The Mad Prophets 2009

It's come to my attention that there were some awards being given out to certain films this weekend. I noticed that, yeah. Seeing as how I gave negligible coverage to the Oscars last year, I decided the beginning of February this year should lend the blog a little more prestige. I couldn't afford a tux, so I donned a jaunty bow-tie and decided to create the inaugural Mad Prophet film awards. This isn't a compilation of my favourite films of 2009, but a more subjective recognition of what I thought were the best in each field last year.

So here's my little awards thing for the period starting March 1st 2009 and ending on February 28th 2010, which is about the same period the Oscars are supposed to cover. Supposed being the operative word, if today's nominations are anything to go by. Also going by UK release dates, a-like so...

BEST DIRECTOR

Kathryn Bigelow- The Hurt Locker
Neill Blomkamp- District 9
Terry Gilliam- The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Duncan Jones- Moon
Quentin Tarantino- Inglourious Basterds

If this had been going for February 2008 to February 2009, Danny Boyle would have been the winner by far and away for Slumdog Millionaire, and that should tell you something of my appreciation for directors that have overcome incredible working conditions to deliver an excellent final product. That's naturally why Bigelow, who filmed in a war zone, and Gilliam, who lost his lead actor during filming and still made a cohesive final cut, made the list without a second thought.

Tarantino is naturally on there because as much as he pays homage to the things he loves in his films, they still feel fresh and Basterds is infinitely rewatchable. Blomkamp and Jones are both recognised for bringing back intelligent and enjoyable sci-fi in precisely the way James Cameron didn't last year. However, the win has to go to Kathryn Bigelow, and that's one of the things the Oscars got absolutely right. There just wasn't a film that does what it does better than The Hurt Locker last year, and it's probably one of the best action thrillers ever.

WINNER- Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Tom Felton- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Christian McKay- Me And Orson Welles
Alfred Molina- An Education
Stanley Tucci- The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz- Inglourious Basterds

In contrast to the female counterpart, Supporting Actor is always a category that's bursting at the seams, because it constitutes a great deal of more subtle performances as well as most villains, and everyone loves a good villain. Tom Felton gets special mention for really giving a remarkable performance as the troubled and weary Draco Malfoy after five films making not much of an impression, to be frank. Elsewhere, Christoph Waltz won the Oscar and many more accolades for his unforgettable performance as Hans "the Jew Hunter" Landa. He's like a Nazi Batman in that film- the world's greatest detective and creepy as all hell to boot.

Off-centre for reasons of Zac Efron, Christian McKay's turn in Me and Orson Welles qualifies here too. His villainy is less obvious as he's more of a rival to the protagonist, but he completely embodies Welles, with all his charisma and talent. On the other hand, Alfred Molina is compelling and wonderful in An Education, but he's hardly the violent type- instead, his performance is excellent for the sense of impotence he brings to his patriarchal character. Unforgettable as Waltz and McKay are, I have to hand it to Stanley Tucci, who's tremendously brave in taking on the role of Mr. Harvey, consummately discomforting the audience with his repressed deviance throughout The Lovely Bones.

WINNER- Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Anne-Marie Duff- Is Anybody There?
Anna Kendrick- Up in the Air
Lorna Raver- Drag Me to Hell
Ok-bin Kim- Thirst
Sigourney Weaver- Avatar

Actresses are often heard to complain that there just aren't enough good female roles out there, and whenever you come to tot up the best female performances of the year, it's never hard to argue with that claim. Nevertheless, it certainly hasn't been a terrible year for supporting actresses. Kendrick made her mark as someone to watch in the future with Up in the Air, while Weaver was one of the best things about Avatar, although I'll be mentioning the film in another acting category too.

Both Kim and Raver gave terrific horror performances- horror isn't a genre I've ever been enormously bothered about, and yet both made for brilliant villains in their respective films. The winner has to be Anne-Marie Duff though, in an understated role struggling to keep her business afloat. You really feel for her not just because her melancholy about the family business and about her husband's mid-life crisis, but because she genuinely sells the character to you with her performance.

WINNER- Anne-Marie Duff, Is Anybody There?

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

District 9
An Education
In The Loop
The Lovely Bones
Watchmen

Both The Lovely Bones and Watchmen were screenplays that came across remarkably well from source material that should by all accounts have been unadaptable- a sprawling murder mystery about a child's perspective on the afterlife and an incredibly complex graphic novel respectively. An Education was urbane and witty while District 9 proved a rollicking graduation to the big screen for Neill Blomkamp's original short film. The award would have to go to In The Loop though- it's gloriously profane and laugh-out-loud funny, and a fine companion to the original series, The Thick of It. And if there were any justice, it would've won the Oscar too, cos Precious was way overrated.

WINNER- In The Loop

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

(500) Days of Summer
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up

The Hurt Locker and Inglourious Basterds both took a side-on approach the war genre. Of the two, Inglourious Basterds is probably the more memorable, for Tarantino's trademark dialogue and for its sheer audacity, but hey, the Academy disagreed and went for The Hurt Locker. This was a very strong category for the last year though. All five of these scripts were excellent, from the pure originality of Up's premise to the incredibly well constructed tragi-comedy of A Serious Man. But, the winner has to be (500) Days of Summer- it's the most original romantic comedy in years, by equal turns endearing and insightful, and I think this should have followed Little Miss Sunshine and Juno for some recognition of well-written and original screenplays. Something is rotten in the state of Hollywood.

WINNER- (500) Days of Summer

BEST ACTRESS

Zooey Deschanel- (500) Days of Summer
Lina Leandersson- Let The Right One In
Carey Mulligan- An Education
Saoirse Ronan- The Lovely Bones
Zoe Saldana- Avatar

Now, hear me out. Andy Serkis was unofficially the Best Supporting Actor in 2002 and 2003 for playing Gollum, a performance that wasn't recognised just because it was computer-generated. Similarly, Zoe Saldana gave a terrific performance as Neytiri, however immersed in pixels she may have been. She's really a more worthy candidate than Meryl Streep, who's seemingly reclined into making films for the same target audience as Loose Women nowadays. That's fine, but stop nominating her for awards anyway! Especially as elsewhere, Lina Leandersson and Saoirse Ronan both performed well-rounded young characters in extraordinary and other-worldly scenarios.

Similarly, Zooey Deschanel put a new turn on that usual starry-eyed persona for (500) Days of Summer, possibly to do with the fact that the excellent screenplay gave her some new material. On the other hand, the very same screenplay didn't really expand upon her character so much as Joseph Gordon Levitt's. Carey Mulligan began as a favourite for this award at the Oscars, but eventually lost out to Sandra Bullock, who won a Golden Raspberry for All About Steve the night before. Swings and roundabouts, but Mulligan lost out. So she gets this one, for what it's worth- in recognition of a performance that rings true and utterly compels throughout. And for not blinking.

WINNER- Carey Mulligan, An Education

BEST ACTOR

Michael Caine- Is Anybody There?
Sharlto Copley- District 9
Jeremy Renner- The Hurt Locker
Sam Rockwell- Moon
Michael Stuhlbarg- A Serious Man

Really, properly, this was the hardest one to nail down. Usually it's the Supporting Actor category, but once I figured the best five performances of the year, it was really difficult to decide on one. Every one of these performances was not only believable but really outstanding. At the Oscars, it was bound to be Jeff Bridges, because he's a tremendous actor who was long overdue a nod. The Dude abides, but there should've been more love for Copley's largely improvised turn in District 9, Renner being dangerous and damaged in The Hurt Locker and Stuhlbarg being utterly helpless to avert various impending catastrophes in A Serious Man.

My favourite performance of the year was Michael Caine's in Is Anybody There? and as much as I love that role, and how much you empathise with Clarence as soon as he wanders on-screen, this is based on the best, not my favourite. This is worsened because so few people will recognise this film, being a low-budget, limited release film. The more criminal oversight of the Oscars though was ignoring Sam Rockwell in Moon. I'm maintaining the self-imposed spoiler embargo on that film, but if you haven't seen it yet, go and watch it now. It's a career-best for Rockwell- the role where he finally got to show off all he could do after years in supporting turns.

WINNER- Sam Rockwell, Moon

BEST ANIMATED FILM

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Coraline
The Princess and the Frog
Up

I've always taken issue with the Academy separating off films into this category, and this year especially, because there just haven't been enough really good animated films for me to mention. Segregating animated films like this is especially ridiculous when you consider that Shit Chipmunk Film 2 qualified in the longlist as an animated film because of animated rodents, whereas Avatar with its CG landscapes and characters for more than 50% of the running time, is live-action. Presumably because it made more money, but it's an incredibly snooty distinction, especially when you consider that Up is approximately a million times better than Avatar.

So yeah, Up wins it in this category and every other similar category, but the only other reason I included this segregation was to praise the other three. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was the biggest surprise of last year for me, combining a genuinely funny script with some talented and worthy voice actors to make a really entertaining family film. Any other year, I think The Princess and the Frog would've won, because it's so vibrant and memorable. And Coraline also stood out from the sequels and the rest of the 3D gubbins to provide an enjoyably creepy film with real visual flair. But Up is pretty damn close to perfection, so...

WINNER- Up

BEST FILM

An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The Lovely Bones
Moon

Best, not favourites. And yeah, I know I'm allowed ten, technically, but look at the good that idea's done in its inaugural year.

While I think The Hurt Locker and Inglourious Basterds did have one or two problems, they're both very technically good, and Basterds has the distinction of being really entertaining to boot. Again, The Hurt Locker won overall, and in those nominations, it was probably second only to Up, which, as mentioned, was segregated somewhat. An Education was picking up the slack from 2009's surfeit of unrealistic and vacuous teen romances on film by subverting all audience expectations when we hear "a minor and an older man" and boasting some of the best performances of the year. And The Lovely Bones is a beautiful film that could and should have gotten more recognition, but I feel was killed by its poor critical response. Bloody critics.

And it's with some awkwardness that I avoid justifying my choice of Moon as the first Mad Prophet winner for Best Film, on account of that spoiler embargo. Go and watch it! You'll enjoy a consummate and personal film that re-establishes sci-fi cinema as a serious dramatic device and gets a tremendous and personal performance from Sam Rockwell. This was the most criminal oversight by the Academy this year.

WINNER- Moon

Join us next year for the 2nd Annual Mad Prophet Awards, to see Robert Pattinson NOT win Best Actor and to enjoy Michael Bay's head getting tap-danced on by Neil Patrick Harris for the opening number.

The Mad Prophet #1- Two Moons

Yeah, this is about the size of that promised rebrand. Let me fill you in on why I've gone off in a different direction from the "Filmgoat" name I was planning and alluding to. Having gotten catastrophically drunk last week, I wandered outside the club I was in and met an old friend from secondary school. Well, I say a friend... point being he's apparently being reading these reviews and told me they were very funny. This, for me, is a score.

More than anything else, I've hoped I'm not brow-beating people with my opinions. If anything, I'm happier to be Howard Beale, the mad prophet of the airwaves from the film Network. His show in that film is set up by the TV network executives to open with him delivering elaborate and disillusioning rants that he's channeling to the world from some unknown celestial force. At the end of each rant, he'll collapse into a faint in the spotlight, whereupon the studio audience applauds raucously. They're entertained, but they haven't took on a word he's been saying. And when someone reminds me of that in their response to these reviews, I know I'm doing something right. No one likes a critic, so I'm on the backfoot if I'm not entertaining you.

Moving on then- I've seen four new films this week and this post shall cover two of them. One quite literally involves the Moon, and the other is a remake that drops trou and flashes its arse at the superior original. As ever, mild spoilers may crop up here and there but not so far as to reveal any major plot developments.

MOON


Who's in it? Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey are at the forefront in what's largely a two-hander, I was surprised to see homegrown Channel 4 stars like Matt Berry and Kaya Scodelario (of The IT Crowd and Skins fame, respectively) popping up in the background.

What's it all about? Sam Bell (Rockwell) is an astronaut nearing the end of his three-year contract working on the Moon to extract and export an energy resource that has made the Earth clean and efficient. With only a computer (voiced by Spacey) for company, Sam has a quintessentially personal encounter right before he's due to go back to Earth.

Any good? Sci-fi is bandied around like a dirty word sometimes, unless it's followed by the word "blockbuster". Nine times out of ten, such films have more money than ideas, and so the genre in its undiluted form rarely sees wide release. Even the Sci-Fi Channel have rebranded themselves as the mind-killingly banal "Syfy". So a film like Moon is a breath of fresh air if you like intelligent films with ideas. And I'm eager to point out from the off that not all science fiction features Klingons or Daleks, so don't fall into that slightly populist trap of avoiding Moon cos you're expecting something boring and nerdy.

Director Duncan Jones lovingly harkens back to the age when sci-fi films had ideas- films like Silent Running in particular- but it's as a result of that that it's not particularly original. I couldn't pretend that Moon has new ideas, as I even spotted one major part of the plot that's been done in an Arnold Schwarzenegger film, but the execution of these ideas is what makes it a good film- it wasn't half as good with Schwarzenegger. This film is directed and performed with more subtlety than Michael Bay could muster if he spent ten years in the dark trying to make a silent film, and it's just beautiful. As mentioned, it's more or less a two-hander, providing a claustrophobic atmosphere in the moonbase, which Sam Rockwell amplfies brilliantly with his diverse and great performance. I can't sing Rockwell's praises enough in general, but here is one of those performances that should get nominated for an Oscar, and probably would if the nominations and voting procedure weren't so skewed against genre fare. When February rolls around, I doubt the recipient of the Best Actor award will have been half as good as Rockwell is here, in whatever beige "prestige" film he (or she, you never know these days) has starred in.

There's not much of a supporting cast to speak of, but Kevin Spacey lends the film some tension as well as Sam's helper robot, GERTY. As he trundles around with a "Kick Me" post-it stuck to his back, he does his best to keep Sam sane and happy, but his ulterior motives are brought to the fore by the fact that Spacey can't even ask if you'd like something to eat without sounding menacing. But then I'm not planning to eat round Kevin Spacey's house anytime soon, so that's just fine with me. So besides these two, the other stand-out aspect of the film is the effects work. Far from relying on CGI, some beautiful model shots are employed of the vehicles, the base and the surface of the Moon itself. Another aspect of the homage to Silent Running and its low-budget ilk? Perhaps, but Jones was absolutely right to look elsewhere instead of succumbing to CGI shots. I'm talking about anything other than the story because I'm avoiding talking about the crux of the plot in advance- I knew nothing about this aspect of the story when I saw it, and I think I enjoyed it more because of that. So while I'm lavishing more praise than usual on effects (the score is good too, by the way), be assured that the film has more than enough story to keep you thinking and guessing throughout.

Intelligent and thought-provoking, Moon is the best sci-fi film in ages. Possibly since The Matrix. It's not entirely original, but it takes the time to execute the ideas that support the plot with new techniques rather than patronsing the audience by lazily chucking CGI at us. As with most low-budget films, it's sadly not in wide release, but I strongly recommend you catch it when it's released on DVD/Blu-ray.



THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 (2009)


Who's in it? John Travolta and Denzel Washington sit in for Robert Shaw and Walter Matthau, with James Gandolfini and John Turturro lending ample support.

What's it all about? Walter Garber (Washington) is a New York subway train dispatcher whose life is changed when Ryder (Travolta) hijacks a subway car and demands $10 million in return for the 19 hostages he has on board. The two men form an uneasy relationship over the radio system as the clock ticks towards Ryder's deadline- for every minute he doesn't have the money thereafter, he'll kill a hostage...

Any good? Let me tell you about the 1974 film, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. I saw it recently and found it to be one of the better films I've seen since... well, ever. Well-paced, great action sequences and beautifully acted by Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Shaw, he of Jaws fame, is ice-cold and completely dedicated to getting what he wants, while Matthau is an endearing everyman who could easily have gone into his own spin-off series. Hell, I'd have watched another film with Matthau's Garber. Most importantly, the film leads up to one of the best endings ever- played just right and ending in media res. As the credits roll, you'll be smiling. 35 years on, Tony Scott has also adapted the book from which the 1974 film was based, so this isn't a remake in the strictest sense. But that won't stop me tearing it a new one, folks.

First problem, I say, as I pop open the hood of the film to take a look at it, is that Scott has clearly cast the lead roles the wrong way round. Denzel Washington can clearly play baddies well, as his Oscar for Training Day will attest, so while he's as endearing as he is in other films where he's the good guy, he's just too cool to be in the role of Garber. Cool, that's what Robert Shaw was. John Travolta, not so much. He needs to stop playing baddies altogether. Just... stop. People have talked endlessly about his easy charm, the kind of thing that came through in Grease and Pulp Fiction. In this, he's easily the worst possible drop-trou to the 1974 version as he overacts his way through yet another villain role, seemingly only there to demonstrate every possible vocal iteration of the word "motherfucker". Oh, and in an unintentionally hilarious moment, the word "bumhole". On the positive side of things, James Gandolfini captures the ineptitude of the Mayor of New York perfectly, even in spite of the script making him more competent than his predecessor towards the end of the film, and he has some of the best lines in the film.

Second problem, I say, poking at the mechanics of the film with a spanner, is the "updating" of the film. I feel that Pelham One Two Three was a film very much of its time. In the mid-70s, you can have a subway car full of New Yorkers react with derisive laughter when a gunman tells them he's hijacking the train. They have a cynicism and hard edge that only evaporates once they start shooting. Of course, something quite big happened in New York within the last ten years that now has "terrorist" being said almost as often as Travolta spouts "motherfucker". Post-9/11 subtext was one of the many things the film didn't need, and because it's an unfortunate necessity of setting a film like this in New York, it raises the question of whether it was necessary to remake the film in the first place. Additionally, you know you're in trouble when your film has a social networking sub-plot and vague allusions to the financial corruption that's landed us in the current credit crunch.

But the major problem, I yell, as I start smacking the film with a pipe-wrench, is Tony Scott's direction. He sits somewhere just above McG in the pantheon of awful directors, and he's far too content to bring in shaky-cam, aerial shots and rock music wherever he possibly can. He is not one of those directors who does subtlety. One scene in the original has a police car crash into a fire hydrant- understated because the significance of the crash to the plot is more important than the spectacle of it. The equivalent scene in this update has the car fly spectacularly off a bridge and roll several times, causing various other explosions around it as it goes. Don't even get me started on the jump-cuts and the horrible raping of that brilliant 1974 ending I mentioned. But replacing the hood for a moment, I have to grudgingly admit that most people will be entertained by this. It's got a lot going for it with Washington and Gandolfini at the centre, even if the former is miscast, and Scott didn't change enough of the story to make this a bad film.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is due a drubbing from anyone who's seen the 1974 version, and I strongly advise you to see that film instead of this one. Newer isn't better, but I admit that you could do a lot worse in an evening at the cinema than see this. On the other hand, the DVD costs but £2.99 online at its cheapest, and £5 in HMV. The 2009 version is a good film done poorly.



------------------------------------------------

The next films to be reviewed will be G-Force and G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, and I obviously kept those back because I need help with witty subtitles and they have the G thing in common. Um, but also because they're both family films, obviously.

I'm the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves, and until next time, don't watch anything I wouldn't watch.
Mark.