Retrospective - 'In The Company Of Men' (1997)

How utterly despicable can a lead protagonist be before the audience feels like switching off in disgust? After all, the audience can take a bad guy being as ruthless as possible. Most of the time we thrive on the knowledge that no matter how cruel and sadistic they may be, that come the end credits, our hero will have vanquished them once and for all. When the lead character is portrayed as these things, it can more times than not, be very hard to swallow; why would we want to spend two hours of our time in the shadow of these wretched people? Scorsese has made a career out of portraying incredibly unforgiving anti-heroes, and making them interesting and watchable. Just look at DeNiro's 'Jake LaMotta', 'Travis Bickle' or 'Rupert Pupkin'. These are all incredibly hard and complex creations. They exhibit nasty and and sometimes brutal behavior and yet they are three of the most captivating characters in screen history. While characters like 'Hannibal Lector' and 'Darth Vader' usually top 'best ever villain' polls, they offer us sometimes cartoonish and unrealistic portrayals of psychopathic tendancies. That is why we love them so much; they are the epitome of evil, but offer us no grounds to assume people like this exist in real life. We can look on from afar, completely removed from the action on screen. That is why they are so fun to watch. Which brings me to "In The Company Of Men". This film I propose has the most vile, and stomach churning characters in recent memory. And why is this? Well because in the ways that we enjoy other villains for their over the top theatricality, those presented here are all the more barbaric and ruthless in that they stem from a very real place. There are people like that out there today. We can run into people like this just outside our door. And that is what makes "In The Company Of Men" the uncomfortably fascinating experience that it is.

Whatever happened to Director Neil LaBute? It was with this that he made his Directorial debut and it was met with much critical acclaim and award winning success. Now wasting his considerable talents on execrable affairs such as 2006's horrific remake of "The Wicker Man" (one of the worst films I have ever seen) and this years pointless remake of "Death At A Funeral", that he crafted something as scathingly clever and well observed as this, is quite surprising. Working from his original stage play the film plays on its own terms and offers plenty to think about come the end credits. Chad and Howard have both been recently dumped. On a six week business trip to an unnamed city they find themselves both embittered by women. Sick of pining and feeling terrible for those they perceive to treat them like rubbish they both hatch a plan. Both will date the same 'lowly' woman for the time they are in town. Both will treat her like royalty. Then, when her spirits are raised and she begins to feel great about herself for the first in a very long time, they will both humiliate and dump her. It is their way of 'taking back the power' and enacting revenge on the female species they feel has wronged them so. That their pray in question is the meek and very unassuming Christine, a deaf employee at their agency, things begin falling into place. That is until both mens actions have unforeseen affects on them. An unusual and often uncomfortable examination of misogyny in the workplace, this is one film going experience that could not be described as an 'easy or fun watch'. Indeed, upon watching it, I myself began to feel quite queasy at the sheer level of cruelty and torture on display. Not quite the same form of torture used in the "Hostel" and "Saw" films; what our protagonists specialise in here is emotional torture.

Eckhart in his first lead role in a major motion picture is repulsive, malevolent and magnificent. His is a character that thrives on power over others. He could be seen is quite a misogynist, what with his scorned put downs and general dislike of those of the opposite sex. I however believe him to be more misanthropic in nature. Look closer and you see that while on this particular occasion, those on the receiving end of his power hungry trip are women, he has the same scant regard for everyone. His hatred in this case might extend to Christine, but he holds everyone he works with in that regard. They are puny to him and he must have dominance and power over them. Eckhart portrays him brilliantly. Underneath his good looks and wide smile lies very complex and sociopathic tendencies. It could be argued that Eckhart built his career on the back of this performance and he gives it everything he has got, despite the fact it is such an ugly person. A very risky part indeed, but under Eckhart's wing it is guided to safety. He is joined by Matt Malloy as Howard. An actor I have heard nothing of before or since, he nontheless plays the puny and weak number two, to Eckhart. Sure he doesn't come up with the original plan, but he doesn't do anything to stop it. Malloy is the audience in this game of destruction. We are complicit in Chads ploy, just as Howard is. As he grows ever more uncomfortable of the game, so does the audience. Howard just might be the worse by sheer fact that he has the ability to tell wrong from right. Chad it seems has lost that trait a long time ago. As a foil to Eckhart he contrasts him in not only in looks but also personality. He is the submissive, to Eckharts domineer. Completing the trio of characters is Stacey Edwards as the unfortunate prey. She is heartbreaking in her role. Portraying deaf in a character cannot be easy and is always a tight line to walk, but Edwards here exercises a wealth of emotion with her eyes. It is through them we see the sheer pain events have transpired to. The cast are without a single false note.

As the source material is originally a play, it is evident throughout the entire film. In fact, this is one of the films criticisms. The film has very little cinematic quality to it. It favours long takes, over stylish cinematography and quick cuts. As a result the film moves at quite a languid pace. This style, certainly does allow events and actors to breathe but for such a dialogue based piece, it demonstrates very little to set it apart from its original stage production. Music is initially disjointing, until you realise the tribal rhythms are intentional in reflecting the predatorial tendencies of the protagonists; they are on the hunt and the music emulates this. Morals run very murky indeed here. LaBute seems intent on showing what men are truly capable of. Do all have the potential to be either a Chad or a Howard? LaBute seems to think so; in his world all men are cowards or barbaric. Christine is the one pure thing in this world and it is she that the men are conspiring to destroy. The title itself could mean both the sexist, male domineering company these men work for, or either the time we spend in their company. The film will almost certainly not be to everyones taste; those who don't mind the heavy dialogue and pitch black humour the film strives for, might find the uncomfortable subject matter and lead characters too miserable to want to see them through to the end of their little 'game' Those who have the head and stomach for it though will be rewarded with a very interesting and probing examination of the darkest side of men. LaBute writes fluidly and callously and exhibits a great ear for dialogue. All in all, not exactly a truly fun experience, but overall, very rewarding and rich for all the right reasons. Just remember Chad and Howard the next time someone brings up how horrible their favourite movie monsters are. After all, the scariest monsters, are those that really exist.

Verdict: 81%

A very well observed but sometimes excruciatingly cruel debut from LaBute. The cast all exhibit high standards and the writing is pitch perfect but watching in any sort of nihilist mood is 100% not advised. If this is, as it is suggested a 'black comedy', then it must go down as one of the darkest in recent memory. A fantastic debut from both Eckhart and LaBute.

"In The Company Of Men" Trailer

Retrospective - 'The Thick Of It / In The Loop' (2005-2010)

Armando Iannucci is quite possibly, Britains funniest man. Having created, written and directed some of the greatest shows on TV, not just in the UK, but in the entire history of the medium, he is a legend. He is responsible for 'The Day Today' (along with the genius of Chris Morris) and the possibly greatest single character ever created, 'Alan Partridge'. Those two shows have influenced almost every single comedy show on British TV since and the fact that he is still doing it right up to this day with 'The Thick Of It', shows his place in comedy history is assured. Yes, as ridiculously exaggerated as this fawning over is, just watch one (if not all) of these shows, and try and tell me different. As a political satirist as seen in 'The Day Today' and 'The Thick Of It', he is second to none. 'The Day Today' is over 16 years old, and yet is still incredibly relevant and original. Political satire by its definition should be current and should aim to puncture the pulse of politics right now if it wants to make an impression. In 1994, 'The Day Today' did this sure, but the fact you can still see it relating back to current news to this very day, shows its legacy. A hilarious lampoon of news programmes, its intention was to show how silly they look by attempting to heighten its own news articles to an almost ridiculous level of sensationalism in order to reflect it back to those original shows; are they that different? Its utter absurdity and surreal vignettes assured its place in classic comedy and it gave birth to the careers of some great British talent. Alan Partridge is known more widely as the career defining moment for both Iannucci and co-writer/creator, Steve Coogan. His influence is widely known and does not need to be trumpeted here, but for anyone who has not before familiarized themselves with Ianucci's work, stop reading and watch all of it now. Yes, thats right, all of it, it really is that essential. It also will bring you up to date for 'The Thick Of It' and how it may possibly, surpass Iannuccis prior achievements.

I am ashamed to say, I did not catch the original airing of the show in 2005, but rather its transition to the big screen last year in the shape of 'In The Loop'. As a fan of not only Iannucci, but head writer Jesse Armstrong (one half of the writing team from Peep Show), I had heard overwhelmingly positive reviews for it. I had heard it was based on a Television Show, but as it did not tie into the plot of that ('In The Loop' is completely stand alone) I eagerly checked it out. The film did not disappoint. It was easily one of the best films of last year and was rewarded for its efforts with an Academy Award nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay last March. For the film, Iannucci widened his scope to include not only British Politicians, but Americans too. And surprise, surprise, we find that the Americans are as prone to disaster as the British are. The film is a completely fictionalized account of the run up to the US invasion of Iraq although, and this may sound odd, but plot isn't that important. It is there and always driving the action yes, but it is not what you take from the film. What you take from the film is the raw attention to detail and stunning observations on the minutiae of political life. As it has been said before elsewhere, this is complete opposite to the glamour and romanticism of politics that 'The West Wing' offered. Those in charge of running the Country are small but pithy people who would stab their best friend in the back as to further their own political careers. The film is, as you may not have noticed by anything I have stated thus far, one of the funniest films you may ever see. Its broad and all encompassing dialogue is some of the most fluidly written you may ever hear and rolls along at such a vitriolic pace, you barely have time to regather the air in your lungs, let alone take all of its shock/grandiose poetry in at once. It initially jars the senses as the film begins as it means to go on; in complete and utter confusion and mayhem, but once you get a hold on it, it becomes quite a pleasure for your ears to hear something so fine tuned and effortlessly drawn from its cast, more of which I will get to momentarily. The film is a instant classic and one that should be watched straight away if not done so already.

The origins of the film lie in the bind Iannucci found himself in when lead actor of the show, Chris Langham was arrested for possessing child pornography in 2007. Quite shocking considering the top class comedy work Langham had been delivering for years. Here it seemed he was finally getting the success he was long overdue as the bungling and almost completely incompetant MP, Hugh Abbot. He was fantastic in his part however with his arrest, Iannucci found himself in trouble with where to take the show. Abbot's abrupt absence in the two Christmas Specials was explained, yet it was obvious a comic foil was necessary to continue in order for the show to work. Knowing he had a good thing, Iannucci decided to keep each character and transport then to a feature length version and name them all differently, except choosing to replace Langham with Tom Hollander as the inept MP. It is a testament to both mens performances and high class of writing involved, that this is not at once jarring. So the film is the perfect gateway into the show, despite it being made right in the middle of its (so far) three season run. With the film acting as the gateway, you are primed and ready for the series.

'The Thick Of It' could easily be better than the film and that is saying something. I have declined from mentioning characters up to this point as that is what propels everything, far more so than the plot. Its wryly observed, fly on the wall look is a colorful, cacophony of useless and very selfish twits. No one is very likable. All of them you love. It makes no apologies for its lack of emotionality. Everything in this world is cold and hard and if you can't stand it, then get out of it. So in no particular order we have Olly, played by Chris Addison, a 'morally bankrupt' special adviser to the MP. He is very shallow and shows no hesitation in manipulating people for what he wants. Glenn played by James Smith, a Senior Adviser to the Minister. He is usually quite good at his job, but his age is the brunt of many jokes from others and is not taken as seriously as he possibly should be. From the most recent season, Chris Langhams absence was explained in a reshuffle and is now replaced by the very inexperienced Nicola Murray played by the excellent Rebecca Front, previous callaborator with Iannucci on the 'The Day Today'. As she is completely new to her job, her constant strain to keep up with everything is one of the things that land her in hot water throughout the season, although she wisely does not try and be a 'Hugh Abbot Mk 2' for season 3. And then we have Malcolm Tucker. A simply stunning Peter Capaldi, he is the shows undeniable drawing point for many. He is the dreaded Director of Communications for the Government. He is essentially a spin doctor for the Prime Minister and serves as his man on the field. He is a ready made classic creation and Capaldi gives him everything he's got. With every filthy obscenity and threat spat out of his mouth, I defy you to not burst your rib cage laughing. No one is safe from his tyrannical reign and everyone lies terrified in his shadow. He is one of the funniest characters ever created on Television.

The cast are amongst the best around. All of the show is written excellently, yet were it not for the entire cast and supporting players, it would not be what it is. Indeed, the cast even get a writing credit, due to their improvisations on set, which surely must almost be as crucial to its off the cuff spontaneity, as its carefully planned writing is. It is all filmed as very realistically. Cameras shake and struggle to catch up with the mayhem going on all around the hapless characters. Its pseudo-documentary style is completely in keeping to its unrestrained and impulsive themes and characters. You simply are moving along the whole time, with nary a second to take it all in, let alone catch your breath for laughing. This is 'classic line, after classic line' and the great cast give it everything they have got. Any show so fouled mouthed as to feature a 'swearing supervisor' must be given the applause it deserves. The rhythm and efficiancy with which each character delivers said expletive is among the most original (and shocking) language used anywhere in the history of the medium.

So yes, I am slightly too enthusiastic and appreciative about this series, but it really should be seen by all.It may be a political satire, but its characters and situations are so ruthlessly hilarious and endearing that despite the ugliness of most of their words and actions, we can't help but fall in love with them all. It is a show that exist with a rare few far above its source material in satire and comedy, and so elegantly performed and written it will surely be remembered for many years to come as another classic hit for Iannucci. Despite its satire trappings, it carries basic human nature and wry observations on humans that should see it in almost 20 years from now, much like 'The Day Today' being as relevant as ever. No matter what the future holds for us, politicians will always be the same shits they always were.


'The Thick Of It' Verdict: 91%
'In The Loop' Verdict: 85%
Iannucci takes the best of both 'The Day Today' and 'Alan Partridge' and delivers another hilarious subversive and foul mouthed observation of politicians. Malcolm Tucker is a hero for the ages and I could fill a whole other blog on the shows many genius and side splittingly hilarious and clever one liners. If you haven't done so already, I urge you to go out and catch up on it before Season 4 begins later in the year.


'The Thick Of It' Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUxNWrUU1C4

'In The Loop' Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQrqMkCuHqA

Retrospective - 'The King of Kong' 2007

Here is something genuinely original, which proves that sometimes, fact can be much more crazier than fiction. One of the most compelling and hilarious documentaries I have seen in recent memory; this is nigh on unmissable stuff for almost anybody. In fact, many of the films scenarios are almost too perfect. I mean, most Hollywood movies don't have plots or characters as compelling as those seen here. It has everything you could want from a film. The underdog everybody is rooting to come through and win in the end, some hilarious supporting players, a compelling story and a great 'boo-hiss' villain. And it's all real. And it's all about middle aged computer game nerds. And despite what you may be thinking, it really is that exciting.

The documentary centers primarily on the titular 'Donkey Kong', arcade video game from the 80's. Except, and despite it being the 21st Century, many people seem caught in a time loop, forever dedicated to their love of retro gaming. And not only that, but competitive retro gaming. It is too easy to call these people nerds. Gaming is what they live for. They are real people and are presented as such. And it is not just those middle aged, speccy man-boys that feature here. Along the way we see an elderly lady competing in the tournament also suggesting that the audience for these old arcade games, while small, are most definately diverse. So this small group are dedicated to their love and in competing for the highest scores and bragging rights. All this is for their passion, not to win money or accolades. They simply want to be recognised among their peers. These organised tournaments feature referees, rules and the chance for the players to 'perform' as it were, to live audiences. Out of the crowds the film follows 2 men, both in their late 30's/early 40's and both hell bent on claiming the highest Donkey Kong score. And this is where the film comes into its own. The casting. This is down to one person particularly: Billy Mitchell. A cocky, self indulgant, heavily mulleted and unintentionally hilarious human, he is the perfect villain for the film. One look and you're already hissing him and yet you cannot tear you eyes away. He has surrounded himself with sycophants who worship him and the very high scores he set for the game (albeit back in the early 80's). As a result his ego is almost as big as his hair. Watching him smugly tour the gamesfloor with his trophy wife at his side, you want to simultaneously smack and laugh at him. This is in stark contrast to Steve Wiebe, our underdog. While Mitchell has been in the gaming eye for decades now, Wiebe is the new pretender. He is ready made with the audience cheering for him from the start. A beautiful family, recently laid off and not to mention his proficiancy in not only video games, but also various sports and musical instruments, he has our affections instantly. He is simply one of those guys who never got his break in life, despite the fact of just how talented he is. Could defeating Mitchell be that success that has eluded him his whole life? The rivalry and competition follows, as well as all those involved play out the next action packed 80 or so minutes. And did I mention, it is all about video games?!

Director Seth Gordon does an excellent job with the story. As stated earlier, Wiebe and Mitchell are both tailer made protagonists for the film, but the fact that it is supported by those involved with the competition adds to the comedy. Most are against Wiebe, and most try their best to put him off in various and dirty ways. This is despite the fact that Wiebe has to constantly prove himself on live gaming runs, while Mitchell gets to send in dubiously edited footage of himself beating the game to receive all the accolades that should be Wiebes. It is reveting and compelling stuff. Mitchell cuts a ridiculous picture of a person. Director Gordon said the real life man was worse than that depicted in the film. His worst moments it seems where left out in order to maintain the light tone of the picture. As it stands, he is unforgettable. He hypocritically changes various phrases and sayings throughout the film to suit him. That hair, that beard, that tie, his pseudo intellectual musings on winning and what it means to be a winner, they are too good to be true.

Unfortunately, it all may just be too good to be true as it turns out. As entertaining as it all is, I kept on getting the feeling that Gordon leisurely edited his way around the story and certain events. Which upon later research, I found to be actually the case. So, while no one is portrayed innacurately, certain events have been played around with, in order to maintain dramatic effect for the picture. Upon seeing just what was changed and tweaked, I personally believe them to be for the benefit of the film, and as such, do not personally hold it against either the film or Director. Your own opinion may differ if you feel the Director and Editor cheated themselves around the 'Documentary' genre. As it stands, I believe a small does of creative license with certain events can mostly benefit the subject, as long as it does not twist and morph facts. Gordon seems to have omitted certain things here and there, but for me, it serves as no purpose leaving them in, other than taking away tension from proceedings. I might feel different on other cases, but for this, I found the small tweaks to be for the benefit of the film.

Overall, here is an incredibly entertaining portrayal of men who refuse to grow up. Yes the film could be presented on a darker note (the fact that family and friends are ignored when the great Wiebe's 'Kong' obsession takes hold, that the rivalry seems to be dominating both mens lives, the 'real' Mitchell) but really, could you take a film about such a subject matter as that serious? Those featured here are completely unaware of how they appear to people, but their love for gaming shines through it all. The various back stabbings, intense rivalries and dirty mind tricks are all played out in such a ridiculous background, you cannot help but laugh. As a result, you grow attached to these people. You understand their thrill at seeing a Donkey Kong 'kill screen' for the first time, but don't have to nessessarily commend it. It's all they have in life. It is their own personal mark on history. Gordon is very focused with proceedings and with such a story on his hands he turns out a very crowd pleasing tale. This story has laughs, tears, tension, action, romance and is more exciting than most Hollywood Blockbusters. It could be viewed in manner of different ways; a metaphor for the Generation X's inability to grow up, modern America's growing obsession with gaming, a critique of the American Dream or as simply an old fashioned David and Goliath story. Take your pick as all work excellently towards the final product.

Verdict: 81%

Gordon delivers a universal story played out in almost pitch perfect fashion. Minor liberties taken with certain events aside, he provides everything a Documentary should, along with what most Fiction films should too, all undercutted to an excellent retro 80's soundtrack. Seek out this 'King' and enjoy, just don't get any ideas to attempt to beat either Mitchell or Wiebe's scores afterwards....

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMJZ-_bJKdI

Retrospective - 'Inside' (À l'intérieur) 2007

How do I recommend this film? It is quite possibly one of the most shocking and downright disturbing films of recent years. Its blood soaked hands possitively burst out of the screen and grab you by the throat such is its effect. It is a film that stays with you long after you see it. Many of you will be sickend by its gore and violence. Many of you will simply not be able to watch it. How then, can I rate this so high and proclaim it as one of the best horror movies of the last decade? Of course, someone telling you 'you won't be able to take it', only makes most people want to see something even more. Just don't say I didn't warn you. 'Inside' was initially released in its native France, very surprisingly, in 2007. So why am I reviewing it now? Well part of this blog is to provide information about films that you may or may not have heard of. So while a lot of you probably have not seen this, I can safely and one hundred per cent say that you have never seen anything quite like this before.

The film is set on Christmas Eve. Sarah (Alysson Paradis) is heavily pregnant. She is still recovering (physically and emotionally) from the death of her husband only 4 months before. She is to have an induced labour the next day and is understandably, quite anxious about it. However, this is all before a mysterious woman (Beatrice Dalle) comes knocking late in the night and refuses to go away. You see, this strange lady wants Sarahs child, and will stop at nothing to get it. This film is incredibly stripped down. There is something so simplistic about a heavily pregnant woman in such peril, I'm surprised that other films have not taken advantage of it before; tension is a given with it. And what tension. This begins almost instantly with such nerve shredding terror, and does not let up for its entire running time. You simply have no idea where this film will go next, such is its visceral rawness. And the places it takes you, well it will simply be far too much for some. Which brings me to my next point. The violence.

I am a fan of horror. While I have reviewed a few here before, I believe that the good ones are very far and few between. Before viewing this film, I had some preconceived notions about what the genre should feature. Less is always more, the lower the budget the better and under no circumstances, should the film ever rely on gore. This film gloriously tears up any ideas I previously had about it. It is easily one of the most vicious films I have ever seen. It begins quite violently and gets more and more over the top gory as it goes on. Previous reliance on gore used to be at the cost of tension, I believed. Here it enhances it. Before the film is over you are left watching through fingers at disbelief at the carnage. Why is this though? When watching it, I found myself torn in whether I actually liked the film or not. I had been advised on the similarly violent 2008 gallic-horror 'Martyrs' before I watched 'Inside'. These are quite similar films and yet having such conflicting opinions for the two is quite odd. That the former had received very positive praise from critics and that also in my opinion, you have to seek out the best horrors yourself, I eagerly checked out it out. 'Martyrs' was, for me a sleazy exercise in shock tactics. Centering on the dreaded 'torture-porn' sub-genre, it offered me next to nothing. Shocking, just for the sake of it. 'Inside', is quite possibly, more violent and yet affected me so much more. I can't quite pin-point where and why my opinions differ on the two films. And with this escalation of screen violence, where does this leave violence in movies to go and what can be acceptable for audiences?

So why then, is this film so good? Well it is shot beautifully. First time directors Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury ensure every scene carries a sense of menace, and the pacing of it is impeccable. It's eerie use of primary colours recall a sense of the 70's classic 'Susperia' along with its soundtrack, enhancing the shocks greatly. Its relentless assault on the senses is due to its pacy editing. For such a low budget film, it looks great. Make-up and many of its special effects are top class. So while it is very technically proficient, why does it carry such an emotional punch? This could be down to its two female leads. Both are played with great devotion and conviction in their parts. Dalle cuts a very imposing figure in her gothic, black dress and Paradis must be applauded for receiving quite possibly, the most punishment any character has gone through in a film in recent memory. 'Home invasion' films are unnerving simply by what they stand for. Our home is the one place we feel safe and can relax. Add in the very primal fear of pregnancy and you have ready made effective themes for the audience to relate to. The house is the one place Sarah is safe; the womb is the only place her unborn child is safe. We are already rooting for Sarah from the start just for the terrifying predicament she finds herself in. It is ambiguous in all the right places (is the 'Woman' a real, or supernatural presence?) and all characters carry just the right shades of grey to them; Sarah already blames the death of her husband on her unborn child, so consequently, does she want to fight as hard for her, and its survival?

Gore aside, this film is incredibly tense. Its mayhem and carnage is well handled, but were it not for its eerie unpredictability, it would not have near the effect it does. It is very, very scary. Minor criticisms center on some comically inept and stupid police officers added to the mix, for no other reason it seems, than to up the body count. Hopefully, you will be too wrapped up in the film to notice, but they are good examples of characters that 'live in the film world' and do certains things that will have some people screaming at the screen in disbelief. It also becomes almost too blood soaked by the climax. This for me did not take away any of the movies enjoyment. Come the end, you will have been through an experience like no other. Some may not have liked what you have seen, but one thing is for certain, you will not be able to shake this films effect on you.

Verdict: 85%

An stunning achievement in modern horror. If you find yourself jaded by the genre, then this film is for you. Most people will be put off by the endless and shocking violence, but when it is handled as well as this, you cannot fight the primal effect it has on the viewer. I urge you to seek it out, wherever you can find it.

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldUsz12kSQU