Verdict: Oscar Nominations 2013

I'm annoyed for many reasons right now. The first, most obvious, is to do with my disgust at a lot of the nominations this year, which I'll come onto. But secondly, and most personally, because my first post of 2013 has to be a bitter, angry one about why the Academy has let me down this year, so much so that I'm not even going to watch the ceremony because I just don't care about any of them.

The Academy has in recent years descended into somewhat of a farce, becoming predictable and sterile and celebrating only a certain selection of films rather than diversifying a bit more. In other words, they're playing it safe, and it's boring.

So many films and performances have been overlooked this year it's unbelievable. Major unexpected snubs were Ben Affleck's work on Argo, who was omitted from both Acting and Directing awards despite the film itself being up for the big one.

On the other hand, people were unnecessarily surprised about some of the categories, expecting films to be included that weren't. Mostly I'm talking about Skyfall, which I never even entertained as to get a nomination in any of the major categories. For one thing, the Academy are probably too scared to do something as "out there" as put a Bond film up for major Oscars. But also, the BAFTA nominations were announced the day before, and if Skyfall was not up for Best Film at the BRITISH film awards then why would the American film awards include it? The same goes for Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig for Best Director and Actor respectively.

Two of my favourite films starring two of my favourite people should have been up. I can't believe that On The Road isn't up for any acting nominations. I know that the film in general divided critics so I wasn't hopeful that it would get any major nods, but whatever you thought about the film, the performances were brilliant. The main trio of Sam Riley, Garrett Hedlund and Kristen Stewart deserve recognition, as well as Viggo Mortensen and Kirsten Dunst. It's ridiculous that it was overlooked. Also the cinematography was stunning and that should have been up for something too.

And also Cosmopolis should have been up for, in my opinion, Best Actor for Robert Pattinson, Best Director for David Cronenberg, Best Supporting Actor for Paul Giamatti, Best Supporting Actress fr Sarah Gadon, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Original Score. The fact that this film was so overlooked not just in awards season but throughout the whole year makes me unspeakably sad, because it was genuinely incredible, one of the most intelligent, complex films of this year. I should actually do my own awards this year just to honour it, because I can't actually give it enough praise.

I was also quite surprised at the lack of recognition for Hitchcock, which I thought would be mingling up there with the rest of them. This isn't just the Academy, I admit - there's nothing at the BAFTAs either and hardly anything at the Golden Globes - but from what I've heard it's meant to be very good. I thought Helen Mirren would get a Best Actress nod, and maybe the film itself. The same goes for The Sessions, which did in fact get Helen Hunt a nomination but I thought would have got more, but that's probably because it wasn't prolific enough. And also The Hunt, which got rave reception at Cannes this year and I thought was a real contender for nods at the Oscars, but apparently they're ignoring most films that aren't major Hollywood blockbusters. I would have liked real recognition for Mads Mikkelsen who I think is brilliant, and also I think it would have done The Academy a favour to acknowledge a film with such sensitive material. The Master wasn't up for nearly as much as I thought it would be, with exclusions on the Best Director (Paul Thomas Anderson) and Best Film lists, which was again surprising from the amount of buzz around it and the rave reviews it got from critics.

Anyway, I'll crack on with discussing the major awards and pointing out why they're wrong and spoiling the ceremony by revealing the the obvious winners for you all.

Best Film

It will go to either Les Miserables or Zero Dark Thirty because they are the obvious choice. Les Mis is the sort of stylish tragic story the Academy love, though admittedly they haven't held favour with musicals for quite some time. Zero Dark Thirty is the gritty, real-life drama they also appreciate, and you can't overlook the similarities the film has to The Hurt Locker, which of course was also directed by Kathryn Bigelow and about recent wars. However, recent controversy surrounding the film may put it out of favour with the voters, so we'll have to see. I have yet to see any of the nominees (but I plan on seeing Les Mis, Django and Lincoln in the next couple of weeks so look out for reviews of them!) but at the moment I'm just really disappointed at the shortlist.

 

Best Actor

Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln) seems to be the best bet at the moment, with the closest contender probably Joaquin Phoenix for The Master based on the rave reviews he got (but again, the Academy may be a bit peeved with him after his recent comments about them - he basically told them to shove their egotistic ceremony). The curveball here was probably including Denzel Washington (Flight) where one might have expected Jamie Foxx (Django), Mads Mikkelsen (The Hunt) or Ben Affleck (Argo).

Best Actress

Jennifer. Bloody. Lawrence. People need to stop going crazy about her. The inclusion of her on this list made me so angry the other day I had a massive rant on Twitter for about 8 hours. I like The Hunger Games, okay? I just don't like her, and I think she's a massively overrated actress. If she wins, I'll never watch the Oscars again and the Academy will have lost all respect from me. I would like to see Jessica Chastain get it for Zero Dark Thirty, but we'll have to see. It's pretty much between those two, though. Well done too to Emmanuelle Riva (Amour) and Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild) for being the oldest and youngest nominees respectively in this category, that's quite an achievement. Wallis especially makes me question what I've done with my life if she's nine and has been nominated for an Oscar.

Best Director

Affleck. Bigelow. Tarantino. Hooper. Where are they on this list? I understand that with five to ten Best Film nominees and only five Director slots, some people are going to miss out, but really, the wrong ones did. I don't understand this at all. David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook), really? I can't even say anything else because I'm so surprised and annoyed about the inclusions and exclusions on this list. Affleck has just won a Golden Globe! I would have put money on Bigelow and Tarantino being up. And Tom Hooper has famously been revolutionary with Les Mis by making his cast sing live, apparently with good results. The outcome of this strange list is harder to call than some other categories this year, but I'll go for Spielberg (Lincoln) or Michael Haneke (Amour).

Best Supporting Actor

I do like the line-up in this category (I know, I'm giving praise!) and I also like the fact that every nominee has already won this award. I don't know why, since maybe some newcomers should have been included, but anyway. The smart money is on Phillip Seymour Hoffman (The Master) but I wouldn't rule any of the contenders out this year. I was expecting Leo DiCaprio to be nominated over Christoph Waltz if one of them was going to be up from Django, but I'll have to reserve judgement on that until I see it. I also personally think Garrett Hedlund should be up for On The Road, or Paul Giamatti for Cosmopolis, but hey, apparently the Academy and I are not on the same wavelength here.

Best Supporting Actress

It will go to Anne Hathaway. It's the most obvious result in recent Oscar memory, I don't even know why they bothered to nominate anyone else when they're all going to get overlooked anyway. It's another classic Academy view that actresses should suffer for their work (if losing weight and cutting off your hair is "suffering") and that they like tragic stories more than anything else. At least now maybe Hathaway will stop being so unbelievably desperate for recognition. And hey, maybe it will make her more interesting, because right now I find her to be the human equivalent of beige, i.e. so incredibly dull it makes me want to hurt myself to not look at or listen to her. Apparently, it should go to Amy Adams for The Master (but I'm just parroting what other people are saying, I haven't actually seen for myself), but really it's irrelevant, because it's not going to happen.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Not too sure about this one, because it depends what the Academy members are thinking when they're voting. It could go to Lincoln if they're feeling patriotic, or Life of Pi, which was the supposedly "unfilmable film", or Silver Linings Playbook because apparently they're in love with that. I don't think Argo is in with a chance because they seem to be ignoring this, sadly. Personally I think Perks of Being a Wallflower should be there, because I did not see a better page-to-screen adaptation this year. I think the problem with both screenplay awards is that they forget it's about the script and focus on the finished movie, which really kind of rejects a lot of films which may actually have better scripts than those nominated.

Best Original Screenplay

I thought for sure this was going to Zero Dark Thirty, but now based on all the incoming reviews and the fact that it won the Golden Globe last Sunday, I'd have to say now it's going to Django Unchained. Which I'm happy about, because any nod for Tarantino is a bonus in my eyes. He is the best writer/director of his generation and I'm glad he's still getting credit where it's due. Again though, a lot of these I can't comment on because I haven't actually seen them, but since the Academy seem to be celebrating the prolific films this year, I think Django's got this.

Danny Leigh of  BBC Film 2013 basically summed up the main points here, give him a watch. His hatred of Silver Linings Playbook is particularly apparent and he makes an interesting point about Kathryn Bigelow too. Also what he says about the inclusion of foreign and indie films is completely true. Ranting starts around the 13:25 mark (he's just wrapping up talking about The Sessions):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pz82d/Film_2013_Episode_2/

So the question is, will you be tuning in? I know I certainly won't be staying up to watch something I really don't care that much about. If there's a highlight show I might flick over to that but honestly, this "hooray for Hollywood" attitude they have going on right now is getting on my nerves too much to tolerate.

3x5

I'm very behind on my reviews, I know. I've been insanely busy with work recently, and then I had to deal with the amazing Breaking Dawn week, so I've had hardly any time to do anything. But, I did see three five-star films within the space of five days last month and I feel the need to write about them, so I'm squishing them all into one post. I may expand these reviews some time, but I can't promise anything.

On The Road

Firstly, I saw the much-anticipated On The Road. I've been waiting a ridiculously long time to see this, because for some reason they released it two years after filming. After hearing mixed/average reviews from Cannes, I had to lower my previously very high expectations of this film, but as a result, I was very pleasantly surprised.

This film has been a hell of a long time in the making, over three decades, and a lot of people, including myself, were a bit skeptical about how anyone could adapt an almost plotless 120 foot scroll of narrative onto the screen, and yes, in some ways it fails. But it's bloody difficult to transfer this writing to the screen and still maintain that Beat vibe. Yes, it could have been more wild, more extreme, but really, if it had to be adapted, at least they did a really good job of it.

The acting is amazing. Just looking at the cast you can understand that statement. The three main stars are perfect in their roles. Sam Riley surprised me, since the last thing I saw him in was the appalling Brighton Rock, and it was very nice to see him in something that actually showcased his ability and didn't make me want to kick the tv at the end of the film. He plays Sal with the perfect naivety, vulnerable with a rebellious streak within, and is someone I think the audience will see themselves in. Kristen Stewart also proves again that she is judged far too harshly just because of her association with the Twilight films; here, she relishes in the character of Marylou, someone who could not be more different from Bella Swan, playing her with wild abandon that really shows her talent. After watching this, and knowing about her absolute commitment to the role, I can't imagine anyone else doing a better job of it. And, for the record, she was cast in this when she was sixteen, before she did Twilight, so shush please haters. It's also great news to hear that they're going to be lobbying for her to get nominated in awards season next year, and she fully deserves that recognition. But really, the real star of this film is Dean, played perfectly by Garrett Hedlund. He is probably the best thing about the film, encapsulating the rebellious and charming character, which I think the film probably hinged on. An actor has to be seriously charismatic and almost overwhelmingly charming to pull this role off, and Hedlund absolutely succeeds, constantly drawing our attention to him whenever he's on screen. The "Beat Camp" that the cast went on for three weeks before the shoot really pays off as well, as the three have great chemistry together and every interaction between them feels very natural.

The cinematography is amazing - visually, the film is stunning and absolutely transports the audience to an array of locations; you actually feel like you're there, writhing and sweating at a New Year's party, or cold and wet during a stop by the side of a road in the middle of nowhere. I didn't really know of Eric Gautier before this film, but I have massive amounts of respect for him as a cinematographer for what he achieves here.

The supporting cast are excellent. In some ways, the film reminded me of Cosmopolis with its conveyer-belt of cameos and bit parts - however, like Cosmopolis, everyone here manages to make their mark, whether it's Amy Adams' struggling mother or Steve Buscemi's salesman-with-a-secret-interest - they all stand out. It's lovely to see Tom Sturridge in this, I think he has real potential as an actor and I want to see him do more than just being Sienna Miller's babydaddy. But the biggest highlight was probably Viggo Mortensen, who steals the few small scenes he's in and absolutely dominates the screen when he's actually on it. Kirsten Dunst is another highlight; she brings Camille's character to the audience's attention and underlines the detrimental effects Dean has on himself and others, whereas we might otherwise be too charmed by him to notice. I'd like to see her in more serious roles, she's been a bit absent recently and this proves that she really shouldn't be.

In terms of sexuality... well, there's a lot. It was a litle disappointing that it didn't bring the undertones of homosexuality up a little more, but therein lies the problems of an adaptation - you just can't fit everything in. I'd also recommend buying the French dvd of this and turning the subtitles off, because the English version was cut (who knows why) and therefore there's more in the French version.

The question that remains is why Hedlund, Riley and Sturridge haven't been getting acting offers left, right and centre. They all give brilliant performances and I think they're being wasted at the moment.

Verdict: It's not going to be for everyone, but if you "get" this type of film, you'll absolutely love it. Watch it just for the acting and the beauty of the film itself if nothing else.

*****

The Perks Of Being A Wallflower

After seeing the film, this book is now at the top of my "to-read-for-pleasure" list. This film absolutely blew me away and I wasn't expecting to be touched by it as much as I was, since I didn't really know much about it and it hadn't been that widely publicised. It's probably the best coming-of-age film I've ever seen, and although there isn't a huge amount of plot and nothing much is resolved at the end, the journey is definitely worth taking.

The primary trio of actors were amazing. The film received quite a lot of attention because it was the first film Emma Watson did post-Potter, and she could not have picked a better film to break away from that franchise. She sheds Hermione within the first minute of being on screen, being able to let go in a way that was always restricted before, being flirtatious and wild but also showing tenderness and vulnerability perfectly. And also, I got so sucked into her performance that I forgot she wasn't actually American, though in hindsight it probably wasn't the best accent in the world. Ezra Miller, previously known as the titular psychopath in We Need To Talk About Kevin, plays basically the complete opposite character and does it just as well. As the giddy and camp Patrick, he steals every scene he's in and I want a best friend like him. And also Logan Lerman, previously of Percy Jackson fame, was wonderfully sweet and naive, likeable and vulnerable. And I checked, he's 20, it's okay to have a little thing for him. And all three are just the right amount of understated - they could have been ridiculously cliched and over the top, but they play their roles with just the correct level of charm and, in Patrick's case especially, flamboyancy. I think a special mention also needs to go out to Paul Rudd, who is refreshingly good in a dramatic role, deviating from comedy but proving that he can do both well. He's gives a likeable and thoughtful performance and I'd love to see him do more dramatic work in the future. And I'd also like it on record how much I think Joan Cusack is an underrated actress. She completely shines through in her two minutes of screen time and she's just wonderful. Hollywood, why are you not employing her more? Get on that.

I think what makes it so special is the fact that the screenplay was written and the film directed by Stephen Chbosky, the author of the book. You can tell it's been created with such care and precision and every facet is just right. Apparently it's a brilliant adaptation, which I don't doubt, but I'll let you know for sure after I finally get around to reading the book.

Someday, somewhere, somehow, I'm doing this.

In the time it's set, it's completely up my street. The film references are great, the multiple performances of The Rocky Horror Show throughout are really entertaining and the soundtrack is amazing; I had it on repeat for days. If you like that late-80s/early-90s feel about a film, I can't recommend this enough.

Verdict: Yes, it will probably only connect with a certain audience, but that's purely because of the plot and themes it deals with, not because of the quality of the film. It could have been completely cliche, and appeared to be a product of the overworked imagination of an angsty fifteen-year-old girl because of it's subject matter and themes including social isolation, bulimia, sexual and domestic abuse, homophobia and unrequited love, to name a few, but it gets the tone just right so that it's emotionally raw rather than emotionally overdone. And also, be infinite.

*****

Skyfall

Bond's 26th outing was hyped up from the word "go", with the world and it's mother touting it as the "best one yet" before it even went into production. The secrecy and mystery surrounding the plot and what the title meant and who the new cast were playing and all the rest of it didn't help, with speculation rife about every aspect of the film. I was so worried that it was going to be overhyped for me and that I'd just end up being slightly let down, but I can safely say that it not only met those expectations, but exceeded them beyond belief.

I'll try not to spoil it for any of you who have been living in a cave and have yet to see it, but there are some truly epic moments in it.

The cast are exceptional: Daniel Craig, returning for his third stint as 007, gives his best performance so far. There isn't really a lot else to say about it; if you've seen his other two outings, it's more of the same, in a good way. He's charming, debonair, deadly, and every other trait you've come to expect from Bond. What's really great in this one is the interaction he has with Dame Judi Dench's M, and we see a lot more of their relationship. Their closeness is really touching. She's the real Bond girl of this film, and I'm so happy she got a really dense part to get her teeth into, and of course she delivers with perfection, as you would expect. Again, I don't want to spoil anything so I won't say much else, but their performances are very special. The best new addition has to be Javier Bardem's villain, Silva, a creepy, camp, obsessive maniac (sounds like me) with terrible hair (not like me at all). There hasn't ever been a Bond villain like him, but he's one of the best yet. Not hellbent on world domination or anything like we've seen in the past, his vendetta is a personal grudge against M, exposing a lot of her secrets and drawing worrying parallels to Bond. I think the best scene in the whole film is Silva's interrogation of Bond, where both men showcase their fantastic acting talent. The chemistry between the three of them (and no, it's not sexual, that would be wrong - though Silva... well, you'll see) is electric, and though it is approaching two and a half hours, they make it go by so quickly that you don't even notice time passing.

One complaint I do have is about Bérénice Marlohe. I have nothing against her, I just don't understand why her part was advertised so much when she's only in the film for a total of about five minutes. Other additions aren't as disappointing, and include Naomi Harris' field agent Eve, Ralph Fiennes' government pen pusher Mallory and Ben Whishaw's new, young Q, who are particular highlights. What I think will excite true Bond fans is the fact that, without giving too much away, they'll all be back in the future, and that this is going back to classic Bond films, but with a cool, modern-day edge. There are even jokes about it between Bond and Q.

And that's the other thing - though it's very serious for a lot of the film, it's also very funny, mostly because of the one-liners and conversations between Bond and the bumbling Q. One other stand-out moment is Bond's reaction to (VERY MILD SPOILER) the destruction of his precious Aston Martin DB5 (also a hilarious moment when you see it in a screen full of die-hard male Bond fans - their gasps of horror and outrage made me laugh for about ten minutes). And also there's a bit of sexual tension between Bond and Eve, though I can't see anything ever coming of that if they stick to Bond canon.

 

Plot-wise, I understand now why Craig said he was even more excited after reading this script than he was about Casino Royale, which was previously my favourite. It's tense, and captivating, and most importantly, it doesn't feel like there are any redundant parts to it (well, maybe the whole fight with Ola Rapace which feels only very very slightly unnecessary). The whole film is very polished but it's still raw, especially when they get up to Scotland and there's none of this usual technology to help them out.

Verdict: I wish I could think of more to say but it's now been a month since I saw it and I've forgotten most of the points I had to make about it. But essentially, all you need to know is that it's amazing and even if you aren't a Bond fan you should see it. It's brilliant, and I hope Sam Mendes does come back to direct the next installment because he did such a fantastic job of it. Anyone who knows my film tastes well enough knows that it's a big deal for me to say that I prefer this to Casino Royale, and it's even more emotional, but it truly does deserve all the hype it got. Go see it now or I'll set Silva on you (some of you might not mind that wink wink). Seriously, go.

*****

The Weirdest Film You May Not See This Year

If you follow me on Twitter (emsuckle), you'll notice that I've been going on about Cosmopolis a lot recently. I'll admit that it first came to my attention due to a certain leading man who regular readers know I'm a big fan of, but I followed the news about it and read the novel it was based on, and the intrigue only grew from then on. I've probably delayed posting this review for so long that it isn't being shown in UK cinemas anymore (not that it had a wide release anyway), but I still think people should know about it. But I must say before we begin, I am NOT being biased when I write this. I've already had accusations of this, but I absolutely cannot stress enough that it isn't true.

28 year old billionaire Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) embarks on a cross-town journey to get a haircut. On the way, he encounters many people, including his wife and colleagues, as he travels in his limo, but a "credible threat" to his life and a deliberate loss of billions of dollars mean Packer is soon re-evaluating and questioning a lot of things in his life.

I can't really give you a lot more plot than that, because it would spoil the film, but it's one hell of a surreal movie to watch.

I've heard a few people complaining about the fact they "didn't get it"and walked out, but in my honest poinion I think that they just didn't give it enough of a chance, or focus enough. It's challenging, especially with the amount of dialogue and the not-so-coherent plot. I don't think it matters if people don't understand it - Robert Pattinson and David Cronenberg have been very open about the fact that they don't really get it. Also, it's Cronenberg, people! He makes strange films and I don't know why people are surprised that this was weird. I didn't see A Dangerous Method, but I've heard that comparitively Cosmopolis is much more his style, not to mention a lot better than A Dangerous Method, which received very lukewarm reviews.

Dialogue is a major aspect of the film, and every word out of the actors' mouths sound like poetry. A lot of people who have seen it have said that the dialogue was nearly incomprehensable, and I kind of see why they would say that - it's very dense, and admittedly there is a lot of it, so if concentrating on speech isn't your cup of tea then this maybe isn't a film you will enjoy very much. I seem to be the only person in my screen who followed it, which probably meant that I didn't get the film at all. But hey ho, I still absolutely loved it; it's so different to what I've come to expect in modern cinema - it feels like a film made for intellects, and not for general wide audiences. Yes, that sounds pretentious and elitist, which to some extent the film in general is, but those who get it will really appreciate it, and it's challenging, which is refreshing. Every sentence is carefully structured so it doesn't really sound like normal speech, it's far more stylised. But this synthetic way of talking only heightens the audience's awareness that nothing is natural, yet at the same time beautiful, just like the dialogue itself. But don't miss the humour. There's a lot of it; it's dark but it's there. I think people missed some of it because of the complexity of the vocabulary and the strangeness of the film, but it's something that should be appreciated about the film. (I apologise for all this analysis - I feel like I'm writing an essay - but these are all the thoughts I had whilst watching it. It's probably something to do with the way an English student's mind works.)

Every member of the cast is brilliant. What has annoyed me a great deal in both my excitement in the build up and the reverence post-viewing is how everyone assumes I'm being biased, but genuinely, Robert Pattinson was brilliant. He's in every scene, which is unusual for a leading actor in films right now, but the charisma he gives off proves he was a fine choice in casting. As Packer, he fantastically pulls off the mean feat of appearing to be cool and aloof to every aspect of his life, but also carefully calculating and energetic under the surface. There are a lot of subtle nuances that may go unnoticed to some people, but they are the difference between looking wooden half the time and actually producing an excellent display of acting ability. The few times he shows strong emotion are actually a bit of a shock, because it's such a contrast to how he is for most of the film, aside from the end where he is clearly full of joy and excitement at having his life threatened. I'm not even joking. From casual twitches to sweeping changes in facial expression, and, later in the film, frenetic energy and carefully placed body movement mean that he totally owns and carries the film. I hope that after seeing this people will stop judging Robert Pattinson solely on his appearances in Twilight, and accept that he actually is not only a very capable actor, but one who has the potential to be brilliant. This is definitely his best performance in a film so far, and I know a lot of you haters will be thinking, "Well, that's not hard," but actually just give him a chance. If people would stop hating and judging him so harshly only because of the franchise that made him famous, they would be able to see that he actually is a very talented actor. And get used to it, because after seeing this I'm thinking he's going to be around for a long time. David Cronenberg clearly thinks so, since he's reportedly cast him in a couple of his upcoming projects and publicly stated how much he enjoyed working with him - Pattinson is basically the next Viggo Mortensen, and that is by no means a bad thing. I spy the beginning of a beautiful partnership.

As brilliant as I think Pattinson is in this, he doesn't overshadow the other big names in the film. Samantha Morton was a stand-out for me, I'd like to see her in more things, and the banter between her and Pattinson was endlessly watchable. Sarah Gadon, playing Pattinson's detached wife, was another highlight for me, and I predict good things for her in the future. Again, their conversations were wonderful to watch, and their chemistry was great; they were both very convincing in their roles together. There were others like Juliette Binoche and Mathieu Amalric who were just glorified cameos, but that's not to take away from their performances: every single person who appeared in the film for more than 0.3 seconds contributed to it, and it's one of my favourite ensemble casts in recent times, if you can even call it that considering there are only about three or four characters who appear for more than ten minutes in total. All of the different actors, no matter how brief their appearance, made an impact and had the chance to shine.

I need to give a special mention to Paul Giamatti, who was absolutely superb. I've written about his other work before, and after seeing this I respect him even more as an actor - I think he's seriously underrated and he needs to be in more films, and more people need to be aware of his amazing talent. He and Pattinson are excellent together; they have such a rapport and the last 15 minutes with their one-on-one interaction is definitely the most engaging, helped obviously by the fact that it's the climax of the film and it builds to a massive crescendo. They bounce off each other flawlessly, and watching it, it's even more inconceivable that it was done in only a couple of takes, because that just proves how outstanding they both are in this scene. I shall be watching this scene on repeat a lot when I finally get the dvd.

Considering the novel on which it was based was written twelve years ago, it's quite eerie how well this film reflects modern times, even mirroring one real-life event. During promotion for this, Cronenberg said how one particular pie-throwing scene was filmed around the same time as Rupert Murdoch's pie-in-the-face incident, which was quite amusing. But really, it says a lot that a novel written a relatively long time ago can comment so accurately on our society today. It's a film that asks more questions than it answers, which I understand may annoy people, but it makes a lot of statements about the world we live in and the consumerist lifestyles we lead.

One particular aspect of the film I liked was the fact that 90% of the film took place inside Eric's limo. It made the film very claustrophobic in an almost neo-noir kind of way, and heightened the intensity of what was going on, but also it separated the philosophical conversations going on in the limo with Eric and his various escorts with the chaos and destruction that was going on outside, in society. It also added to how surreal the film was, as the rare times when Eric left his car during the film felt strange, that he didn't belong in society, like some kind of demigod. The film is full of contrasts, and asymmetry especially, and the set of the limo is so effective in bringing out these themes and intensifying the action and dialogue.

I don't write a lot of reviews without mentioning the score, one of my favourite pieces of any film usually, and this is no different. As I write this I'm listening to Howard Shore's (who has worked on every Cronenberg movie for the last thirty years) composition, which I downloaded as soon as I got in from seeing the film. (You should all know by now I have no actual technical knowledge of film scores, I just comment on the way they reflect the film and what they add to it.) It's eerie in a lot of ways, and also succeeds in building up tension, but in a very subtle way. It's obviously synthetic as well, not so much in the way a lot of 80s sci-fis were, but in a way that is clearly reflecting on the film's theme of non-naturalism and the way we live in the electronic era. I really enjoy it; I have some of Shore's other work, but this is among my favourite of his, and one of my favourites of the year so far.

Verdict: This is a film you will either love or hate, and I get that. Personally, I loved it. I think people judged it badly because of the complex dialogue and surreal plot, and didn't give it enough of a chance. But there's a reason it was selected at Cannes this year; people who are disbelieving of Robert Pattinson's acting ability must watch this, and Cronenberg has a fine return to form. I could not recommend this more, but this really is a film for the adventurous movie-goers out there.

*****

Trailer: If I can be bothered, I usually only post one trailer. However, for this, you need to see both. The first 30-second teaser one actually took my breath away the first time I saw it, but I watch the second one occasionally even after seeing the film just to remind myself how much I loved it. But I probably wouldn't watch it if I had epilepsy, just so you know.

And just another fun fact for you: they filmed every scene in the limo almost in chronological order, which is almost unheard of nowadays.