Movie Review: Youth in Revolt


4/10

Youth in Revolt
2010, 90mins, 15
Director: Miguel Arteta
Writer (s): Gustin Nash, C.D Payne (novel)
Cast includes: Michael Cera, Portia Doubleday, Ray Liotta, Zach Galifianakis, Jean Smart, Steve Buscemi, Ari Graynor, Justin Long
UK Release Date: 5th February 2010


Adapted from a text I’ve never read “Youth in Revolt” is a strange and bewildering experience that aims high but never really gels. The film is confusingly inconsistent but almost seems to want it that way; lathered in oodles of indie quirk and highbrow irreverence. For some this might be the sort of bizarre gold that they hope to stumble upon during their multiplex outings. For me it’s a patchy comedy with an overly pretentious tone, a weak plotline and a few decent performances. It’s hardly a movie worth making a song and dance about.

Nick Twisp (Michael Cera) is a 16 year old guy, who passes his days writing in his journal, embracing films and music removed from his peers and moaning about his lack of success with women. He’s a depressing individual who has to tolerate social exclusion and a family life which could never be described as pleasant. After his mother’s no good boyfriend (Zach Galifianakis) gets in a financial tiff with some local sailors, Nick is dragged away to a trailer park for a week in the hope the dispute will die. There he meets Sheeni (Portia Doubleday) an equally individual personality albeit with a more attractive outer shell than Nick. The two hit it off but in order to get a real romance burning Nick is forced to become more rebellious; so as to circumvent the obstacles keeping him and Sheeni from being together. As a result he creates a supplementary persona called Francois Dillinger (also played by Cera) in order to get the girl of his dreams. However whilst Sheeni might be in love with Nick’s crazed alternative personality others aren’t so enamoured, including the local law enforcement who are quickly hot on his heels.

“Youth in Revolt” may sound like “Me, Myself and Irene” with teenagers but Miguel Arteta’s movie is a completely different beast. There is very little that connects with mainstream cinema in “Youth in Revolt” other than a plethora of recognisable names on the cast list. It’s not hard to see why all these people signed up, on paper this is a movie that most have looked spectacularly original but in execution it’s something of a chore. The writing has an unstoppable pomposity that disallows audience members from really connecting with the characters and as a comedy it only manages one or two properly funny moments. It’s a weird film but not a good one, notable only for Michael Cera’s slight widening of his acting range.

The central romance isn’t convincing, there are many reasons why Nick might become infatuated with Sheeni but virtually none vice versa. Sure they share a strange taste in culture but other than that Sheeni seems a far more attractive person; both physically and emotionally. Cera struggles to make Nick anything other than a slightly creepy weirdo, though his interpretation of Francois is skilfully restrained and rather fun. The real acting standout is Doubleday, turning Sheeni into the film’s cutest and most appealing character. It’s a great performance and one that only emphasises the flaws in Cera’s. The audience really likes Sheeni but Nick is far harder to get along with. Elsewhere Steve Buscemi, Justin Long, Ari Graynor, Zach Galifianakis and Ray Liotta do pretty solid work in small parts, though the film probably doesn’t require them all. A little more discriminating editing on the character front might not have repaired the tonal and writing frustrations but it would at least have made the film shorter. “Youth in Revolt” feels a good deal longer than its 90 minutes and has at least two natural endings before the actual one comes around.

The direction by Miguel Arteta is packed with odd shots and ideas but the filmmaker struggles to integrate them into the story without making them look like needless art house flair. Arteta was responsible for 2002’s underrated “The Good Girl” a rather plain looking film that told a great story. “Youth in Revolt” is the opposite, a film filled with visual ticks and quirks but lacking any real narrative substance or entertainment value. It doesn’t really have much of an emotional or human core and comes across as deeply affected for a teen aimed flick. “Youth in Revolt” doesn’t really work as a drama, comedy or romance and whilst it’s hardly liable to be seen as one of 2010’s worst movies it still doesn’t warrant your time or money.

A film review by Daniel Kelly, 2010

DVD Verdict Review: I Hate Valentine's Day



5/10















Review Link: http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/ihatevalentinesday.php

Movie Review: Edge of Darkness


3/10

Edge of Darkness
2010, 117mins, 15
Director: Martin Campbell
Writer (s): William Monahan, Andrew Bovell
Cast includes: Mel Gibson, Ray Winstone, Danny Huston, Bojana Novakovic, Shawn Roberts
Release Date: 29th January 2010

Not since he was spooked by aliens in 2002 via M. Night Shyamalan’s “Signs” has Mel Gibson had the lead role in a major motion picture. Having taken a few years out to direct two movies of his own and generally act in various anti-social ways the actor is now back with “Edge of Darkness”. Adapted from a 1985 television property of the same name “Edge of Darkness” isn’t the storming return fans of Mad Mel might have been hoping for. An unexciting and lifeless thriller; “Edge of Darkness” is the years first real case of potential greatness being turned into garbage. I wanted to like the feature but nothing really works and Gibson himself has rarely been worse than he is here.

Thomas Craven (Mel Gibson) is a Police Detective who at the films start loses his daughter to a masked assailant wielding a powerful firearm. Craven initially suspects he was the target, though a bit of snooping leads him to become more doubtful. His daughter had been feeling ill and acting irrationally before being shot and the panic ridden state of her boyfriend all but confirms it was she and not him who was the target. Craven investigates her place of work and suspicions immediately rise given the secretive nature of the operation, and he is reduced to taking justice into his own hands with the subdued help of government agent Jedburgh (Ray Winstone).

“Edge of Darkness” is that most frustrating of things; a mystery without intrigue. Everything the plot offers is brutally obvious from the outset, with only brief instances of uninspired action to break-up the tedium. As soon as you see Danny Huston in a suit and working for a covert nuclear operation it’s not hard to fathom in which direction “Edge of Darkness” is headed and where the enterprise will culminate. I’m not familiar with the TV work on which it’s based but given it’s respectable reputation I’ll just have to assume it’s superior or simply of its time. This 2010 version feels outdated and obvious, a state not helped by a routine and one dimensional Mel Gibson performance.

The picture is helmed by Martin Campbell last seen doing sterling work with “Casino Royale”, now fully boring us to tears with this tripe. Campbell directed the original miniseries and maybe a labour of love brought him back to revisit the story but sadly this retelling is essentially just another lacklustre remake. Apparently the 1985 TV version ran at six hours, so it’s baffling to behold that at just under two; “Edge of Darkness” 2010 feels so baggy and overlong. It’s a turgid watch filled with workmanlike action and some of the most unadventurous plotting I can recall from a recent thriller. For large portions of the film I was close to falling into a deep slumber, as Campbell fails to do anything of note to mark this out as better than poor. Gibson doesn’t make Craven a fully rounded or sympathetic character, he’s all grimaces and hardboiled interrogation sequences with little added depth or feeling. Ray Winstone just turns out the same bullish and snarky performance he always does and Huston is laughably slimy and cartoonish as the *potential* villain of the piece.

The musical compositions and visual look are often black and gritty and like any proper revenge thriller there is an ungodly amount of moody weather and violence. It is possibly the success of “Taken” this time last year that triggered studios to back this project, after all “Edge of Darkness” also features an armed middle aged man setting out to avenge his daughter. Yet in comparison to this “Taken” feels like an electrifying time at the cinema and considering the fact I wasn’t particularly fond of that film, it sort of emphasises how dissatisfactory “Edge of Darkness” is. It’s the worst sort of nuts and bolts thriller and one that ought to be avoided. Sure there are a few unexpected blindsides on route to the climax but as you leave the theatre “Edge of Darkness” will have fulfilled every prediction you made in the opening 30 minutes. That is not good filmmaking.

A film review by Daniel Kelly, 2010

Movie Review: Adventureland


5/10

Adventureland
2009, 107mins, 15
Director: Greg Mottola
Writer: Greg Mottola
Cast includes: Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Bill Hader, Ryan Reynolds, Kristen Wiig, Martin Starr
UK Release Date: 11th September 2009

“Adventureland” is a curiously vanilla production; at times very funny but boasting a truly unremarkable central narrative. Coming courtesy from the director of “Superbad” maybe I was expecting something more aggressively energetic and spunky, but still false hopes don’t account for the somewhat lifeless final product. Maybe I’m coming down a little harsh as I did find the movie sporadically entertaining, but then again can the odd comedic buzz compensate for an eternity of bad casting and awkward chemistry. I think not.

“Adventureland” is the story of James (Jesse Eisenberg) a high school graduate who after his Father’s demotion at work is forced to get a summer job. James ends up at Adventureland a low rent theme park populated by some of the weirdest folks he’s ever met. James slowly ingratiates himself into the park way of life and becomes especially fond of fellow employee Em (Kristen Stewart), eventually setting his sights on her for romantic purposes. Em is however a complicated individual with issues of her own, not least of which is a relationship with the substantially older repairman Connell (Ryan Reynolds). The film follows James as he tries to understand and win Em over, all the while working hard so his dreams of college education can be kept alive.

The casting in “Adventureland” is seriously unconvincing. Greg Mottola’s last movie “Superbad” was aided by a skilled placement of certain actors into specific roles but here nearly everyone feels out of place or boring. Eisenberg’s shtick is growing old at a rate that would make Michael Cera blush, here reworking the same screen persona we’ve seen from him in every performance he’s ever given. James is a likable dork but Eisenberg just pulls the same old fumbling and mumbling style of acting he’s grown rather dependent on; and it’s very dull. Kristen Stewart is also slowly pissing away any goodwill I may have felt for her in the past, recycling her own brand of moody and snarky characterization for the umpteenth time. She doesn’t have the charm or raw heart that we sense Mottola wants the audience to see in Em and her chemistry with Eisenberg is nonexistent. I enjoyed Bill Hader and an underused Kristen Wigg as the park owners but everyone else is bland and unadventurous, Reynolds in particular should be looking for better screen personas than the laughably one note Connell.

The screenplay by Mottola is a mixed bag, the comedy elements are sharp and well structured but the dramatic and emotional undercurrent feels incomplete and forced. Not once did I really buy Em and James as a genuine summer romance in the making. Indeed a bond that builds up between James and local hottie Lisa P (Margarita Levieva) has a more natural and believable texture. Adding to the problem is an inherent lack of charm or fresh perspective, everything about “Adventureland” has an incredibly been there done that vibe. I did laugh quite a few times during the picture and these parts were very satisfying and a nice relief from the unappealing fervid alliances at the stories centre, yet they aren’t strong enough to warrant a recommendation on their own. It’s also worth noting that Mottola has toned down the vulgarity several decibels, this is miles from the raunchy earnestness of “Superbad”.

Mottola opts for low-fi visuals in his tale of summer loving and I guess this at least suits the restrained and small scale story. The soundtrack is predictably angst filled but fairly listenable and in these small areas I guess “Adventureland” gets it right. However in the much wider and more important facets it screws itself through dodgy casting and a general lack of fizz. I wanted to like the movie but sadly I found “Adventureland” to be a crushing disappointment.

A review by Daniel Kelly, 2010

Movie Review: Halloween 2 (2009)


3/10

Halloween 2
2009, 105mins, 18
Director: Rob Zombie
Writer: Rob Zombie
Cast includes: Scout Taylor-Compton, Malcolm McDowell, Brad Dourif, Tyler Mane, Sheri Moon Zombie
UK Release Date: 9th October 2009


Rob Zombie’s 2007 remake of “Halloween” was not an atrocious film but rather a misguided one, doing some interesting things in its opening hour before fluffing the second half in a slavish imitation of John Carpenter’s seminal classic. The film made money but wasn’t particularly well received by the fanboy populous; shunning it in a fit of enraged geekery. Given such a response it’s perplexing that Zombie felt he needed to give the property a second run (though it’s no shock the sequel exists, the first did light the box-office on fire) or that he even could given the conclusive nature of his 2007 effort. Yet proving that you can’t keep the boogie man down we now have “Halloween 2”, and boy is it a peculiar thing. The movie is an utter and unforgivable mess but some mileage can be drawn from the wild concepts lying within, if “Halloween” 07 was Zombie paying homage to Carpenter than “Halloween 2” is his own crazed and ill judged take on the material. It’s fairly awful – but also undoubtedly a defiant original.

The picture opens a year after the events of Zombie’s first flick. Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton, who is again toxic in the role) is strung out and distressed concerning the murderous rampage Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) conducted last Halloween in pursuit of her. Many of her friends and family have been slain though the promise that the masked lunatic is finally dead gets her through the days. However that was obviously never going to be the case. Michael’s body was never recovered and as a result he still stalks the countryside waiting for Halloween to roll around again, so he might take another go at capturing his unknowing sister. Powered by extremely odd visions of his mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) and a white horse; Michael heads to the little town of Haddonfield to finally unite his family and of course do a whole lot of killing.

In fairness Zombie’s sequel is no worse than the original 1981 “Halloween 2”, and he’s a far better director than that film’s poisonous helmer Rick Rosenthal. Whilst Rosenthal’s unwatchable sequel was like sitting through a dodgy amalgamation of Carpenters first movie and a “Friday the 13th” knock-off, Zombie’s is at least totally unique in all its horrendousness. The biggest concern is the confused narrative and epic mishandling of the central story, there are half a dozen good ideas bobbling about inside the picture but not one is given adequate air to breathe. Zombie splits the film into three distinct strands, one featuring Laurie and her painful mental situation, one with a newly popularized Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) thanks to his bestseller based on Myers, and one following Michael as he pursues his murderous goal. The Myers subplot is the least enticing; the combination of ethereal imagery and relentless bloodshed becomes wearisome and exhausting very quickly. The visions he sees of his mother are laughable and seem hideously out of place, despite Zombie acknowledging their psychological importance in a first frame disclaimer. Some of the visuals this encourages are stylish but the overall concept is out of place within the story and as a result it doesn’t work.

Taylor-Compton is poor as Laurie and induces very little sympathy or an organic sense of despair; it’s a false and lazy job that scuppers large mounds of her arc. The best plotline is that of Loomis and this is carried thanks to a decent performance from McDowell (really the films main redeeming feature) who does a controlled and enjoyable job of subtly expressing the characters guilt. His acting gets a bit hammy in the unremarkable climax but overall it’s the Loomis aspect of the picture that satisfies most. Zombie never really threads these separate ideas together in a cohesive fashion, his attempts to make them sit comfortably together are hackneyed and tender footed. The movie ranks right up top as one of the goriest and most brutal this franchise has offered, but such consistent bloodletting fits well within Zombie’s ugly and bleak view of the world. Where Carpenter made Haddonfield a quaint and pretty community, Zombie envisions it as a place with more strip clubs than shops. It’s a bleak and relentlessly seedy looking location and this too eventually grates and stirs annoyance.

“Halloween 2” is bursting with imagination but ultimately the end result is mostly unwatchable. Even in its execution of slasher fundamentals like suspense it disappoints, an area that Zombie’s previous stab at the universe actually handled modestly well. The director has come up with several additives to spice up the event, but as a whole it feels cluttered and is more successful as a comedy than it is a horror. “Halloween 2” isn’t quite a nadir for this franchise but despite the audacity of the filmmakers it’s still a colossal failure.

A review by Daniel Kelly, 2010

The films of 2009 - Best and Worst



2009 was a pretty good year to be at the movies, I actually felt the quality of productions to be higher and the number of stinkers to be fewer than usual. Oh there were still many horrible movies and huge disappointments, but overall I feel my top and bottom 10 lists display 2009 as a year that can be remembered for more good than bad. As I’m conducting these lists I’ve still not seen “An Education”, “The Lovely Bones” or “Up in The Air” but I honestly feel the lists are late enough as it is (January is nearly over) and so without further ado let’s get on with it. One last thing though. Several people privy to my selection before publication bashed the absence of “Up”, from my top 10 or honourable mentions, but I honestly didn’t feel it warranted inclusion, although it was a contender for the latter category.

My Top 10 of 2009
1.Inglourious Basterds
2.Avatar 3-D
3.District 9
4.The Road
5.Funny People
6.Watchmen
7.Star Trek
8.Public Enemies
9.(500) Days of Summer
10.Coraline

Honourable Mentions: Hunger, The Hangover, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Drag Me To Hell The Hurt Locker, Moon, Observe and Report, Trick r’Treat

Some of my choices garnered a bit of flack (Bemusement at “Funny People” being better than “Star Trek” and “The Hurt Locker” has been a popular rebuke) but overall my choices display much alignment with the common consensus. My bottom 10 has been attacked for not containing “Miss March” (I thought it was bad, just not as bad as most) but overall I feel it gives the awful movies of 2009 their due.

My bottom 10 of 2009

1.S. Darko (I’m aware it went straight to DVD, but it really did suck)
2.Lies and Illusions (Another direct to disc clunker)
3.The Unborn
4.Push
5.The Twilight Saga: New Moon
6.Aliens in the Attic
7.Dragonball Evolution
8.Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
9.The Ugly Truth
10.The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard

Dishonourable Mentions: Echelon Conspiracy, 31 North 62 East, The Fourth Kind, Shorts, Management, Bride Wars, Pandorum, Obsessed

And for good measure.........


The Top 5 most disappointing movies of 2009 – (because mediocrity deserves recognition too)

1.Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
2.2012
3.Ice Age Dawn of the Dinosaurs
4.The Box
5.Year One

Err......I guess you just call these mentions: The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, Surrogates, The International

So agree or disagree with my selections – leave your thoughts below.

Movie Review: The Road


9/10

The Road
2009, 111mins, 15
Director: John Hillcoat
Writer (s): Joe Penhall, Cormac McCarthy
Cast includes: Viggo Mortensen, Charlize Theron, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Guy Pearce, Molly Parker
UK Release Date: 8th January 2010

“The Road” is based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, the very man who penned “No Country for Old Men” into a novel before the Coen brothers took it on a rampage of awards success. Whilst it would be hard to say that “No Country for Old Men” was a warm or fuzzy movie it looks positively upbeat in comparison to the bleak post apocalyptic world of “The Road”, featuring an Earth devoid of natural beauty and with small groups of cannibalistic humans moving across the continents looking for their next meal. The film follows an unnamed man (Viggo Mortensen) and his Son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) as they move across the barren and smoking world, looking for solace and safety near the Coast. However the journey is riddled with perils and food is constantly in short supply, only adding to the insurmountable concern that their destination may offer no more relief than the godforsaken wasteland that the planet has turned into.

The desperation that is etched all over the production is communicated brilliantly; everything about “The Road” is downbeat and wonderfully atmospheric. From a narrative perspective things feel hopeless due to the undefined nature of the global catastrophe, and in the way that Mortensen’s central character barely understands the need for the heinous quest he’s undertaken. Director Hillcoat has also done a fantastic job of making the environments seem uninhabitable and utterly devoid of the beauty and life that one might associate with promise and good fortune. The lead performance courtesy of Mortensen is also something of a marvel and it truly is a wonder that at this juncture so deep in Awards season the actor hasn’t been given more recognition for his sterling work. “The Road” is decidedly not a “fun” time at the movies but it is a superlatively executed and compelling story, laced with a dank yet stylish visual composition.

The greatest attribute the picture boasts is Mortensen’s awesome leading performance. Gruffly carved out but with a tentative softness the character is a difficult one to get right, yet Mortensen nails it with a rich and emotionally restrained tour de force, communicating his feeling with supreme skill and with the sort of low key emoting that allows the product to feel truthful. He handles his relationship with Smit-McPhee well and resonates the contrasting views of their situation with aplomb, despite the young actor’s bland performance. It’s a testament to Mortensen that he can make this vital dynamic work, even whilst Smit-McPhee is so obviously ordinary. Charlize Theron appears as Mortensen’s wife in flashbacks and shows great dramatic chops with limited screen time; certainly the shared scenes with Mortensen feel tragic in the way their relationship disintegrates in parallel with the world around them. It’s no spoiler to say that the Theron character is dead beyond the dreaming and reminiscing of Mortensen’s mind, but much like the actual epidemic that has consumed Earth the film keeps her specific fate ambiguous and kisses her goodbye in a touching and memorable fashion.

At 111 minutes the film is by no means short yet is holds the viewer in a trance from start to finish, inducing much tension, despair and many tearful moments along the way. With roving bands of flesh gobbling maniacs having inherited the Earth it’s not surprising that Hillcoat plugs for a few ferociously suspenseful instances of horror styled cinema, at times “The Road” feels like a really well designed and intelligently made chase movie. Yet to slap it with such a generic title would be to do every other remarkable facet of the feature a disservice, it is after all a dramatically ripe and phenomenally shot motion picture too. Joe Penhall is the writer credited with the adaptation and it’s an award worthy bit of work, holding the bleak spirit of McCarthy’s story close to its heart yet also fleshing out the characters and capturing a freeze frame of utter sadness that will move even the stoniest heart. One also has to point out that such a cheerless and hopeless scenario could be mugged for cheap tear jerking theatrics, but Penhall refuses, delivering an affecting yet deadly serious and organic screenplay. Those seeking a slate of post-apocalyptic melodramatics will have to look elsewhere, that’s not what “The Road” is pushing.

Hillcoat’s aesthetic sensibility is gorgeous and he creates a stunning apocalyptic vision in “The Road”. The film has a grey and washed out look that suits the mood perfectly and goes splendidly with the fantastic central story of a father protecting his son. I guess in many ways with a decent budget this would be the easiest part of the production to execute, yet in its own way a believable setting is vital, and Hillcoat has created just that through sublime cinematography and creative shot construction. Every frame in the picture looks like a work of art, carefully composed so as to create a total sense of lifelessness and despondency. The musical score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis is also highly impressive, a low key affair that fits gracefully into proceedings rather than drowning or upstaging them.

I was enthralled and rendered spellbound by “The Road”, a film which translates a critically acclaimed piece of literature into a motion picture worthy of the same reputation and accolades. Mortensen and Hillcoat have together created an apocalyptic picture which borders on the realms of masterpiece and soars on the wings of unabated passion and undiluted skill. I had high expectations for “The Road” and yet somehow the movie surpassed them, a rare occurrence in modern Hollywood and one fully worth celebrating.

A review by Daniel Kelly, 2010

Movie Review: (500) Days of Summer


9/10

(500)Days of Summer
2009, 95mins, PG-13
Director: Marc Webb
Writer (s): Scott Neustadter, Michael. H. Weber
Cast includes: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel, Geoffrey Arend, Chloe Moretz, Clark Gregg
Release Date: 17th July 2009 (Limited)

2009 was not a great year for romantic comedies. Films like “The Proposal” and “The Ugly Truth” dominated the genre and were for the most part uniformly awful. “(500) Days of Summer” is however the ultimate remedy to such uninspired and revolting romantic indulgences, firing up a brilliantly shot, well acted and poignantly written film that treats its audience with respect and integrity. Just recollecting off the top of my head I would probably say “(500) Days of Summer” is the best rom-com since 2007’s “Knocked-Up”, and in truth once again my faith in the genre has been somewhat restored.

The film follows the romance of Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel) two very different people with very different outlooks on love. For Tom his life has been in pursuit of “the one”, the very thing he believes Summer to be. However Summer is a far more free spirited person and isn’t looking for anything serious, she wants a friendship with added benefits, no more or no less. The film follows their relationship over a 500 day span and outside of chronological order, allowing the audience to appreciate the highs and lows. At the very beginning the movie makes a disclaimer that “(500) Days of Summer” isn’t a traditional love story, giving viewers a fair idea of where all this is going, but allowing them to get caught up in a delightful journey rather than the destination.

The thing that really elevates “(500) Days of Summer” above the general rom-com riffraff is its raw and emotionally honest way of telling the story. Director Marc Webb has composed a unique film in every single way, visually it’s beautiful and frontloaded with quirk and imagination, but his translation of the screenplay into film is powered with a truly unrelenting emotional focus and ability to draw such splendid performances from his young cast. In devising such a finely tuned film Webb has made it clear he’s a name to watch.

Gordon-Levitt is tasked with carrying the movie, he appears in 99% of the shots and everything is seen from his viewpoint. Levitt has in the last few years slowly been building a sturdy career for himself through several good choices, and “(500) Days of Summer” continues the trend nicely. Tom is always likable and Levitt taps into some very rich emotional material to really form the character into something beyond the usual rom-com archetype. Levitt through his mannerisms and appearance also is a perfect actor to try and channel a sense of puppy dog desperation, he’s a hopeless romantic and when “expectations” and “reality” don’t align in one particular scene the actor is heartbreakingly good. Deschanel doesn’t require as much depth but she has a tough job in keeping Summer lovable despite her questionable actions within the central relationship, but overall the actress completes the task well. The film has no qualms about exploiting her dreamy good looks and bizarre charm, but Deschanel herself works hard to keep Summer from descending into the realms of bitchiness. The two leads have a terrifically fizzy chemistry something that only goes to make the denouement even more upsetting and poetically savage. Throughout the entire picture it feels like they should be together, any other result just smacks of tragedy and misfortune.

The screenplay is occasionally very funny but for the most part the movie is focused on fleshing out the lead characters and constructing the romance. Keeping an audience interested and entertained when the end result is highlighted so early in the movie requires sterling filmmaking and a relentless creativity when forming the other segments of the story, something that “(500) Days of Summer” consistently does. At times Webb debatably goes too far with the indie sensibility but for the most part it’s well balanced and good fun, the sequence which takes place after Tom’s first sexual encounter with Summer is a joy to watch and a prime example of how well this sort of weirdness can work in the correct hands. The script includes several subsidiary characters but they exist primarily to provide counter perspectives on relationships or catalysts for the Tom and Summer romance, the enterprise far more fascinated with providing the honest and at times painful views Tom has on the girl of his dreams. I expect that the believability the film brings to the romance will allow it to source a genuine cult following, people connect with what they themselves can feel and “(500) Days of Summer” brings a completely organic and refreshingly real take on love to the table.

I adored “(500) Days of Summer” and feel that with genuine ease it represents one of the best cinematic offerings 2009 provided. It’s a beautifully made film and tells a compellingly engaging story; certainly I doubt you’ll have seen much like it in the past. If like me you have become distressed by the onslaught of heinous and unoriginal romantic comedies of late, pictures like this are a superlative antidote, and I hope Marc Webb continues to provide excellent films that remould the genres from which they stem. This is a fabulous motion picture and one that I would recommend not just to rom-com fans, but cinema lovers in general.

A review by Daniel Kelly, 2010

DVD Verdict Review: The Invention of Lying



8/10











Review Link:
http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/inventionlying.php

DVD Verdict Review: Pandorum




3/10

Review Link: http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/pandorum.php