Jameson Cult Film Club Quatermass and the Pit Screening

Jameson Cult Film Club’s first ‘Chills in the Chapel’ Halloween screening was Quatermass and the Pit, a film that is perhaps more science fiction than horror.

For the screening Jameson went to great lengths to decorate their eerie Union Chapel church setting; unique lighting, a thick foggy air and actors portraying generic horror types walking around all combined to create a creepy atmosphere. And on the stage below the screen, they had even built a version of the most important scene setting in the film – a large black alien spaceship with rubble strewn at its base.

Several actors were also present to portray the film’s main characters, staying in character whilst the audience were taking their seats and chatting. These actors then gave a small performance and introduction before the feature started. This pantomime-like audience engagement served to build a sense of joviality among the audience, and the way in which those characters were introduced so dramatically on stage certainly increased excitement and anticipation among those present who had not seen the film before.

Quatermass was originally a British television series in 1953, called The Quatermass Experiment, which had various other series and films that followed it. The 1967 film Quatermass and the Pit tells the story of a strange object that is unearthed in a London underground station as an extension is being built. The odd nature of this sleek black object and the primitive human skeletons that surround it draw the attention of a host of people; the military, anthropologists and most importantly, the quirky and verging on crazy scientist Professor Quatermass (in this Quatermass outing, being portrayed by Andrew Keir).

As they manage to penetrate the object, they discover it to be a Martian spaceship that has been buried underground for millions of years. The ship and its inhabitants begin enforce psychic effects upon the people involved and London is thrown into disarray, as what is effectively a delayed Martian invasion unfolds.

Being an old Hammer film production, one would expect the effects to be a little bad and likely very dated, and they range here from extremely poor (the Martians themselves, who look like large grasshoppers), to really rather good at a times. For the audience at hand though, this played as a straight comedy; laughing often at both the effects and the very exaggerated, over the top and impeccably British acting within. This seems the sort of film though that perhaps wasn’t even meant to be taken too seriously back when it was made.

It is possible that what the film is really commenting on is World War II and the Holocaust. There is much at play here that relates to this, such as an attempt by the Martians to kill off a particular kind of people (the small minority immune to their psychic manipulation).

The film is also daring in the way that it disregards religion and hypothesises that aliens might have played a hand in our development (“You realise what you’re implying? That we owe our human condition here to the intervention of insects?” asks the Ministry of Defence incredulously).

What strikes about this film the most though is its intelligence. Dealing with both deep and allegorical themes, whilst still managing to retain all of the science fiction and horror thrills you could want serves to create something quite special indeed. This is a gem of science fiction that deserves to be more widely seen and appreciated.

Share

Somewhere Review

Release date (UK) – 10th December
Certificate (UK) – 15
Country – USA
Directors – Sofia Coppola
Runtime – 98 mins
Starring – Stephen Dorff, Elle Fanning, Chris Pontius

Somewhere is Sofia Coppola’s fourth directorial outing. Sharing notable similarities in tone, style and plot with her hit film Lost in Translation it is understandable that some might be sceptical about this film’s prospects; fears being that it might prove to be Coppola’s aim to repeat her greatest success – thus not leaving much room for originality.

Although there are indeed some very strong parallels between the two films, such as situational comedy hinged on the seemingly odd habits of foreign cultures (here the Italians, and in Lost in Translation the Japanese), rest assured that this is no strained attempt by Coppola to repeat her former glory.

Somewhere focuses on the character of Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff), a famous Hollywood actor who is living the idealised lifestyle; he has all of the women he could want, a fancy car, is an adored Hollywood actor, and yet he isn’t happy, finding his life unsatisfying and lacking meaning in every respect, bar his relationship with his daughter Cleo (Elle Fanning), whom he has been guilty of neglecting for much of her life.

The unfulfilling cycle that Marco lives out (jumping from woman to woman, partying frequently, publicising his films and clearly not enjoying it, and so on) is represented beautifully from the first shot of the film by what serves as a continuing motif here – a Ferrari. The film opens with a partial shot of a circular road, on which Marco drives his Ferrari around repeatedly (what seems like many times); clearly representing the cyclical nature of his life at this point in time and the fact that it is leading nowhere – he just keeps returning to the same point. This is a very long and drawn out shot, which you could see was already causing some boredom among the audience, but it does serve to set the tone perfectly for what the rest of the film will be like. Coppola very often lingers on a single shot (sometimes on something vaguely interesting – a set of twins’ pole dancing routine, on Cleo resting her head on her father’s shoulder – and sometimes of not much at all – on the two of them sunbathing) for a very long time, which will likely split audience opinions in two; those who feel that Coppola is superb at timing – at making great points with these shots and knowing just how long to leave it before finally cutting away, so as not to labour the point, and those who find them bore-inducing and unnecessary.

The Ferrari motif that represents Marco’s current lifestyle is revisited later on many times, most notably with Marco abandoning the car and walking away from it at the end of the film; representative of him walking away from his unfulfilling lifestyle and presumably towards the choice to spend more time with the only thing that truly holds any real meaning for him - his daughter.

Another successfully subtle and brilliant Coppola moment here is the way in which the most important line of the film is delivered; Marco says something to the effect of “I’m sorry I haven’t been around” to his daughter, who is several feet away leaning out of a car window, but behind Marco a helicopter has started up and the sound the blades cause considerably drowns out Marco’s words, invoking a puzzled response from Cleo, leaving us unsure of whether she heard him (or perhaps read his lips) or not, and wondering whether Marco chose this moment to apologise on purpose, due to cowardice, since he knew that his words would likely be drowned out.

Elle Fanning gives the best performance out of the cast here, proving her as wonderful a young actress as her sister, Dakota Fanning. Dorff is also excellent and even Chris Pontius (of Jackass fame) is well cast here, in a very funny and likeable role. Michelle Monaghan and Benicio Del Toro also put in turns that are extremely brief but still very welcome.

The comedy here (and there is great deal) is mostly successful, if sometimes coming across as a bit strained. Coppola again successfully draws decent comedy out of the juxtaposition of two foreign cultures, and also again mocks the ridiculousness of backstage and public situations that actors must go through in order to publicise their films.

This is another subtle and understated masterpiece of Coppola’s, about one man’s internal struggle to find meaning in his life. Just be warned: not all Coppola fans are likely to come out of the cinema thinking so – there have been some negative responses by fans to this film, and indeed the clapping at the end of this screening seemed a little half hearted, as though some were unsure of whether it truly deserved applause. This is likely simply due to the film taking subtlety, a downplayed nature, and a lack of events to extremes (if Lost in Translation sceptics thought nothing happened in that film, wait until they see Somewhere). Just retain an open mind, notice the elegant of motifs and expert script structure, and don’t expect to see that Coppola magic in quite the same form as you probably know and love here.

Share

Tron: Legacy Preview

Tron: Legacy, the eagerly anticipated sequel to the 1982 cult science fiction classic Tron isn’t out for general release in UK cinemas until December 26th (surely the best Christmas present anyone could ask for this year), but tonight audiences were treated to a sneak preview, which was made up of five scenes from the film (four of which were in 3D), plus a final montage, all of which totalled 23 minutes of screen time.

The preview opened with a steady stream of computerised text appearing slowly onscreen, to the sound of key strokes, detailing how those present would be the first people in the world to see this amount of footage from the new film.

The first scene we were treated to centered on Sam Flynn meeting with Alan Bradley, who, as many have seen from the trailer, hands Sam the keys to his Dad’s disused arcade and suggests that he visits it, the scene culminating in those fantastic lingering lines: “Alan, you’re acting like I’m going to find him sitting there working; just: ‘Hey kiddo, lost track of time’,” and Bradley’s response of: “Wouldn’t that be something,” coupled with a wry smirk.

After the first scene, each following scene we were shown seemed only a small jump ahead of the previous one in terms of story time, leaving us with a sense of coherency and an unexpected lack of disjointedness. In the following scenes we witnessed such key moments as Sam’s battle outfit fitting by four creepy women; Sam’s first disc battle, where he wins by a clever manoeuvre; the first time Sam meets Olivia Wilde’s character, Quorra; and Sam’s reuniting with his father, Jeff Bridges’ character Kevin Flynn, for the first time in years. No light cycle action was present unfortunately, however, save for a couple of quick sequences shown in the final montage.

What strikes the most about this film, from the segments that we were treated to, is firstly the sublime effects; this is 3D used perhaps to its best effect yet – the computerised grid world is the perfect setting to explore and test the technology in new ways. As Sam is thrust into this computerised world, from the battles he fights to his simple detainment and transportation, the shots make a wonderful use of spacial awareness – there are often large voids of space and distance around and below the characters, and some dizzying and sweeping shots of such serve to give you a wonderful sense of vertigo, inducing those rare chills up your spine on quite a regular basis.

There is also a real sense of quality about this film, which might come as a surprise to some. There’s a (probably intentional) Abrams’ Star Trek-like feel about Tron: Legacy’s set up – and indeed there are some direct similarities between the films present; something much loved in geek SF fandom is being rebooted here, and with that comes its risks. But luckily, from the footage we’ve seen so far, it looks like this will also go the way of Abrams’ Star Trek in terms of quality and will end up being a lot better than both sceptical Tron devotees and first timers might assume.

Even from this short preview you can tell that the casting choices were excellent decisions; Garrett Hedlund has a coolness and sincere likability about him, Olivia Wilde is both seductive and cheeky here, and about Jeff Bridges’ virtues nothing needs to be said. The only main character that was hardly shown to us at all here (beyond a few shots in the final montage) was Michael Sheen’s villainous Castor. Add to all of this a hauntingly dramatic and powerful score, and you’ve got something quite special indeed.

Those who caught this preview likely came out far more excited about Tron: Legacy’s prospects (not to mention aggravated that they couldn’t watch the whole film there and then) than they were beforehand and those who missed it but who are eagerly awaiting the sequel, rest assured that, based on this footage, the film will certainly not disappoint come December.

Share

Batman 3 is titled The Dark Knight Rises

News to satiate Bat-fans keeps coming thick and fast of late. First we had the announcement of Hardy’s lead role and now Christopher Nolan has revealed two crucial pieces of information in an article in the L.A. Times; firstly that the title for his third Batman film will be ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ (certainly a mouthful; clearly they have opted to put ‘the dark knight’ in the title to tie the film as closely as possible to the last and more successful film – what would be wrong with plain old ‘Batman Rises’, however?), and secondly, to many people’s surprise, that the villain The Riddler will definitely not feature in the new film.

Most assumed The Riddler’s appearance a given at this point, and also that this might be the role in which Hardy has been cast, but it seems Nolan is drawing from elsewhere for Batman’s next foe.

Nolan also gave one other, rather enigmatic quote: “We’ll use many of the same characters as we have all along, and we’ll be introducing some new ones.” Some are taking this as Nolan implying that old characters might be brought back from the dead. It could also, however, be a simple statement used to avoid giving anything else away or committing to anything.

Nolan also reaffirmed that it definitely won’t be in 3D and that he’ll be sticking to 2D, as well as the usual high-def IMAX sequences. It is good to know that not all directors are jumping on the 3D wagon. Coincidentally, James Cameron also announced today that he would definitely be making Avatar 2 and 3, and both in 3D.

Do fans think that The Riddler’s non-inclusion is a good or bad thing? Just which villains do people think are the most plausible choices now (bearing in mind it will likely be Hardy who will fill these shoes)? Is the title a good or bad choice, and is it what you were expecting (‘Batman Reigns’ was always a speculative favourite of mine for the third film, since Batman Begins’ release)?

Share

Darren Aronofsky to direct Machine Man

While Darren Aronofsky is currently locking down his deal to direct Wolverine 2, he has also just signed on to develop and direct Machine Man, a cyber-thriller about a gadget geek at a forward thinking tech firm who is tired of being average and unnoticed in his life, and so decides to replace his weak flesh with high-end performance titanium upgrades of his own design. However, he then discovers that dark entities have heard about his changes and have formed plans to use him for their own ends.

Mandalay Films picked up the rights for the partial manuscript written by Max Barry last year. Barry is also publishing one page of his story online per day as a real time serial, which you can read here, and the complete story is set to be published as a novel by Vintage books in 2011.

Mark Heyman, who co-wrote Black Swan and co-produced The Wrestler, will be adapting the story into a screenplay for Aronofsky. Cathy Schulman will produce, with Barry himself serving as executive producer.

Being that Aronofsky was originally set to direct a reboot of Robocop, a project which was declared dead a while back, it seems like more than a coincidence that Aronofsky has chosen something that shares strong similarities to the former. There also seems to be strong themes of obsession and power within Machine Man, topics that Aronofsky has dealt with successfully many times, making him a great choice for this adaptation.

Aronofsky is looking to schedule to shoot this film straight after Wolverine 2 is completed, which he is no doubt currently busy with, trying to figure how to bring his own unique stamp to a superhero sequel.

Do Aronofsky fans feel that this is a worthwhile venture for the acclaimed director? Which are you looking forward to more: his Wolverine 2 or his Machine Man?

Share

13 Assassins Review

Release Date (UK) – TBC
Certificate (UK) – TBC
Country – Japan
Director – Takashi Miike
Runtime – 126 mins
Starring – Kôji Yakusho, Takayuki Yamada, Yûsuke Iseya, Gorô Inagaki

Set at the fall of the samurai era, 13 Assassins is the story of a group of warriors (mostly samurai) who band together in an attempt to assassinate the sadistic Lord Naritsuga Matsudaira (Inagaki). This is because they are worried about what would happen if he were ever to occupy the Shogun’s throne – the fear is that he would bring malice and cruelty upon the nation (he even claims at one point he would like to bring back the ‘age of war’ that plagued the country in an age past).

You won’t be far into the film until you (or those that know Akira Kurosawa’s work) will come to realise that this is nothing but a direct remake of Kurosawa’s classic Seven Samurai. We have a band of noble samurai reinforcing a small village as they await the enemy’s arrival (who greatly outnumbers them), and there are only minor differences from the original’s plot present.

Even the seven wonderfully realised main characters in Seven Samurai are repeated here in amongst the titular thirteen assassins; from the calm and clever leader, to the crazy loner warrior who claims to despise samurais (the excellent Toshirô Mifune in Kurosawa’s film), to the stern samurai who is far more skillful than the rest, right down to the young apprentice samurai who wishes to fight despite his age. These characters are unfortunately not as well developed as those upon which they are based, however. One problem and cause of this might be Miike’s choice to increase the number of heroes from seven to thirteen – meaning we get to know each of them less personally than in Kurosawa’s film, due to the screen time needed to introduce and address all thirteen men.

Where Seven Samurai had depth, elegance and a clever use of tension to match its excellent battle scenes, all that this film has is action. In its action though and its depiction of battles, it succeeds marvelously – Miike’s skill for gore, for which he is well known, rubs off very well here. What seems like a weighty introduction to the film we later realise was just a ruse purely constructed to make us despise the main villain here to the utmost extreme. Using the comic book-style of extreme horror that Miike is renowned for (for example, with Audition and Ichi the Killer) – which seems a little out of place here – Miike shows Lord Naritsuga committing the most heinous atrocities merely for his own amusement; and for the rest of the film he retains this ‘noble who kills just to satiate his boredom’-attitude.

The problem of this essentially being a straight remake of Kurosawa’s masterpiece is that it doesn’t acknowledge itself as such, which may lead most to the conclusion that all Miike is really doing here is stealing from cinema’s past and not recognising his influences. Another way to look at this, however, might be that Miike is trying to pay homage to one of cinema’s greatest films, as a form of respect for Kurosawa. It is a minor issue, but one can’t help but wonder if had this been presented as a direct remake/updating of Kurosawa’s masterpiece, it might have garnered more respect from it’s audience for what it does manage to achieve.

Seven Samurai isn’t the only influence here; this also has a strong western feel to the film. Such westerns as A Fistful of Dollars and The Magnificent Seven were of course themselves remakes of Kurosawa’s samurai films Yojimbo and Seven Samurai respectively, so all influences here really revert back to the Japanese master filmmaker anyway, perhaps with a little Leone influence also thrown in.

Putting the lack of depth aside, the action here excels remarkably, which some may argue is all that truly matters for this type of film. As soon as the enemy is caught in our heroes’ trap the film doesn’t let up in terms of excitement. Miike steps outside of his horror comfort zone here and strives to create something quite grand, and succeeds in producing his most accomplished and polished film to date. All in all, fans of Japanese samurai ventures should come out thrilled and exhilarated, despite this film’s flaws.

Share

Black Swan Review

Release Date (UK) – 11th February 2011
Certificate (UK) – 18
Country – U.S.
Director – Darren Aronofsky
Runtime – 103 mins
Starring – Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel

For his fourth feature, the critically acclaimed The Wrestler, Aronofsky delved into the world of wrestling and essentially pulled back the curtain to reveal just how brutal and demanding the sport (sometimes deemed the lowest art form, for those who consider it art at all) is and how driven and dedicated its performers have to be. Aronofsky calls Black Swan his companion piece to The Wrestler, and it is easy to see why; here he again reveals a grittier world that most don’t usually get to see, showing us the same passions, dedication, obsessions and physical bodily abuse, but this time in the name of what is often deemed the highest form of art – ballet.

As Aronofsky has stated: “These dancers train their whole lives and basically make all the effort disappear [on stage] and then when you go backstage you see all the muscles and tendons, blood and sweat, and breath.” And Mila Kunis has revealed that every actor who played a dancer in this film was injured during its shooting at some point, including herself.

Whilst continuing the cinéma vérité-handheld camera style of The Wrestler, then, Black Swan is also a very different beast. Firstly, Aronofsky decided to opt for less of a documentary feel for this psychological thriller/horror film (his labelling), due his concerns that it would “suck away all the tension.” Secondly, make no mistake; this is firmly and truly a horror venture. Aronofsky reverts here back to the kind of abstract horror prevalent within his first feature Pi; with scenes of horrific grotesquery that could be deemed as potentially supernatural, but which we know are instead purely the psychologically-born hallucinations of our protagonist.

Natalie Portman plays the talented ballerina, Nina, who is given the lead role in Thomas Leroy’s (Vincent Cassel) latest version of Swan Lake. The lead actress must play both ‘the white swan’ and ‘the black swan’, and Leroy has concerns that Nina doesn’t retain the unrestrained passion necessary to successfully portray the role of the black swan, due to her restrained and introverted nature, but ultimately decides to award her the role anyway.

Nina’s obsession with trying to master the extrovert and wildly passionate nature that is required for the role of the black swan leads her to become daring, reckless and rebellious in her personal life – often led by the sultry Lilly (Mila Kunis) – which in turn allows for a larger playing field upon which her troubled subconscious can run amok.

Both the bodily horror and sexual exploration here are taken to shocking extremes. The way Nina’s body is affected by her transformation into a black swan and some of the gruesome scenes her troubled mind conjures up are quite disturbing. Nina is a girl who is very shut-in and smothered by her slightly twisted and bitter mother (very similar to the mother-daughter relationship in Carrie) and as it is implied that Nina is a virgin, so when she eventually decides to let loose and explore her sexuality it is taken to unexpected lengths. Vincent Cassel plays a key role in this exploration, as the brilliant but all too promiscuous and forceful dance teacher, who Cassel himself states “uses his sexuality to direct dancers.”

Portman here is stunning. Aronofsky has detailed how she has always been typically cast in innocent roles (bar a small divergence in Closer) and how they both wanted to corrupt that innocent image a little with this film. Kunis is also very well cast in what serves as a comic relief role – something quite welcome, among all of the horrors.

Aronofsky again re-teams here with the brilliant composer Clint Mansell, who takes elements of Tchaikovsky’s music and makes his own amalgamation for this film, to brilliant effect. Being a ballet film, a lot hinges on the score underlying the ballet sequences and other scenes, and Mansell delivers his best effort since his genius score on Aronofsky’s The Fountain. This is certainly a film that you should endeavour to see at a cinema if you can, to appreciate Mansell and Tchaikovsky’s scores at a loud volume (indeed, Aronofsky recently bemoaned the fact that it is growing harder and harder to persuade audiences to see films in cinemas rather than at home or on transportable technological devices).

The ending is where this film truly exceeds itself and almost hits upon true perfection itself, as Nina is fully taken over by her darker nature, which has been slowly emerging and swallowing her throughout the film, and transforms (literally to her and our eyes) into the black swan. The way the ending unfolds, coupled with Mansell’s score reaching a beautiful crescendo, Portman’s ballet (she was a dancer before Leon), the excellent special effects used and a final elegant credit sequence, this culminates in a powerful manner that you won’t soon forget.

Ultimately Aronofsky seems to be addressing just what lengths some performers are willing to go to (or perhaps feel they need to go to) in order to achieve the perfect performance. It is about dedication to producing the finest art, no matter what the sacrifice. This is Aronofsky’s finest film since The Fountain, his most accomplished film to date and thus a key milestone for him in his evolution as a filmmaker.

Share

The Career of Emma Stone

Considered one of the 55 faces of the future by Nylon Magazine and ranked #49 on Maxim magazine’s Hot 100 of 2010 list, knock out Emma Stone has risen rapidly to fame in her relatively short Hollywood career. Although many might associate her most commonly with teen high school roles, such as in Superbad, her versatility and talent as an actress is undeniable; best evident in such great films as Paper Man and Zombieland.

With her recent excellent turn in Easy A and casting as Gwen Stacy in the Spider-Man reboot both being sure to propel her career to new heights, we thought we’d take a look over Stone’s career so far, as well as the films that she currently has in the pipeline.

The New Partridge Family (TV movie) (2005)
Role: Laurie Partridge

After persuading her parents to let her move to Hollywood at the age of 14 by presenting them with a PowerPoint presentation, making them popcorn and crying, Stone’s acting career took off after she entered the VH1 show In Search of the New Partridge Family in 2004 (at this time going by Emily Stone, rather than Emma), which mostly involved her showcasing her singing talents.

The competition awarded her the role of Laurie in The New Partridge Family, but the show unfortunately didn’t get past the pilot episode stage (the said pilot also being labelled a ‘TV movie’).


Drive (TV series) (2007)
Role: Violet

Stone then took to playing one off roles in single episodes of the TV shows Medium, The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, Malcolm in the Middle and then Lucky Louie, before finally landing a main role in Drive; a show about a cross country illegal road race with a $32 million prize, in which Nathan Fillion played the lead.

Stone played Violet, the smart and obedient daughter of John Trimble (Dylan Baker), who together partner as contestants in the race.

The show was average in quality, but its ratings didn’t hold and it was axed after only four episodes had aired. Six episodes of the show’s first season were shown before the show was taken off the air, and a further two episodes were later posted online for fans, on which Stone has commented: “I cry a lot in those last two episodes,” and jokingly “so if you want to see me ball my face off [then check them out]”.

Superbad (2007)
Role: Jules

Stone then starred in her first film, Greg Mottola’s teen comedy Superbad, in which she played the lead female role, Jules; the attractive high school girl that Jonah Hill’s character Seth sets his sights on.

On the thrill of starring in her first film Stone has commented: “It felt like a big deal because it was my first movie. It could have been a straight to DVD science video and I would have been like ‘this is awesome!’.”

Seen widely by many, and Stone putting in a charming and likeable turn, the film brought her to the forefront of public attention like never before and set her Hollywood career truly in motion.

The Rocker (2008)
Role: Amelia

For her second film Stone again opted for a teen comedy outing – the decent and understated, if predictable rock comedy The Rocker. Stone played the strong-willed bass player of a band destined for glory (for which she actually learnt how to play the bass guitar and the songs in the film), alongside lead and comedy legend Rainn Wilson.

Clearly her love of music was one thing that drew Stone to this particular role; she has stated: “I’m a huge music fan. I usually say that if I had been born with a musical inclination it would’ve been great. The Beatles changed everything for me and I wanted to be a journalist for Rolling Stone.”

Stone’s character Amelia is given minimal development beyond a scarcely dealt with relationship with the band’s lead singer and one tantrum involving a hair disaster, yet she still shines here when given the screen time.


The House Bunny (2008)
Role: Natalie

Next Stone took on a prominent role in House Bunny, playing sorority president Natalie, alongside lead Anna Faris. Since this is set at college, this is the first time that Stone played a role older than a teenager.

The film is pretty dire, as you might expect, but Stone’s role before (and underneath) the pretence of recently transformed glam girl at least is likeable as a nerdy and cute intellectual; Natalie serving as the most rational and normal member of a sorority house full of abnormal individuals.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009)
Role: Allison Vandermeersh

In Ghosts of Girlfriends Past Stone played a geeky, 1980s ghost from McConaughey’s character’s past (again taking on the role of a nerd who fails to get men to take interest in her, like with her role of Natalie, pre-makeover), who takes him on a guided tour of his life so far in order to show him the error of his ways (the film clearly being derived from Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol).

The film itself is relatively poor, yet Stone’s ghost Vandermeersh provides some marginally decent humour and is certainly the best of the three ghosts that visit McConaughey.

Although still sticking to the comedy genre and still playing a high school teen, then, this is the first time that Stone started to play against type a little. Discarding her good looks completely here, and not playing a character that is given much characterisation at all, this role is all about her getting to toy with the comedy. Given the fact that Stone’s idol is Gilda Radner, and that all of Stone’s films up to this point had been comedies, clearly roles where she gets to show off her comic talents is something that she looks for when selecting which films to take on.

Paper Man (2009)
Role: Abby

This wonderful indie film served as a very different direction for Stone’s career and turned out to be a major breakout role for the young actress, as she delivered her best and most mature performance to date (and indeed a great performance by any standards).

The film overall is incredibly charming and shares strong parallels with Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation in the sense that it is about a friendship (verging on a relationship) that forms between an elder man (Jeff Daniels) and a young girl (Stone), both of whom are lost somehow in their lives, who manage to find solace in one another.

Stone’s role here as Abby is a complex one; the character is one who is outwardly headstrong and confident, yet at the same time wrought within by bitterness and a kind of masochistic nature (she continues to date a guy who treats her like trash and her invisible friend‘s constructed role is to be madly in love with her – which she casts off cruelly, repeatedly; his is a role designed to assuage her insecurity).

The way in which Abby acts towards Daniels’ character Richard also has a delicate complexity to it which Stone masters well; Abby seems for a long time unsure about whether Richard is driven by a harmless desire for friendship or by a perverted inclination for younger girls, and has to play reactions to both assumptions back and forth repeatedly as Abby keeps changing her mind about him, based on his confusing and sporadic antics. There are also a few points in the film were Stone has to portray moments of quite taught emotion, which Stone nails perfectly.

Although this is still a teen role for Stone, there is no superficial quality or orientation towards a teen audience with this film. And although both the film and Stone’s role are quite serious in tone, this is not a complete departure from comedy for the young actress; Ryan Reynolds livens proceedings up by playing Richard’s imaginary friend – a superhero named Captain Excellent (Reynolds clad in a muscle revealing superhero costume with bleached blonde hair) – providing some moments of great comedy.

This underrated and poorly marketed little gem is well worth a watch for anyone who enjoys a decent indie film and is certainly an essential watch for Stone fans.

Zombieland (2009)
Role: Wichita

In the same year, Stone then starred in the excellent and much loved Zombieland; a clever, cool and heartfelt take on the zombie comedy.

Stone played Wichita, in what director Ruben Fleischer describes as the classic femme fatale role; an attractive female who seduces and cons men into bad situations. This is still by far her coolest outing to date. Wichita is alluring, strong-willed and brimming with confidence (not to mention attractively feisty as she battles off Zombies with ease); all traits we have seen Stone play many times before in her career, but this time we have far less of the teen, ‘girl next door’ element. Wichita also seems a little older than most of the roles Stone had played before.

The character of Wichita is a little thinly developed on the whole, with only a short flashback shown that serves to reinforce her role as femme fatale, but that doesn’t stop Stone’s acting talent showing through, as well as her comic talent shining wonderfully in such scenes as the Ghostbusters scene re-enactment.

Due to its quality, the film has gathered quite a following; leading to a strong anticipation and eagerness from fans for a sequel, which Stone states she is up for, whilst also implying that it is already underway.

With regards to her seeming penchant for high school teen roles, and her starting to take on more adult roles with such films as Zombieland and several of the films she currently has in the pipeline, Stone has commented:

“I don’t really know that it’s ever a conscious choice on my part. I think that when scripts come along, if it’s something I really want to do and I’m going to go audition for it, I think that I understand the age of the character because it’s written in the script, but I just try to bring that person to life in any way that that character is supposed to be. Like if the character’s 27 and then in the next part is 17, I get to look at it through different eyes because they’ve had 10 years less experience or more experience. So, try to adjust to that a bit but as far as why they keep letting me do all this stuff, I can’t answer that. I guess I’m really lucky in terms of that, but it’s been nice to be able to kind of jump all over the chart and not just play one certain age.”

Paper Man and Zombieland proved Stone capable of acting outside the clichéd high school teen role typically associated with her, and allowed her to finally start showing her versatility as an actress, whilst at the same time allowing her to start starring in better quality films.

Marmaduke (2010)
Role: Mazie (voice)

In her first venture into children’s films, Stone lent her voice to the character of Mazie in the critically and commercially slated Marmaduke. Straight after this she also appeared in a short and quite funny joke ‘iphone murder apps’ commercial.

Easy A (2010)
Role: Olive

In her first truly starring role to date, Stone reverts back to the high school teen role yet again, playing Olive, a girl who uses the school’s rumour mill to advance her social and financial standing. But where this alternates from her previous teen outings is that this is an ingeniously engineered and clever film that works as a wonderful subversion of the teen comedy.

On this being her first truly starring role and how she prepared for such, Stone has commented:

“I don’t know that I prepared any differently because of the size of the role. Mainly, I put more pressure on myself for sure but I don’t think it had to do with the size of the role. I think it had more to do with just wanting to make sure that the Olive on the page came to life accurately.”

And on the risk of the film’s topic possibly glamorising promiscuity among young girls (a relevant fear), Stone has commented:

“I was actually concerned with that for quite a while and still have a lot of thoughts about that, but what I’ve been able to kind of whittle it down to in my mind at least is what Olive learned from this entire experience. The fact is she’s not really doing it. She is a virgin, so she’s not truly being promiscuous. But then again, does it glamorize fake promiscuity or telling people to be promiscuous, which is not good as well? I think what she learns by this whole pact of lying to everyone and watching her life kind of crumble around her and realizing that if she had just told the truth from the beginning, she could have been saved from all that.”

Why Stone hasn’t shot to stardom long before now is one of the great mysteries of Hollywood. Her gorgeous looks, sexily husky voice and excellent comic timing has always marked her out as a unique force in the business, and her versatility and talent as an actress has been proven before now (see above), but the role of Olive proves the perfect vehicle for Stone to showcase her skills, assuring her star status now, if it was ever in question before. Easy A can certainly be marked among the best films in Stone’s career so far.

‘Untitled Comedy’ (2010)
Role: Unknown

Rumoured to possibly be titled Movie 43, this is a feature film composed entirely of short comedy segments, which features a large range of well known stars, some of which you would certainly associate with the comedy field but also many whom you wouldn’t. This should provide Stone with a great field upon which to show off her excellent comic timing and talents, presuming she has a relatively major role in the film.

Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011)
Role: Hannah

This will be about a father’s life unravelling while he deals with a marital crisis and tries to manage his relationship with his children. Ryan Gosling and Steve Carell also star, and musician Josh Groban will play the boyfriend of Stone’s character.





Friends with Benefits (2011)
Role: Unknown

Friends with Benefits will be directed by Will Gluck, who also directed Easy A, making this the first time that Stone has worked with the same director twice (it is clear to see why Stone opted to work with him again after the quality and success of Easy A). Also starring Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake, the film is about a relationship between two friends becoming complicated when they decide to get romantic.


The Help (2011)
Role: Eugenia ‘Skeeter’ Phelan

Again grabbing the lead role in a film, in The Help, which is set in Mississippi during the 1960s, Stone will play Skeeter, a southern society girl who returns from college determined to become a writer, but turns her friends’ lives – and a small Mississippi town – upside down when she decides to interview the black women who have spent their lives taking care of prominent southern families. Ultimately this is said to be a look at what happens when a southern town’s unspoken code of rules and behaviour is shattered by three courageous women who strike up an unlikely friendship. The film also stars Bryce Dallas Howard.

The Croods (2012)
Role: Eep (voice)

This will be the second time Stone has leant her voice to a children’s film. The Croods is set in the prehistoric era, when a man’s position as Leader of the Hunt is threatened by the arrival of a prehistoric genius who comes up with revolutionary new inventions, like fire.

‘Untitled Spider-man reboot’ (2012)
Role: Gwen Stacy

The news recently hit that Stone would be playing the role of Gwen Stacy in the Spider-Man reboot alongside Andrew Garfield’s Peter Parker, which came as somewhat of a surprise to many, following initial rumours that she would be playing Mary Jane.
Allegedly, what happened is that Stone said that she was interested in doing the movie, but didn’t want to commit to a series of films. Since the character of Gwen Stacy is only going to be in the first couple of films (there’s speculation that she might even meet her bridge-based death at the end of the first film), Stone – who the studio was very keen on after she helped give them one of their most successful films of the year, Easy A- asked if she could play the part of Gwen Stacy instead, so that she could remain free to pursue other projects (one of which being the film below).

This could be looked upon as a smart career decision by Stone; as discussed, she has played high school teens too often, so signing up to a series of films in which she plays just that again might have proven too restricting and damaging for her future prospects – this way she is free to expand her talents as an actress in a more diverse range of roles. On the flip side, however, this is the spider-man franchise, and although there is no guarantee that these films will be good, being guaranteed a role in several of these films would certainly be a career booster for any actor or actress.

She seems to have opted for a happy medium; Gwen Stacy could, after all, appear in more than just one of these films. Stone is also a natural blonde anyway (Judd Apatow is allegedly the one who asked her to change her hair colour to red for Superbad and she kept the colour after that), making her a great choice for Gwen Stacy. Despite Bryce Dallas Howard being a more than competent actress, she was hardly right for the role of Gwen; let us hope that Stone will fit into those shoes a little better, undoubtedly bringing her usual charm.

21 Jump Street (2012) (Rumoured)
Role: Jules (rumoured)

This is a remake/updating of the 1987 TV series that starred a young Johnny Depp. It is rumoured that Stone is currently being courted by the studio to play the role of Tom Hansen’s girlfriend, Jules. The script is co-written by Stone’s ex-Superbad co-star Jonah Hill, who is also confirmed to star in the film, playing Doug Penhall.

Share

Review - Easy A

Release Date (UK) – 22nd October 2010
Certificate (UK) – 15
Country – U.S.
Director – Will Gluck
Runtime – 92 mins
Starring – Emma Stone, Penn Badgley, Amanda Bynes

In her first (and long overdue) truly lead role, the delectable Emma Stone stars here as Olive, an unnoticed and unpopular high school girl who realises she can find the attention she seeks (not to mention better her financial standing) through lies and a clever manipulation of the school’s rumour mill.

Upon hearing the basic plot, you might feel an uneasy suspicion creeping in that the underlying construct here – unpopular teen achieves popularity through some drastic change in their lifestyle and gets one over on the popular kids who used to give her a hard time – might sound like one we’ve seen one too many times before (and usually not done very well), but leave any preconceived notions about what you think you might be in for at the door; as this film aims to subvert the modes of the teen drama at every turn and does it incredibly well.

Burt V. Royal’s script is astute and clever. The dialogue is fresh and humorous, in a Juno-like manner, only outstripping Juno’s achievements by far; a great many scenes are brilliantly funny, creating a wonderful and fun overall tone for the piece.

The film is current to the degree that it factors technology into the plot in a manner that makes it vitally integral to the story; Olive delivers her confession to everyone by uploading a video of it onto the internet – a nod to the YouTube generation. And facebook is of course dealt with too, with Olive’s very likable teacher Mr. Griffith (Thomas Haden Church) reiterating facebook sceptics’ main complaint with the social network: that status updates are boring, not to mention the fact that it can be used as a method of surveillance and tab keeping for anyone who endeavours to document their every action on there.

Why Stone hasn’t shot to stardom long before now is one of the great mysteries of Hollywood. Her gorgeous looks, sexily husky voice and excellent comic timing has always marked her out as a unique force in the business, and her versatility and talent as an actress has been proven before now (perhaps best with her wonderful turn in Paper Man in 2009), but the role of Olive proves the perfect vehicle for Stone to showcase her skills, assuring her star status now, if it was ever in question before. Stanley Tucci is another actor who also shines here, as Olive’s unbearably cool and sharply witty father.

The speed at which the school’s rumour mill works and travels is wonderfully represented through some excellent camera work, as quite lengthy shots zoom at high speed through the school’s grounds, pausing regularly to observe various people as they first hear the rumours about Olive’s promiscuity.

The film deals with its delicate concept well – Stone herself has stated she has at times been concerned about the possibility that the film might glamorise promiscuity among younger girls, but the film manages to retain a sturdy moral foothold in the background of proceedings, which it also smartly uses to end on.

The absurdity of religious fanaticism is also touched upon, with Amanda Bynes’ character Marianne’s Christian group running a domineering and imposing presence within Olive’s school. Olive intelligently disregards the group’s nonsense, but also turns to religion later in the film when she is desperate to absolve her conscience.

The literary basis here is used to great effect beyond Olive’s story paralleling that of Hawthorne’s The Scarlett Letter, through one neatly later reverted back to Huckleberry Finn joke.

We are even treated to a little 80s nostalgia being thrown into the mix here, as Olive bemoans the loss of chivalry in modern day courtship (who doesn’t want John Cusack holding up a boom box for them outside their window?) by reminiscing over love scenes in 80s movies.

This is by far the best teen comedy to come out of Hollywood in ages, and will hopefully be praised for its qualities and inventiveness for a long time to come, as well as gain Stone the true recognition that she deserves.

Share

The LOST books: Bitesize reviews of those that I have read so far

One of my favourite things about my favourite show of all time, LOST, is that the writers so often featured literature in the show (either shots of the books themselves or references to them), both as a way for the writers to recommend great works of literature to the audience and as an insight into which literary works held the most influence on the writers and the show's design.

I can't find a complete list of them all online, only different incomplete lists, some of which reveal books that other don't, so I'll just have to work with hwat I have. A bulky (but certainly not complete) list can be found at here, which I am taking most of my episode notes from to start with.

Being a hardcore fan, my aim is to read all of these Lost books (or all of the ones that sound interesting anyway), and I own a great any of them already.

I've already read quite a few of them (most of them before Lost even aired or before the books wee featured in the show), so instead of reading them again in order to provide a decent, lengthy review, I thought I would just provide bitesize reviews of each to save time, and then longer reviews of each new Lost book I read for the first time, when I get around to them.

Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck



Referenced in: ('Every Man for Himself' and 'The Substitute') This book appeared in prison with Sawyer as his book of choice. Sawyer and Ben later discussed the book on the island. Sawyer also claims it is his favourite book and recounts the novel's ending to the Man in Black in The Substitute.

By far my favourite of the books I studied at secondary school. A touching and expertly crafted novel on the dreams of simple men and the dangers of innocence. And the ending, of course, as Sawyer highlights, is one of the best in literature.

The Turn of the Screw - Henry James



Referenced in: ('Orientation') The DHARMA Initiative Orientation film was hidden behind this book, on a bookcase, in The Swan station.

Perhaps the novel that poses the best ambiguity: is she insane and imagining the ghosts and the children being deceivers? Or is she sane and thus these paranormal events really happening to her? It's written to carefully and cleverly that you can never be sure either way. It isn't even known which Henry James thought it was, with the exception of some minor hints in some of his letters to his friends if I remember rightly. Is it a coincidence that this pops up in the show just as we are introduced to a character that has spent an entire three years alone in a hatch? Perhaps it is meant to nudge us to question Desmond's sanity upon that first meeting, and if not his mental stability, then certainly the sanity of pushing a button every 108 minutes to stop the world ending.

A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking



Referenced in: ('Not in Portland' and 'The Man from Tallahassee') When Alex, Kate, and Sawyer arrived to rescue Karl, Aldo was seen reading this book while standing guard. Ben has a copy of the book inside his living room in the Barracks.

A little tough to get through at times for someone like me who has a keen interest in such content but has very little knowledge on it. Clearly black holes, the fact that we can achieve time travel in some form for real, etc. are all closely tied to LOST's plot; with the island time jumps for example. Perhaps with this the writers are saying that some SF concepts that we thought were impossible are proving possible through the development of science, so some of the ideas used in the show (an island with unique and strange physics properties for example) might not be so improbable.

Lord of the Flies - William Golding



Referenced in: ('...In Translation' and ' What Kate Did') After the raft is burned, Sawyer makes a reference to Jin about Lord of the Flies, in that the survivors might have been civilized before the crash, but have now turned to savages. When the Tail Sections survivors re-unite with the Fuselage survivors, Charlie comments that it seems like they went "Lord of the Flies".

The parallels with the show here are blindingly obvious. A group of kids land on an island and two sides emerge, one led by a savage child and one by a civilized child (Locke and Jack?). An entertaining read, but it just fell short of the mark for me for a true classic of literature. Without it though, we wouldn't have Sawyer's excellent quote "It's Lord of the flies time now".

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's stone - J. K. Rowling



Referenced in: ('Deus Ex Machina') Hurley makes a reference to Harry Potter when he comments that Sawyer with glasses resembles a "steam-rolled Harry Potter".

I was quite surprised that this was in here to be honest. As can be seen above, the link is flimsy, but still present none-the-less. As much as I may look down upon them now, I admit I did find them immensely addictive in my teen years. Several of the books featured in the show are children's books, and Harry Potter is undeniable a great example odd such. I don't think any parallels can be drawn to the show's design here, however, beyond Hurley's mocking of Sawyer.

The Epic of Gilgamesh



Referenced in: ('Collision') As Locke completes a crossword puzzle in the hatch, the clue for 42 Down is "Enkidu's friend", to which Locke fills in "Gilgamesh".

Famed as being the first work of fiction literature ever written I believe (certainly the first fantasy work), I studied this during my degree and found it quite an entertaining read. It's very short, so won't take up much of your time, and is well worth the effort.

To Kill A Mockingbird - Harper Lee



Referenced in: ('The Cost of Living') Juliet enters Jack's holding room and brings a TV with a hidden message about Ben, but before airing it she tricks the cameras into thinking she's showing Jack "To Kill a Mockingbird", a film starring Gregory Peck, based off Harper Lee's novel.

Who can fault Lee's brilliant novel that focuses on race issues and morality all through the eyes of a young girl. It took me a while to get through it, but it is no doubt a masterpiece. Certainly worth your time.

Slaughterhouse 5 - Kurt Vonnegut



Referenced in: Likened to Desmond's predicament of being unstuck in time - Billy, the novel's protagonist, goes through the same thing.

Not Vonnegut's best I feel (so far, for me, that goes to 'The Sirens of Titan'), but still an excellent SF novel. It successfully deals with a real life issue - the Dresden bombings - which is probably why it is so accepted (or stolen) by the literature field and at the same deal deals full on with the SF trope of time travel. A great work.

VALIS - Philip K. Dick



Referenced in: Locke gives this to Ben, Ben claims he has read it, but Locke tells him he may have missed something the first time round.

Admittedly, I haven't read this twice yet, as the writers suggest, so I may not have picked up on those 'things I might have missed the first time around', but I love Philip K. Dick and I love this work. Heavily focused on what Dick truly believed was a religious experience that happened to him and detailing his subsequent beliefs that followed that event (for example, that we are all still trapped in the time of the Roman Empire), it is a wonderful head trip through the mind of this genius late in his career. He crucially considers whether his experience could just have been a drug induced hallucination (he was on drugs for his tooth at the time), or indeed whether he was and is in fact insane, as well as considering that he truly was contacted by a divine being. I can't wait to give this a second read. One of his best books.

The Invention of Morel - Adolfo Bioy Casares



Referenced in: Read by Sawyer in the Barracks.

One of the first books I bought and read after seeing it featured in the show. The writers clearly drew quite heavily from this one; it concerns an island that a man becomes stranded upon where he finds a marvel of science - it is populated by hollograms that exist on a repeat loop (Morel's invention) that was made so that the people it portrays might have their souls transferred to it so they might live forever. An interesting read that is well worth picking up.

Share