Coraline (2009)

 "Giraffes don't just fall from the sky, Miriam."

Let's quickly deal with the elephant in the room: there's the controversy about Neil Gaiman, it's all rather unpleasant and I'll not be going into it here. Libel laws exist, my watching this film in the way I did (perfectly legally, I must emphasise) directed no money to the writer concerned, and a film is the creation of more than a writer alone.

There can be no denying, though, that this film happens to be a wonderful little Halloween treat. Much of it is charming. The use of a parallel world evokes Lewis Carroll as well as a much older faerie tradition. The animation is glorious, clever and creative while still doing its job of narrating an entertaining story. And yet...

What really makes this brilliant is how, despite its inevitable happy ending, it really leans into the darkness of fairy tales. The very concept of a parallel world, with an Other Mother and Other Father, that is much more fun that drab reality with vaguely neglectful, busy parents... but, as ever with faerie, with a terrible price. The very thought of having one's eyes replaced by buttons is... brr!

There's more, of course. Standout performances by (who else?) French and Saunders. The matter-of-fact treatment of a talking cat. The cleverness with which it all unfolds. But this is, above all, a perfect dark little fairytale for Halloween. 

Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel

Yes, I know: I've seen the television series based upon this novel and its sequels, and I usually arrange to read the novel first. But it matters little here- this is well-trodden history and spoilers hardly apply. Moreover, the two are not particularly alike. Plot is one thing; interiority is another. Yes, this novel may be a truly magnificent feat of making us truly feel the England of the 1520s and '30s, but it is more than that.

The novel is told entirely through the thoughts and impressions of Thomas Cromwell. The various familiar figures from the reign of Henry VIII very much appear, but we see all of them as Cromwell does. And we come to understand him- his kindness to children, his hard-headed bruiser side, his workaholism, his deeply cultured nature.

The novel truly communicates the nuances and paradoxes of its age, an age in which the line between Catholic and Protestant is blurred in ways which would soon not be true, and an age in which judicial murder coexists with the primacy of legal propriety, in which a famously tyrannical king nonetheless respects that he is constrained by Parliament.

The novel takes a notably sympathetic approach to Cromwell himself, as well as to the future Queen Mary I and the seemingly kindly Cardinal Wolsey. Others, notably Thomas More, the king himself, and Anne Boleyn, get damning portraits, particularly More, a torturing zealot and abusive husband. Others, such as the Duke of Norfolk and the young Christophe, are simply fun.

This is a novel that's all about the nuance, the texture, the reimagined history. It's a truly dizzying experience.

The City & the City by China Mieville

Cliché though it is to say, this novel blew my mind. It is, in the best possible Borgesian way, an absolute mindfuck.  At first it seems to be a standard, if vaguely weird, little murder mystery, but with the odd word like "crosshatched" or "grosstopical" thrown in. But then the good Inspector Borlu receives a certain phone call, and we suddenly get something of an idea of what's going on.

I won't spoil anything here. I often do in this blog, but the slow reveal of the weird reality is this novel's big genius thing, and spoiling things really, really would be a crime. Spoilers are things that, shall we say, one cannot unsee.

Let's just say that the opening words of the novel, "I could not see..." take on a very different meaning once the fundamental principles are revealed.

There's so much to praise here. This is generally seen as weird fantasy, but the presence of fantasy elements is, very carefully, never overt. Breach are sort of implied to have supernatural powers, but a certain line is never crossed.

Most admirable, though, is how the concept of the novel is carried through, played with, explored and treated with consistency. Importantly, the backstory as to how Beszel and Ul Qoma are how they are is hinted at but not dwelt on. The lack of a full explanation is a feature, not a bug.

Perhaps the ending could have packed more of a punch, but that's outweighed by the sheer genius of the worldbuilding here. I'm certainly going to explore more works by China Mieville after this.

Terminator Salvation (2009)

“If you’re listening to this, you are the resistance.”

This is it, then: the moment the Terminator franchise leaps headlong over a large carnivorous fish of the genus carcharhinus.

So what’s so awful about it? After all, it’s inoressive the way they briefly manage to get a T-800 looking like Arbus for a few seconds later on, and there’s a nice little fourth-wall breaking moment later on where Marcus uses a song as terminator bait, and it’s You Could Be Mine by Guns ‘n’ Roses, straight from the T2 soundtrack. Indeed, the first scene, with Marcus signing away his body in return for a kiss an hour before his judicial killing,  is dramatic and interesting.

And yet the film is a crashing disappointment, a generic action film with no time travel and bland CGI terminators that look like nothing special. Even the various air, sea and giant terminators don’t manage to excite; it’s all just a soup of bland CGI dullness.

There’s a glimmer on interest in the decision to set the film in 2018(!), Much earlier than the usual 2029 (although the year Skynet assumes control, after all the times-windy ness of earlier films, is kept wisely vague) so we get a John Connor who is not yet in charge and a young Kyle Reese, played charismatically by the sadly late Anton Yelchin. Trouble is, the part of John Connor absolutely requires a charismatic actor... and they cast Christian Bloody Bale.

Annoyingly, this is a film you probably need to see if you’re a Terminator completist. It won’t be much fun, though. Full, full, full.

Moon (2009)

"I want to go home..."

Well, it's the fiftieth anniversary of the Moon landing so I'm blogging this splendid film- what else?

It’s a wonderful film, of course. Bowie’s lad done good; it can’t be easy being the offspring of a genius, and Duncan Jones did well to eschew music, where expectations would have been impossible, in favour of another art form. He chose directing and, whatever happens in his career from now on (his career since 2009 seems to have been variable), he has this splendid achievement to his name.

Sam Rockwell is also superb and, indeed, has to be; he’s the only actor to have more than a cameo here, amusing and disorienting though it is to see Matt Berry as his boss. But the other character is the ship computer, Gerry, whom I shall try not to compare to HAL- oops- and who is creepily voiced by a pre-scandal Kevin Spacey. Gerty is creepy; not least because of those smileys.

These are all just surface things, though; what makes this film sing is its ideas and themes, of corporate ethics in a world where private corporations mine Helium-3 from the Lunar surface, yes, but mainly about- how shall I put it- themes of self and consciousness. This is serious science fiction with a twist, a Tharg’s Future Shock, if you will, or an rxtended episode of Black Mirror. And it’s wonderful.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

"We’re gonna make you invulnerable. But first we’re gonna destroy you.”

Well, this film is ok, I suppose- it certainly looks good, and the montage at the start of “Jimmy” and Victor fighting in various wars is brilliant, but somehow it doesn’t quite catch fire and was ever so mildly disappointing.

Interesting start, though; we learn far more about Logan’s past than I’m sure the comics ever told us. He was a child in 1845, living in what we can loosely call Canadian frontier territory, and his name is James Logan- and the psychopathic Victor Creed (Sabretooth) is indeed his older brother- and they look out for each other, in war after war, for 130 years, until Vietnam, and Colonel William Stryker.

Stryker is, of course, a younger iteration of the baddie from X-Men 2, portrayed superbly by Danny Huston, and hires the brothers as part of a slightly rubbish gang of mutant agents, including a criminally wasted Deadpool, portrayed by Ryan Reynolds but certainly not in continuity with his later solo outing, a far better film than this one. Oh, and one of these mutants, for some reason, is portrayed by a surprisingly decent Will.i.am.

But Logan leaves, in final disgust at Victor’s bloodlust, and six years pass in which he settles down as a lumberjack in the native Rockies with the lovely Kayla Silverfox- until Victor arrives, and kills the woman he loves. The person who was taking him has gone, and he wants revenge against the brother with whom he spent thirteen decades.

And so we come to the pivotal scene, where he survives the agonies of having adamantium bonded to his skeleton. Only with his healing factor can this not kill him, and he seems to barely survive. This is an important scene, and it’s done well.

Except... from this point the film drags, and lots of random elements are included. Nice as it is to see Gambit and the Blob (in a particularly toe-curling scene), they are irrelevant distractions from the newly christened Wolverine and his revenge against Victor Creed, Stryker and their bizarre and vaguely purposed little Island of Dr Moreau full of kidnapped mutants- including, for no good reason, a young Scott Summers.

The last half hour is a mess, with even the revelation of Kayla’s duplicity lacking real emotional heft, although there is real pathos in someone so old and full of tears having his memory cruelly erased. And yet... the film is well shot, and would have worked well if better edited. Was there a clash between the director and the studio?

I’d like to see a director’s cut, but the film we have is unfortunately a bit of a mess, in spite of its good points.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

"I'm French. We respect directors in our country."

Meh. Quentin Tarantino doesn't exactly make bad films- this is still well shot, and remains fun to watch in spite of everything- but I enjoyed Inglourious Basterds significantly less than any other Tarantino film I've seen, and I've seen most. In fact, I'd go as far as to say this film is merely good rather than great, and for a filmmaker like Tarantino that is criticism indeed.

So what doesn't quite work? Structurally and aesthetically it's as clever as ever, with a non-linear yet easy to follow chapter structure and loads of fun set pieces. I love the chutzpah in the cheerful deliberate ignoring of history by having Hitler and all the senior Nazis die in June 1944. The long dialogue scenes are there, too. But this time they fail to sing without the pop culture references. Christoph Waltz puts in an outstanding performance as the main SS baddie, but he's much better in a less cliched role in Django Unchained.

I think, perhaps, it's an unevenness of tone; little touches like Mike Myers' exaggerated plummy accent and, yes, Brad Pitt's entire misjudged performance take you out of the events.Tarantino has shown a mastery of humour and fourth wall-breaking in the past, but always with an assuredness that is missing here. Perhaps it's simply that Quentin Tarantino, master of so many genres, simply doesn't have quite the same sureness of touch when it comes to the Second World War film. Still, I'd like to see him try again someday.

Watchmen (2009)

"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.

Never have I been so favourably surprised by a film. Yes, Alan Moore refused to be associated with it for the usual (understandable) reasons and yes, Watchmen is as much about its form as its content, and form doesn't translate to other media. But that doesn't make it unfilmable, and I'd say this is the best possible cinematic version of Watchmen. The characters, the plot, the aesthetic- barring a major departure for the ending of the film it's an extremely faithful adaptation.

The cast, none of whom are huge stars, are perfect with the exception of Matthew  Goode, whose American accent is deeply unconvincing- and I'm a Brit. Jackie Earle Haley, so rubbish as Freddy Krueger in the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street, is a revelation as Rorschach, seemingly born to play the role.

I won't comment on the plot other than to urge people to read the original, but the film made me ponder the contrast between the Comedian and Rorschach, both dangerous Far Right borderline Nazis but very different. Not only is the Comedian a completely amoral bastard but we're further alienated from him by the fact that his place in the narrative is to be seen and understood through other characters, not on his own terms: we see his exterior actions, and subjective versions at that. It's quite a contrast from the way we are made privy, through the device of the diary, to Rirschach's interior monologue. Both are psychopaths but we are made privy to Rorschach's poor and unpleasant upbringing, while his misogyny and distrust of sex strongly imply that he is, definitely unlike Edward Blake, a virgin. And yet... both are equally reactionary and equally psychopathic. So why does Moore allow us to, if not like Rorschach, feel empathy for him, and accept him in the narrative space of the hero? I suspect it's because of the gulf in terms of social class and status between the two.

On a more prosaic note, the shifting patterns on Rorschach's face look amazing. As does the whole film, brilliantly realising Dave Gibbon's visual aesthetic. It doesn't quite have the depth of the original- that would be unfair to expect-but there's still so much to say about authoritarianism, about misogyny, about nuclear weapons, about poverty, about how superheroes in real life would be Nietzchean Supermen, not a liberal wish fulfilment figure dreamed up by two Jewish creators in the year of Kristallnacht, sadly.

This is easily the best superhero film I've ever seen, but then, the source material is sublime.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

"You're the first king we haven't eaten."

This is a psychologically brilliant and delightfully weird film, as you'd expect from the creative team of Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers. It's an odd commercial proposition at first glance, though; it doesn't seem particularly kid-friendly for a film based on a children's book. Still, apparently it did well. And is, incidentally, brilliant.

The creatures are, primarily at least, based on prosthetics rather than CGI, which is in itself a triumph. And both the direction and the cinematography are both highly accomplished and rather subtle, making this film look, stylistically, a bit like an art house flick.

But the real triumph is the characterisation of the creatures, which is quietly very dark and more than a little Lord of the Flies. None of them are happy. At least one of them, Judith, is clinically depressed. They are childlike, in a way, but the contrast with Max's innocent enthusiasm is stark. They pay a heavy price for their wildness.

Even the island they live on is slowly turning to desert; entropy. This links thematically to the lesson at school, earlier in the film, where Max is taught about how the world will inevitable end. What, then, is the point? 

There's political allegory, too. Max is appointed king on the basis of his imaginative claims, but, inevitably, the reality is that, like all politicians, he governs in prose.

This is an extraordinary and unexpectedly deep film, and well worth seeing. Just don't expect a typical Hollywood kids' film.

Zombieland (2009)

"So, do you have any regrets?"

"Garfield, maybe?"

No, in spite of the title, the year of release and Jesse Eisenberg, this film isn't connected to Adventureland. What it is, though, is bloody brilliant, a fantastically metatextual take (you know I love that kind of thing) on the whole zombie genre. Right from the start, with the narrative being based around Columbus' rules of survival in "Zombieland", this is a fun watch.

Yes, a metatextual zombie comedy has been done before in the form of Shaun of the Dead, which I must get round to blogging someday, but this is very different. Shaun of the Dead is a small, claustrophobic film based in London and set, in any case, on a small island. Zombieland is able to use the huge, continental size of the USA to show the full and terrible scale of the zombie apocalypse, and then have some fun. Oh, and 28 Days Later has had an influence: these zombies run.

Eisenberg's Columbus is fantastic both as a character and as narrator- a loner, a nerd, a virgin, possibly on the spectrum, but in circumstances like these he's ultimately able to get the girl, the girl in this case being the delightfully devious con artist Wichita. This could be said to be the best and weirdest romantic comedy I've seen this year.

 The stand-out character, though, is Tallahassee, with Woody Harrelson stealing every scene he's in as the loud, eccentric and very Southern Twinkie obsessive. There's a tragic side even to him, though: we eventually learn that the "puppy" he lost was in fact his son. This is enough to communicate the pathos but, wisely, is not dwelt in. Too great a focus on the human tragedy of the zombie apocalypse would spoil the fun.

The best bit of the film, albeit too brief, is of course the section with Bill Murray playing himself: one gets the distinct idea that Tallahassee, Bill's biggest fanboy, is acting as the authorial voice here. You can see his point: Bill is fantastic. And apparently Eddie Van Halen is a zombie roaming around Hollywood.

Basically, this film rules and absolutely has to be seen. But I knew that as soon as the opening titles started with Metallica's "For Whom the Bell Tolls".

Adventureland (2009)

"You don't want 'virgin' to be your signifier."

"He takes one semiotics class..."

Ah, the nostalgia. Those halcyon days of uni, youth, much alcohol, the smoking of certain substances (not entirely off topic for this film!), terrible nightclubs (ditto) and Saussurean linguistics. It takes me back.

First things first, though: in spite of the fact that both films star Jesse Eisenberg, both were released in 2009 and both have similar titles, this film is not connected to Zombieland. Not, despite the uncanny similarities of Jesse Eisenberg's character getting dumped as he's introduced to us, is it connected to The Social Network.

It is, however, a brilliant and justly acclaimed film that deserves to be better known. Oh, structurally it may be a romantic comedy by numbers: boy meets girl; boy loses girl through series of complex event involving love triangles on both sides; boy really goes extra mile and gets girl back. The structure is nothing new. But within that structure it's funny: the dialogue is witty, intellectual and laugh out load hilarious. The characterisation is similarly superb. Basically, it rocks. And Joel is officially the coolest guy ever.

Even better than that, though, is the soundtrack. This film is set in an expertly realised 1987, and the tone is alternative '80s, meaning loads of my favourite bands. We open to "Bastards of Young" by the Replacements, no less, and the emotionally pivotal scene gets "Unsatisfied", a song which I love passionately and which, if you haven't yet heard, you must hear immediately. Seriously. The Velvet Underground are, quite rightly, everywhere and, incidentally, the subtitles tell me I've been getting the lyrics wrong for "Here She Comes Now" for years. Er, "She becomes my mouth", anyone?

Give this overlooked film a chance. It rocks in more ways than one.

S. Darko (2009)

"...Then came the drugs. And anus sex."

This is possibly the most disappointing sequel of all time, far worse than the actually-almost-average Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2. Partly it's because of the superlative excellence of Donnie Darko, but this yawn-inducing and starless film is a crushing disappointment.

It's 1995. Donnie's little sister Samantha has run away from home and, scarily, is about the same age as I was in that year. She is, of course, alienated, but the visuals are different; the desert vistas of Utah rather than '80s Virginia weirdness, a vibe that reminds me very much of the video to the Smashing Pumpkins' "Today".

We have two girls on a road trip, evoking both On the Road and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, two novels that I read when I was about Samantha's age. Samantha and Corey proceed to involve themselves in a terminally dull plot with which I will not bore you; suffice to say that there are various inferior parallels to stuff that happened in the first film, and the ending is the same but with too much explanation, killing the beauty of it as the Force was ruined by Midichlorians, and with nowhere near the impact.

The soundtrack isn't as good either, although it's pleasant to be suddenly reminded that Whale's "Hobo Humping Slobo Babe" existed. Everything about the film compares unfaithfully to Donnie Darko, although at least there's some contemporary relevance to the character of Iraq Jack with all the damaged war veterans walking around these days.

Do yourself a favour; give this film a miss.

The Human Centipede- First Sequence (2009)

"I don't like human beings!"

I first heard about this film many years ago in that Channel 4 quiz show presented by Charlie Brooker, and instantly became aware that it was likely to be a gentle and cute film, ideal for young children and a delight for all the family. I've been meaning to see it for many years simply because it pops up so often in pop culture.

So what did I think? Well, I'm at sold to see why it has such a reputation for gore and controversy; as far as the visually disgusting is concerned, I've seen far worse. If anything, this film is relatively old fashioned in that most of the really stomach-churning stuff is implied, rather than seen; in particular, the scene in which the Japanese man poos into the feisty American woman's mouth is implied through acting penny. Well, it's also implied by the lines "Swallow it, bitch!" and "Feed her! Feed her!", but you take my point. 

The acting, admittedly, is pretty piss poor, except from the magnificent Dieter Laser as a modern day Joseph Mengele. And, given that there are three languages in the film (German, English and Japanese), all if which get a fair bit of dialogue, the lack of subtitles was a surprise. In particular, the long scenes in which two police officers interview the nefarious doctor are hard to follow without them. And the characters are, of course, ciphers; personally I didn't even catch their names.

It's also a very cliched film, with trope after trope bring aired. American tourists in Europe coming a cropper? Check. Two girls having their car break down and unwisely venturing up to a creepy house to ask for help? Check. The two of them falling out? Check. This plot, nastiness aside, could be that of a Universal horror film directed by James Whale.

The bit where the doctor gives a presentation to his three victims, via OHP(!), is suitably and camply sinister. Even more horrific, though, is where the more feisty of our two American ladies, is told that, because she tried to escape, she will be the middle segment. The fact that the poor lady who makes up the rear segment is dying of septicaemia is more horrific still. But the ending, with the middle segment being the only one left alive, is gloriously dark.

This is a fun little film, playing with the tropes of its genre and, I think, exhibiting some very Dutch stereotypes about the Germans. The concepts are disgusting, yes, but there's relatively little visual gore, and I have to praise the film for being, at ninety minutes, a proper length. It's only a bit of fun, be warned, with little in the way of subtext, but it's well made, well shot and enormous fun.

Saw VI (2009)

"What am I supposed to learn from this?"

It's a little odd, perhaps, to see a Saw film with a left wing message. Like the Punisher and Dirty Harry, these films have always carried a transparently reactionary attitude to crime and punishment in which brutal revenge matters and to hell with due process, rehabilitation or the unjustly convicted. Yet here the left wing, communitarian message is combined with these reactionary views on crime and punishment. This reminds us of two things: firstly, the social democratic left has never been particularly liberal; and secondly, people in real life are more complicated in their politics than to adopt the standard left wing or right wing package of views as a whole.

This film concerns how the recently late and unlamented John Kramer was unfortunate to live in a first world country with a third world health system, one in which, instead of the government buying in everything wholesale with huge discounts and passing the price on to the taxpayer, there is mostly a reliance on the private sector, the profit motive and dodgy insurers.

We know that William Easton,the health insurance bloke who turns down John, is inevitably facing a grisly fate. He may, strictly speaking, simply be a cog in a larger machine, but the plot takes care to emphasise both his personal culpability for, in effect, sentencing John to death, and shows him to be the sort of cad who cheats on his wife on her birthday for good measure. He's doomed.

Meanwhile, in the present day, our old friend Hoffman finds himself investigating his own crimes, and the scapegoating of the late Strahm seems to be going perfectly. And, of course, Jill has been left a box by her serial killer husband, no doubt intended as some sort of "lesson". Sensibly, she has some red wine before opening it. Oh, and Perez (remember her?) is awkwardly still alive. We know full well that Hoffman is going to get rumbled. He deserves it; flashbacks reveal his involvement from a very early stage.

Hoffman and Jill are working together. There are envelopes. There are frightening views expressed about drug addiction (and wrong- look at Amanda). The plot, meanwhile, is as delightful a puzzle as always, and as usual the saving grace of the film.

William's test is, I suppose, grimly appropriate; he is pitted against a Man who neglects his health, and forced to restrict his breathing. William is the one who lives and, of course, learns nothing from this pointless ordeal. I'm beginning to suspect that, for this film at least, the authorial voice agrees with me.

We are not done with William; he has to choose, arbitrarily, which of his staff lives or dies, and he gets a philosophical chat with John. His penultimate test is to suffer physical pain to help an underling, or she dies. It is he, as the boss, who has the agency here, the power of life and death. Naturally, he refuses, what with her being an expendable pawn, and there is a fight, the unfettered free market red in tooth and claw. The left wing subtext here is extraordinary; it is interesting that this film was released shortly before Obama's still rather right wing health reforms became a thing.

William's final test is a massacre of his entire staff, except that he can save a maximum of two by painfully giving up his hands. Lovely. This is a nice little microcosm of what he does for a living, of course, and naturally they all die. In the final twist, his death comes atcthechands of a woman who holds a grudge against him and is not, as we assume, his wife.

We end with the usual stream of revelations, and Hoffman's fatal comeuppance at the end of Jill. I like this film a lot; Jigsaw remains a psychopathic, sanctimonious shit, but at least this time the film was about something.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

“Excuse me, I have to go and vomit.”

I think I may have reached a turning point. I’ve enjoyed all the Harry Potter films, but up until now I have somewhat regretted the increasing seriousness of the films, in contrast to the sense of fun and wonder which the first film had. With this one, though, I may be starting to appreciate the more serious later films without pining for a more innocent past. This is probably because the ongoing plot and character development begins to bear real fruit at this point.

We begin with Harry and Dumbledore and a load of iconic London landmarks, which are looking very cinematic and presented as magical, in a way which evokes Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere and the works of China Mieville. A bit of a scrap occurs and the Millennium Bridge is destroyed with delightful gusto. It’s an exciting beginning, which sets us up for a dramatic film. There’s a bit of exposition as the pair visit an old pall of Dumbledore’s, Horace Slughorn, who is to be the new potions teacher and who has a very convincing armchair costume!

Probably the most interesting character in all of these films, partly because of Alan Rickman’s performance, is Snape, who has until now seemed to be a red herring. However, a visit from Bellatrix leads to the revelation that he is apparently a baddie! The fact that he later (SPOILER ALERT!!!) murders Dumbledore, is another subtle hint! But for now it’s a shock to see him swearing allegiance to the Mallfoy’s and to Voldemort himself.

Eventually, term finally starts, although not before some argy-bargy in the train (again). Snape is the new defence against the dark-arts teacher and is suspiciously ineffective in the role. There is a new MacGuffin in the form of Tom Riddle’s diary, and a new emphasis on unease between everyone at Hogwarts. Harry’s possessiveness over the diary drives a wedge between him and his friends, while the mutual attraction between Hermione and Ron, what with them being teenagers in a movie, predictably leads to denial and awkwardness between them. Once again, as with previous Harry Potter films, and indeed with Buffy, the moral is clearly that a hero needs friends.

It’s an uncomfortable term, ending on the most uncomfortable note as Harry overhears Snape with Draco. The plot thickens as Harry discovers that Tom Riddle has a past with Slughorn which he is unwilling to discuss. Slughorn is not the only link to potions; in this film they positively abound, and Ron seems to be under the influence of a love potion. Slughorn, meanwhile, is soon the victim of an attempted poisoning. Things continue to go from bad to worse, and Tom Riddle’s diary is a sort of ring to Harry’s Frodo.

Fortunately there is such a thing as liquid luck. There is also such a thing as Hagrid, who is, as ever, a good friend. As soon as the gang gets back together, all friends again, things begin to look up, and for the first time we discover what horcruxes are, and the quest to destroy them all begins. This is, in fact, the beginning of the end of the film series, and a suitable point for Dumbledore, the father figure, to be killed off! This is a shocking event. It seems that Snape was the Half-Blood Prince after all. It is up to Harry and his friends to fulfil Dumbledore’s mission, destroy the horcruxes and vanquish Voldemort.

I enjoyed that. It was dark, but had an epic quality that previous films have not. If the final two films are anything like this then I will enjoy the ride!

Friday the 13th (2009)

“Your tits are stupendous”

I don’t usually go on about such things as DVD menus, compulsory trailers and the like, but this DVD package is bloody awful. You are forced to sit through a couple of trailers after you’ve pressed play. These cannot be skipped, and they just go on and on in a loop with no sign of the film starting. We only got to the film by means of the scene selection. If you ask me, this is something of a basic failing. Approach this DVD with caution.

What of the film itself, though? You know what I’m like with remakes. Usually I don’t see the point, unless they are trying something genuinely new, such as Little Shop of Horrors- remaking a dark comedy into a musical. I wasn’t expecting to see much point in this one, but I can see the reasoning. It isn’t that the original has dated- these things happen- but, post-Scream, it is impossible to watch without a raised eyebrow. Besides, Jason isn’t in it. Well, not much. This remake seizes the chance to remake the film for a post-Scream audience who expect to see Jason, wearing his iconic mask, in Friday the 13^th.

There are some nice little nods to the previous film. The flashback scenes at the beginning are set in 1980, the year the original film was released. But this film enjoys better, and far less clichéd, acting and dialogue. The music, which owes a lot to the work of  Trent Reznor, is both bloody good and not clichéd as was the original score.

Another nice little update, of course, is that our unfortunate teens are not camp counsellors but looking to find weed to sell. Society has changed a lot in thirty years.

There are no famous actors in the film, but this is of course necessary. Any famous actors, we would expect, should be pretty much safe until the end of the film. Characters die in the reverse order of relative fame of the actors who play them. The casting of unknowns here means we have no clue.

Some things never change, though. Having sex generally leads to a violent death. Plus, with one major exception, it tends to be bad sex, generally interrupted. There’s a nice little commentary on the clichés of the slasher film in the fact that the standard plot of a slasher is compressed into the opening few minutes of the film, whereas the original took ninety minutes. The rest of the film, while in many ways repeating the same sorts of events more slowly, does so with characters who have dimensions which would not have existed in a slasher made thirty years previously.

This film is blatantly better made than the original. However, the modern direction and cinematography, with its slickness, lacks the shocks of the original, which, being relatively primitive, still made you jump. Still, there is much to admire here. The deaths are pleasingly graphic, while the characterisation, unlike in the original, are thoroughly realistic. Even the sex scenes are believable.

Most intriguing, of course, is that Jason just appears. We’re not given any explanation. He never talks. Is he supernatural? We’re not told. Arguably, this makes the character more scary. What can be scarier than the unknown?

The Fourth Kind (2009)

“I am God!”

Er, you know how I was confessing in my last blog post that I’d never seen The Exorcist? Well, this is the point where I really can’t avoid confessing to not having seen Close Encounters of the Third Kind either. Please don’t tell anyone; they might take my movie reviewing licence off me. If it’s any consolation then I’m fully prepared to bang on a bit about the effect of The X-Files in reviving all this UFO stuff in both pop culture and conspiracy theories, and how this sort of thing all feels a bit ‘90s by now.

Still, this is a good film, which has been unfairly criticised. The film isn’t actually making claims about real UFO’s: the incident in this film was made up and was never claimed as truth by anyone outside of the film. This film isn’t doing anything substantially different from what Orson Welles did with The War of the Worlds in 1938. It’s cleverly done, with a carefully maintained distinction between a documentary style “reality” and the “reconstruction”, taking up most of the film, which is shot more like a conventional drama. Most major characters are therefore played by two actors, one of whom is much better looking than the other. Clever.

The plot is easy to follow while at the same time being multi-layered and gloriously metatextual. SPOILER ALERT, but the twist at the end, that we may or may not have an unreliable narrator, shakes everything up unexpectedly at the end. The backstory is the usual Erik Von Daniken / Graham Hancock stuff, with a lot about Sumerians and hints towards those old theories about Utnapishtim from The Epic of Gilgamesh being an alien, all of which is familiar enough to need not much exposition so we can get on with the suspense.

This film is utterly terrifying. You will never think of owls in the same way again. Best of all is the way that we never quite see the aliens, or learn more than hints about them and what they want. This isn’t just cheaper but also far more frightening than would have been achieved by actually showing them or fleshing out a backstory. Everything is perfectly pitched to generate just the right level of paranoia.

A few observations: most of the cast were unknowns, but I recognised Corey Johnson from his appearance in Doctor Who. This is the only film I know of to have been set in Alaska, which seems in itself to be a strange, and alien landscape where people must commute to work by private plane: think of the carbon emissions!

And the dialogue over the end credits is possibly the most evil ending to a film in the entire history of cinema.