and wit (both in terms of humour and intellect), doesn’t harm the outcome, which is a very entertaining film! It’s been a while since I’ve enjoyed a movie and this is actually refreshing.
Guy Ritchie’s direction was very, very good in action, mystery and emotional scenes. No problems there. Performances… Well, what do you expect from Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law? And Jared Harris and Stephen Fry and that amazingly charming Noomi Rapace? They were all wonderful. Absolutely exciting to watch! Also, great work done on the costumes.
Once you push prejudice aside, Sherlock Holmes will not disappoint you. Open your mind, prepare yourself for fun and I bet you will enjoy it.

Lu

Lately, I ‘ve been noticing a tendency to associate Greek cinema with “difficult”, “challenging” films. The Guardian called it “the Greek wave of weird cinema”. Harsh, unforgiving films who refuse to comfort the viewer and whose point is usually obscured behind allegory, symbolism or multiple interpretations. Films like Dogtooth and Athina Tsangari’s Attenberg.

Bollocks.

I had no interest in watching Attenberg, since I didn’t think it would be my cup of tea (indeed, it wasn’t). Still, it was shot in Aspra Spitia, the small seaside town where I grew up, so it was impossible to ignore. Plus, like Dogtooth, it was hugely successful for a small, Greek indie movie (nominated at the Venice Film Festival and even getting to the next Oscars). Quentin Tarantino said that the film “grew on us the most, and showed another Greece”.

Attenberg is the story of Marina (Ariana Labed), a young woman who lives and works in the factory in a small town. She grew up watching Sir David Attenborrough’s nature documentaries (the title refers to her misspronouncing his name) and she can only feel kinship with the animals on TV. Her father is dying and we get the idea that she has always lived an isolated life. She rejects all forms of human relationsghip, prefering to dance around, play strange games, make out and do animal impressions with her only friend Bella (Evangelia Randou).

Oh boy, where do I start?

The film ambles along, showing us Marina’s dreary everyday life as a driver in the factory. Tsangari frames Aspra Spitia as a grey post- industrial Hell, full of sixties brutalist architecture under grey skies (growing up in this town was actually great fun, but you wouldn’t know it from the movie). These are striking tableaux, but they are the only interesting thing in Attenberg. It’s impossible to relate to anyone onscreen, because they are complete ciphers. The leads obsession with nature documentaries allows the acting to focus on pure first- year- in- drama- school “bark like a dog”, “flap like a bird” method nonsense. Labed’s character is irritating beyond belief, more a collection of ticks than a person. Her flat, affectless delivery does not help. In true “serious drama” mode, the whole cast appears catatonic (when they are not crawling about pretending to be animals, that is). No one is doing anything as conventional as “acting”. This leaves us with a film where nothing happens, trying to say something so vague, that the meaning is whisked away in the atmosphere. It’s possible that Attenberg is an indigment of the 20th century’s industrial way of life. Or the story of a woman’s sexual awakening. Or a mirror to modern Greece’s current malaise. Or a polemic in favor of cremation. Frankly, I found it impossible to give a fuck.

Judging from the critic’s response, I am in the minority here. In any case, I found Attenberg to be an insufferably pretentious, boring waste of time. Both Dogtooth and Attenberg have amassed plaudits from all over the world, so they don’t need my approval. As far as I’m conserned, they are cold, calculated failures, trying to be the next Von Trier or Hanneke- type sensation, without having an original vision. And both are inferior to Strella (A Woman’s Way), another Greek drama from 2009. That was a difficult film as well, but it was a film about people, not automatons. If you are interested in modern Greece, don’t miss it.

(-Dimitris Kontogiannis-)

It’s been a great year for documentaries and Asif Kapadia’s stunning film on the life and death of Ayrton Senna was one of the best.

The film follows Senna’s career through a mixture of TV footage, family home videos and interviews with people who knew him, as he blazes through Formula One. It focuses on his tenure with McLaren, his initial friendship and later rivalry with Alain Prost and his views on the sport, before converging on the moment of his death in the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. Obviously, fans will definately need to see this, but it may not sound too interesting for people who do not follow Formula One. Wrong. I have no interest whatsoever in the the field and yet I foud Senna to be a epic, gripping story.

This is partly because it is a great story. Senna’s disdain for the political manoeuvres of then- FIFA head Jean- Marie Balestre resonate even today and his often bitter feud with Prost is the stuff of legend. The film’s point of view may be skewed here. Senna is the humble champion of the people, while Prost comes across like a manipulative son of a bitch. This portrayal may or may not be accurate (both of them were clearly full of contradictions), but it does mean that- when the two of them reach a sort of grudging truce near the end- it feels like two heroes teaming up. But the main reason Senna makes unforgettable viewing is the footage itself. Somehow, the filmmakers edited hours of Formula One television coverage into a coherent narrative. There is unprecedented access here into revealing moments that tell the story far better than any narration could. The reaction to the death of Roland Ratzenberger a day before Senna’s fatal accident is unbelievably poignant- especially since we know what happens next.

Senna is a must- see for anyone who has even a passing interest in a great story. Formula One fanatics have probably seen it already.

(-Dimitris Kontogiannis-)

After the unholy abomination that was the prequel to The Thing, I was reluctant to check out Fright Night, another 80s horror remake. Tom Holland’s 1985 vampire comedy is not one of my personal favorites or anything, but it’s still a fun little movie and features two of the all- time classic performances by Roddy McDowall and Chris Sarandon (as Peter Vincent, the reluctant master of the occult and Jerry the suave vampire respectively). Fortunately the new version, while far from perfect, manages to not fuck up another childhood memory and is a Hell of a lot of fun as well.

Once again we revisit the story of Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin), a teenager who starts to suspect that his charming next door neighbour Jerry is not what he seems. This time round, things are different. In the old version, Charley was a horror movie- obssessed, high school loser. This time, he is a former geek who has been avoiding his childhood buddy Evil Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, once again channelling the ultimate geek like he did in Superbad and Kick- Ass), in order to hang with the cool kids and hot new girlfriend (Imogene Poots). When a handsome stranger (Colin Farrell) moves in next door to his house in the outskirts of Las Vegas, his divorced mom (Toni Collette) is smitten, but Ed warns him that the guy is in fact a vampire. Charley doesn’t believe him initially, but when whole families start to go missing from the Nevada suburb, he starts to take notice. Only problem is, no one believes him.

Collin Farrell is excellent as Jerry. Where Chris Sarandon was smooth, polite and slightly amused by Charlie’s fears, Farrell is a flirtatious alpha male. He is initially likable, until you start to notice the barely suppressed twitches and the sociopathic gleam in his eyes. Still, I liked Sarandon’s Jerry. The new Jerry is kind of a jerk.

The movie really takes off with the introduction of Peter Vincent though. Roddy McDowall was a grumpy TV horror host who didn’t even believe in vampires. It was a hilarious, lovable performance and I didn’t think anyone could replace McDowall. Wisely, the film goes in a completely different direction. This time, Vincent (played by former Doctor Who David Tennant) is a Chris Angel- type Las Vegas stage illusionist. To say that Tennant steals the show would be an understatement. He staggers around in leather pants, makeup, fake hair and goatee, drinks absinthe from the bottle, collects occult artifacts from eBay, shags his hot assistants and swears abuse at everyone like a goth prima donna. When asked to help out with the vampire slaying, he simply cowers and drinks some more. It’s brilliant. Of course Doctor Who fans know what Tennant is capable of, but it’s a joy to see him in a Hollywood movie. His Peter Vincent should have his own monster- hunting franchise.

Beyond that, the movie is OK. Unfortunately, it has been converted in 3D in post- production and as a result, it’s too dark at places when seen in a normal screen. Plus, the effects (by the usually awesome KNB studio) are too reliant on CGI to be scary. In fact, that is the main problem. Sure, the original Fright Night was funny, but it was also creepy and disturbing at times. This time the humour is wicked (after all, the script is by Marti Noxon, who has worked in Buffy The Vampire Slayer), but it’s impossible to be upset by pixelated blood.

Still, Peter Vincent man! He rules…

(-Dimitris Kontogiannis-)

The Thing? THE THING? Seriously? Look, why don’t you just remake Citizen Kane while you ‘re at it?

OK, let me start over:

Dear Hollywood,

Please stop remaking* masterpieces. You don’t have the balls or the talent to pull it off and I can’t afford anger management classes.

Best Regards,

(-Dimitris Kontogiannis-)

*(technically this is a prequel, but it’s so bereft of original ideas, we might as well call it a remake. And yeah, Carpenter’s movie was a remake as well, but it was also fantastic)

In all fairness, I didn’t expect anything great… I was certain, greek mythology would, once again, be butchered  but there was still some hope left in me, that it would be done in a spectacular way. Alas…

Theseus, a poor man -who for some reason lives in a village built inside a cliff- vows vengeance against king Hyperion. Hyperion, although set on releasing the Titans with the help of Epirus Bow, decides to take a few minutes off his busy schedule to kill the only family Theseus has; his mother. Little does Hyperion know that the man he has chosen to cross, has been chosen by Zeus himself, to bring down the mighty king and prevent the Titans (that look more like a mix of Gollum and Gremlins) from being set free.

I’m a reasonable girl. I wanted only to see some good battles and blood! Was that too much to ask? The battle choreographies sucked major ass and they didn’t take up sufficient time in the movie. They were clearly shot to be seen in 3D, which might give them some more edge, but I seriously doubt that. Ultimately, there was very little blood and that disappointed me deeply.

The plot wasn’t that amazing either. Huge gaps in it, left me and my company wondering “Where the hell did that spring from?”. Before you rush to say that being a girl I tend to overthink stuff that are plain and simple, I will clarify that the guy I went to see it with, agreed with all my  points.

As far as performances go… The leading man, Henry Cavill, had nothing to show but abs and he faded into the labyrinth of the plot quite easily. Stephen Dorff, was used as an extra, for Poseidon’s sake! Freida Pinto, who is sooooo hot, matched Cavill in her ability to act; she seemed to me as important as grass. She managed to show emotion in only one scene and that lasted for about 10 seconds. Now, the highlight of the entire movie was the awesome Mickey Rourke, king  “I-set-a-man-on-fire-and-simply-not-give-a-flying-fuck” Hyperion. I don’t know whether I’m prejudiced but if I have to find something worth recommending  the film, it’s Mickey Rourke. He portrays the crazy king too well.

But I don’t recommend the film.

“Lu”

In the early 70s, horror was all over American television. TV series such as Rod Sherling’s Night Gallery and Dark Shadows crept up on people’s living rooms every week and the networks even shot a number of made- for- TV movies with a horror subject. These days, TV movies are synonymous with crap and justly so. Surprisingly though, many horror TV films of the seventies turned out to be awesome. Duel. Gargoyles. The Koltchak phenomenon. 1973′s Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark was one of them. It was the story of a young couple who come to live in a rambliong mansion. Pretty soon, the wife realises that, for centuries, the house has been home to certain tiny, humanoid creatures who live in the darkness and mean her harm. It was creepy and rather grim and Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy, Pan’s Labyrinth) was a huge fan.

Does a big- budget remake spoil the charm of the original? Not really. There are significant changes- not so much in plot, but in tone- and these keep the two films apart. This time, the young couple (played by Guy Pearce and Katie Holmes) are not married and the guy has an eight- year old daughter (Bailee Madison), who discovers that their new Rhode Island mansion holds some terrifying secrets.

Del Toro is only a producer in this film (comic book artist Troy Nixey is directing), but his aesthetic permeates the whole thing. The rambling mansion is a breathtakingly beautiful gothic pile, with secret passages, huge libraries, a garden labyrinth, demonic murals and so on. I want to live there. Del Toro’s script gives shout- outs to some of my favorite weird authors (there are blatant references to Arthur Machen and Algernon Blackwood and I think Carl Jacobi as well) and he went back to an old obsession of his- a darker version of the myth of the tooth fairy (he first dealth with it in a Hellboy short story)- and got the brilliant fantasy illustrator Brian Froud to design the little monsters. Froud (whose work can be seen in films like Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal) is a specialist in the various species of fairies and goblins and he gives the creatures a spindly, delightfully nasty look.

The acting is good throughout (even Katie Holmes did not annoy me as usual,which a small wonder) and the whole thing is not particularly gruesome. In fact, the original had implications that were far darker than this tale. Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is just an entertainment and it does not achieve any of the weight that more personal Del Toro projects like Pan’s Labyrinth or The Devil’s Backbone showed. Fans of horror and weird fiction will find much to enjoy for this post- Samhain time of the year.

(-Dimitris Kontogiannis-)