Inside Deep Throat (2005)

Okay, so we're all familiar with Deep Throat right? No? Okay, well Deep Throat is probably the most successful Porn film of all time, both in terms of profit and exposure. It was released just at a time when Porn was becoming a hot political issue... again... and when America was going through cultural change.

This documentary looks at Deep Throat and examines the cultural and political events that surrounded the production and the aftermath of the release, being banned state to state, with phenomenal demand still there for the film. It looks at the ways that the film affected the people who starred in it, made it, and those who were affected in other ways too.

I think I was drawn to this film because a film like this could go two ways, it could either be gratuitous for gratuity's sake, or it could serve a purpose. I firmly believe that it is the latter, and I think the agenda it is trying to serve is to point out that as a nation too much importance is put on the immorality of pornography. In the film they discuss a scientific paper that was commissioned by the Nixon administration into the effect that pornography had on a person. This scientific study found that pornography had no detrimental effect on those who viewed it. This not being what they wanted to hear the report was basically ignored and Nixon went after the adult film industry in a big way. Cut to the eighties and Reagan and once again porn is an issue. Reagan is smart so he issues an unscientific study which relied on personal testimony rather than trials, and through selecting who you interview it was found that porn was dangerous, so a moral crusade was launched.

The point of all this is that the government in America, at the time at least, seemed far too concerned with the worries of a right wing Christian fringe group that was pushing this agenda than say, improving American healthcare. It was populist rather than a serious issue. But this film isn't a glowing appraisal of the porn industry. For those of you who've seen Boogie Nights (if not then why not?) there is a strong case to be made that the lead actor from Deep Throat was one of the inspirations for Dirk Diggler. Also interviewed are Linda Lovelace's sister, a harsh critic of the film and the industry; and these people are not shown up or victimised, they are respected and listened to.

I enjoyed this film, it was a strong documentary and I feel like I know more having seen it, it's a fairly tough topic to get people to open up about, but they do a fine job here and create a really interesting piece of film.

Avengers Assemble (2012)

So this is the film that they've been building up to for what seems like forever. Many complains were thrown at the preceding films stating that they felt more like very long trailers for the Avengers rather than a film about the character at hand, and sometimes those claims were probably partly justified (Captain America I'm looking at you), but sometimes I think the films fif particularly well on their own; I have a weak spot for Thor, which I thought was good fun entertainment. The worst thing this film could do though was be Iron Man 2 - Long and boring. It is long, but I don't think it's boring, thankfully.

The film begins doing exactly what the title suggests, it sets up a situation that Nick Fury & Co. Can't quite handle alone, and he begins getting together the world's most powerful people. These include Captain America (the kind of leader of the gang), Iron Man, Thor, Hawkeye, Black Widow, and Crucially to the success of the film, Hulk. Now Hulk has gone through a troubled series of films. It's never been clear that people really knew what to do with the character. The Ang Lee 'Hulk' was notable for the inventive use of comic book panels in the film, but was ultimately quite a flat and forgettable film. I never saw the Ed Norton Incredible Hulk, and have heard mixed reviews, but it didn't perform as hoped at the box office and HUlk has kind of been shelved ever since; until now.

Once all the characters have aired their grievances with one another and begun fighting amongst themselves, an event happens to unify them. I won't give too much away, but it is orchestrated by Loki (Thor's adopted brother and chief bad man in this film). The build up to this moment I found to be a little slow and it was the middle portion of the film that I felt was the weakest and failed to grab you in the same way that the rest of the film did. However, my friend sitting next to me expressed the opposite opinion, that it was here that he felt genuine threat and where the story really worked; so I could very well be wrong on this one.

Then we get the final battle between good and evil. This is a lot of fun, but it could be argued that it follows fairly conventional Hollywood lines of getting all the action out in one big bang at the end, with big explosions and crazy stuff going on everywhere. However, whilst this is a little bit of a normal occurrence in blockbusters, it isn't always done well. I thought it worked well here, with some very well choreographed action sequences mixed with wonderful one liners and lots of smashing from the aforementioned Hulk.

The humour is a large factor in the success of the film in my opinion, and it is here that Joss Whedon really makes his mark. One of the reasons why I hate Iron Man 2 so much is because it lost a lot of the humour and fun of the first film and ended up being about a self obsessed man with no sense of humour. Similarly, Thor worked really well, because let's face it, Thor is a ludicrous character, because it could laugh at itself and say, yes, this is stupid, but what the hell. Joss Whedon has made a living with great one liners littered throughout otherwise quite serious topics, probably best shown in Firefly. This is no exception, each character getting some wonderful and memorable lines to spout out to break some of the tension. The other area Whedon shines is through the strong women he writes so well, turning Scarlett Johansson's character from unlikeable into one of the essential characters in the film.

The film does have flaws, I've mentioned the slightly sagging mid section, and I would also add that it is too long. I understand that there are a lot of characters to reintroduce and I admire how well a job he did in getting it moving as well as he did, but it was noticeable. Also there were a few moments of cheese such as the closing line, which quite frankly is terrible. But I guess this is a superhero blockbuster, and maybe the cheese just comes with the territory.

This is a strong film, a film that is a lot better than it really has any right to be. It's not groundbreaking, It's not even close, but it is a lot of fun, and a very enjoyable film is really all I wanted from this film. I liked this film, and I think if you're after a blockbuster that isn't shit like transformers, then you couldn't go too wrong with Avengers Assemble.

Star Trek - The Motion Picture (1979)

Okay, so I decide that it's time. For years I have not watched a single Star Trek film, with no good reason to back up the decision. So the first Star Trek film seemed like the natural place to start. WRONG. This film is a waste of 2 hours, and I've checked with my friends who are big Star Trek fans, and they say that this film could easily be avoided, make no dent in understanding any other part of the franchise, and make everyone a whole lot happier as part of the deal. Unfortunately I am a completist and felt a need to start at number one.

So what makes the film bad? The main reason this film is a pile of shit is that it is 2 hours and basically nothing happens. I could easily sum up the first hour of the film with the phrase - they travelled to a big blue planet. Along the way we get lots of self congratulatory comments about getting the gang back together, and far far far too many external shots of the Enterprise, one sequence lasts around 7 minutes, and that's it, just showing off a ship with no dialogue. Let's face it, we've seen the enterprise before, and it's a fairly smooth structure, not that much going on. Admittedly it's a lovely model, Douglas Trumble's involvement is a sure fired reason to praise the special effects, but there really is only so much you can take.

Shatner is another problem. Now I know there's not much you can do about the star of the show when it comes to adapting it for the big screen, but the man can't act. To me his acting style is very much similar to that of a young amateur Shakespearian actor who feels the need to put emphasis in places that the dialogue should add natural emphasis. In short it's laughable. On the plus side, Kirk is such a proud and pompous character that it kinda works. The rest of the cast I have few issues with, and all do their jobs with aplomb.

The story is about a large blue mass that is moving toward earth, looking to swallow it up like it had done other planets, seeking information on the universe before destroying it. The Enterprise must go investigate this mass and conclude what to do. They spend the majority of the film getting there, with no excitement along the way, and when they get there very little changes. There are questions about Spock's loyalty to the mission, and a few times when the ship doesn't work properly, but other than that it's fairly pedestrian. The planet turns out to be a computer of sorts, which of course means Spock communicates with it the most. There's a twist (kind of) and a message which wouldn't have been too far out of place in a Hippy commune, and then that's that.

This film suffers from being dull, something that they thankfully solved for the next film in the series. It was a failed attempt to capture the Star Wars Market, when instead they should have been  creating their own market. This film would have made a great opening 20 minutes of another film, but really they couldn't stretch it that far. Unfortunately, whilst I am ultimately glad to have seen it in order to get me on my way to watching more Star Trek films, It leaves me with no desire to ever watch it again, and if I didn't know better was to come, then I'd be very tempted to give up now.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010)

Sp; Nic Cage... I know he's a Coppola, and that probably explains it, but how on earth does this man get so much work. There can't surely be as many people as me who like to watch his films out of awe, a sick obsession where you are constantly wondering if he can get worse than he has previously (The answer is normally yes). I don't even think his films do that much money, and yet he's constantly being handed these high budget films which are supposed to appeal to God knows who and he's had a career that's lasted an unfair amount of time considering.

Now we have the Sorcerer's Apprentice, a film where Nic Cage plays a Sorcerer, who yes, takes on an apprentice, an apprentice who is supposedly going yo be the salvation for the planet, who will finally bring about an end to the bad Wizards in the world. This apprentice is a fairly geeky kid who doesn't really believe what's happening to him, let alone any of the nonsense about him being a chosen one. It's a fairly tired conceit if I'm honest, and feels very much like a lot of Disney crap that they're putting out from their live action arm at the moment.

I assume this film is aimed at pre-teen boys, and it really does feel like that a lot of the time, but whilst other 'kids films' don't patronise or bore the audience, this film does. You've got Nic Cage delivering every line like it's a deep and meaningful message, and action that really fizzles out rather than bangs.

The long and short of it is that this film sucks. Like it's really bad. I think young children may enjoy it for the ridiculous nature of it, but like so many films you enjoy as a child, if you watch it later in life (say when you have independent thought), then you'll wonder why you watched it in the first place. Avoid.

50/50 (2011)

Okay, so first we had Funny People, and now we've got 50/50, it seems like Seth Rogan is carving out a career playing the friend of someone with Cancer and helps them struggle through it. But whilst Funny People moved beyond the disease into love interests and unfortunately tedium, 50/50 stays with Cancer the entire film, and is all the better for it. The DVD case is also very misleading, stating that it is a Laugh Out Loud comedy - It's not. It's funny, but it's also incredibly tender and sweet (not sickly) and normally raises a chuckle or warm smile rather than belly laughs, something again that I would say was a positive rather than a negative point.

The Story is pretty much what happened to the person who wrote the film. Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) develops a form of Cancer in his back which gives him a 50% chance of survival. He goes in for chemotherapy, has struggles with his family, his friend and girlfriend and strikes up a friendship with his therapist, a very young Anna Kendricks for whom he is only her third patient. This doesn't sound like much, but the film is wonderful in it's subtlety, and instead of looking at an internal struggle with Cancer, painting the patient as a victim, or a hero, untouchable of criticism in case you infer that maybe they shouldn't survive. Instead of that 50/50 paints Adam as, well, human. He has flaws, he becomes very self involved, and the film chooses to look at how the illness is affecting those who love him; from his friend who seems to be using his illness to get laid, or his mum who becomes very clingy and annoys Adam, the film studies them and actually shows that whilst yes, the Cancer victim has the most to lose from the illness, they are definitely not the only people that are hurt by it.

Like I say, most of the film is not the advertised 'Laugh Out Loud' humour, and the closest we get to that is Seth Rogan, showing off his numerous cock jokes, or generally being a little crude. far from being a distraction from the main theme of the film, it is actually a natural relief from the glum nature of the rest of the film. To see someone who, at least on the surface, is still positive and upbeat about matters is both refreshing and welcome. Though he is not exclusively the root of the humour, the relationships that Adam has are very identifiable in one form or another, whether it is the mother who wants her little boy back, the absent father (unfortunately absent in the respect he has Alzheimers rather than having run away), the friend who is a bit of a dick, but at his heart he loves you dearly, there's all of these, but I found myself identifying with Anna Kendricks' Psychiatrist who is new at her job, but her job is vital, she can't fuck up, because if she fucks up then she ruins someone's life. Now whilst I am not even close to that situation, I recognise the feeling of trying to do your best, and the constant worry that you're going to mess up, and the effects that has for other people.

Like I say, this film is a comedy about cancer, so I hope you would expect a film like this. An intelligent film, a film that doesn't hold back on sentiment, but sugars the blow with mirth, a film that is honest and really very touching. I really liked this film, and It definitely made me think more about the people I care about.

Harry Potter & The Chamber Of Secrets (2002)

So my original plan was to settle down and try and watch all the Harry Potter films in a week or so (The plan failed, as 9 days into April now and I've not got round to watching number 3 yet), but I still intend to. The film I was least looking forward to watching was this one, The Chamber Of Secrets. This is actually no fault of the film, it turns out, but is in fact a result of the second book always being my least favourite book. It was my least favourite for a simple reason, it got real dark, real quick, and it dragged out what is essentially a similar storey to the first one, but with more confusion (things that only really get explained in the later books). The main problem with the film is still the story, and whilst I can't ignore that about the film, I also find it hard to pin blame on anyone but the author for that.

The story picks up a month or so after the last film ends. He's back with his aunt and uncle, he thinks his friends have forgotten him and he's miserable. He meets Dobby the house elf, who warns him not to go back to Hogwarts because he is in danger, but Harry is whisked off by the Weasleys and finds his way back to school. There are sinister things going on at school revolving around 'The Chamber Of Secrets', and it is up to Harry, Ron and Hermione to save the day once again. It's in this film that Harry begins to question his loyalties and we learn a little more about Voldemort and his past. Like I say, much of the film makes a lot more sense in the context of the later books/films, so this time watching it I found it less jarring than the first time I watched it.

The actors have somehow, in the course of one year, gone from being bright eyed children to teenagers. It's really weird and I can't believe how fast they grew (it was films basically straight after the first one). That being said they're still very much at the early stages of their learning and still find themselves making new discoveries both of a scholarly nature and socially. It is in this film that we learn just how rotton the Malfoy family are, and where we see the beginnings of a blossoming romance for Harry. It is really quite refreshing watching the film again having seen the rest.

The film keeps much of the same aesthetics from the first film, probably because it's the same director, there is still a strong colourful flourish to the film, and some of the performances could still fit in nicely in  panto rather than in a film, but again, it's a kids film so you kind of forgive it. What this film is missing that the first film had (and indeed the third one had), was some of the pure inventiveness that makes Harry Potter so refreshing. You get your first mention of Azkaban, but no real reason to dread it as much as we are indicated we should (we realise why in the next film).

This film isn't bad, it's not as good as the first one, and indeed is probably one of the weakest two Harry Potter films, but it's enjoyable enough, it won't put you off watching any more, and like I say, I was never keen on the book, so my views on the film are slightly marred by that.

Harry Potter & The Philosopher's Stone (2001)

It all seems like so long ago. I think I started reading Harry Potter in 1998 or 1999, I was at school and it was only by chance that I started reading them. At the time The books pretty much mirrored my age and as I grew up it did so in a pretty accurate manner. By the time the first film came out, I was in my first or second year of Secondary School, so basically still the same age as the characters. As such I've always had a sort of fondness for Harry Potter, because I feel as though the series has grown up as I have. It was an absolute joy to rediscover some of the lighter sides to JK Rowling's inventiveness; whether it was inventing an entire wizarding sport, the paintings that move around, the chocolate frogs that actually jump around or any number of other whimsical things, it really captured my imagination as a kid (as it did many other children).

The film was the second time I'd seen Daniel Radcliffe act, the first being a Dickens adaptation on TV (David Copperfield perhaps?) so in that respect he was pretty famous as far as kids my age go. I actually don't think he's as bad as some people have made out in this film. I think he shows genuine enthusiasm for the role and perhaps because he is as overwhelmed by the events of a major Hollywood film as Harry is of a school for witchcraft and wizardry, or perhaps just a wonder that he was chosen to play the boy who lived. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are also better here than they are given credit for, and I actually think that it was during the middle films where their performances perhaps slipped a little.

Having not read the book or seen the film for a good 5/6 years or more I could only really half remember the story, but started remembering it as it went along. There are a few things that are almost shocking when revisiting this film. To begin with you get the reminder that Michael Gambon wasn't the first choice for Dumbledore (despite him being so perfect for the role). Instead we get Richard Harris who plays the role as a much more externally fragile, but incredibly clever and thoughtful man. It is absolutely fine, and I think that had he lived to complete the series he would have made a fine Dumbledore in the later films when he gets more involved in matters. Next is the shock of the colours! In the later Harry Potter films, well probably everything from 4 onward, everything is very dark and troublesome, but in the earlier films the characters are still so full of joy and hope, being children. The house colours are prominent throughout, and the whole pallet of the film is just one of brightness and optimism. It being aimed mostly at children this is again, absolutely fine. The final shock is simply how young they all look, but just a year later, it's all changed.

The story is just fine, everything ties into itself nicely, whether it's the chess game Harry and Ron are playing at Dinner or Hermione's natural ability to learn linking in to the final challenges of the film, nothing feels out of place or forced. This is a kids film though, and it definitely feels like one. It's sometimes a little too cheesy or panto for my liking, whether it's Harry's grin, or Hagrid constantly letting slip things he shouldn't, these are moments aimed at people who were me 11 years ago, but not so much me now. Although, it could just be because I'm the perfect age group for Harry Potter the first time round, but the film was an absolute joy, brought back loads of nice memories and blew by in no time. Well worth a watch with your kids, hopefully they'll love it like I did when I was a lad.