Finnish As We Mean To Go On

Any one of my extremely limited number of friends will tell you that I thoroughly enjoy a jolly movie where kids get hurt, maimed and perhaps even killed (depending entirely, of course, on how vile the child in question may be).

Now, this isn't a reflection on me as a real world individual... I'm no huge fan of children (they're loud, get underfoot, you can't smoke or swear around them, they tend to head butt you in the testicles when they hug you and, as a rule, they're very poor conversationalists) but I wouldn't wish actual harm on anyone whose main point of reference for the world was Sesame Street.

No, this nascent desire to see harm inflicted on kids is more of a reflection on me as a film viewer...

In explaining this, I could take the time to go as far back as Charles Laughton's fantastic adaptation of Night Of The Hunter but I came to that later in life as I was a child of the seventies and through that decade (and the eighties that followed) films were a dangerous place to be if you were a kid. Cinema parents were forever distracted or drunk and mean, the world was out to get you, monsters would eat you, villains (and sharks) would kill you... There was literally no respite from the many dangers of the world and you were responsible for your own welfare (and even hiding under the duvet couldn't protect you). Like their real world counterparts, children would smoke, swear, fight, talk about sex and have a working understanding of the dangers of the world around them. They were inventive, bold and even if they weren't the most aesthetically pleasing specimens on the planet they still had the wits about them to save it if they had to.

There is a good reason that films like Explorers, The Goonies, Troll, Flight Of The Navigator, The Monster Squad, Gremlins, The Gate and all of the other movies of that era that get name checked incessantly are remembered so fondly. They were solid, entertaining narratives aimed (predominantly) at children that managed to reflect more of the real world in their fantasy story lines than the 90210 post code could manage in how ever many seasons (and reiterations). The fantasy here was danger and adventure not wealth and popularity. The heros were almost always the outcasts, middle income at best and desperate for escape from the mundanity of their lives, not Tweeting about what they had for breakfast or parading their newest designer bag to the cinema to see Twilight.

Films made for an adult audience (that irresponsible parents would let you watch on TV or Video) didn't treat kids any better... It didn't matter that the Chief of Police was sitting on the beach in Jaws, you could still be eaten by a shark right in front of him. Both parents could be in the house in Poltergeist and the television (or a tree) could still swallow you, even though you'd tried to warn them that this was going to happen. You could even be eaten by a giant Alligator in your own back yard (a scene that inexplicably traumatised me for life when I saw it as a five year old but gave me a healthy respect for swimming pools and nature that has lasted long into adulthood and has, thus far, prevented me from drowning or losing a limb to a hungry, oversized creature).

These were kids, like you and me... If they could find a treasure map in their attic or a spaceship in their back garden, why couldn't you? If they could get bloodied, bruised and perhaps even killed, why couldn't you? If they could find happiness without being the Prom Queen or depending on a romantic partner to be a whole human being, why couldn't you?

These aren't all perfect films by any means (some of them aren't actually very good at all if you stop to examine them in any critical sense). I imagine they occupy such a warm corner in the memory of many an aging film nerd because they held up a mirror to the world we lived in and, even when what was reflected back wasn't safe or pretty, it was exciting, scary and, most importantly, fun.

In this current era of film making, narratives purportedly aimed at children are more geared towards their parents desire to believe that the world is a safe place for their kids, where no harm will ever befall their precious prince or princess and none of the corruptions of adult life will ever find their way into their dull, anodyne lives. Even children's films that masquerade as being 'creepy' or 'dark' (like Tim Burton's perennial Hot Topic funder The Nightmare Before Christmas) are so far removed from reality and so comprehensively ingrained into our consumer society as to be essentially meaningless outside of the boundaries of their own narratives.

Modern movies seem to exist solely for the hour and a half of their run time and then cease to have any meaning at all let alone offer any insight into the workings of the world. The physical result of this prevailing attitude is that kids quickly evolve into revolting, entitled little consumers with no concept of the real world or the consequences of believing that you are exempt from harm because of your status as 'precious child'.

They are being sold a product, not having their spirit of adventure stimulated.

As with many of the issues facing modern society, cinema is in a unique position to educate as well as entertain and, once again, it seems to be fumbling the ball at the bidding of the mighty dollar.

All of which brings me to the point in hand... The rather excellent Finnish fantasy, Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale.

Because movie kids can be aesthetically challenged...

There is something inherently fantastic about a film that refuses to comply to modern trends in cinema and seeks to not only emulate the adventures of cinema past but also corrupt the myth of the most commercial season of the year. After all, what better target than the spirit of Christmas when debunking the overly commercial tendencies of current filmmaking?

Rare Exports carries a 15 certificate although I couldn't begin to tell you why... It has no swearing, no gore, no nudity (unless you count the odd glimpse of old man genitals, which I suppose you should) or any of the elements one would associate with an age restriction normally reserved for adult fare (lest we forget, Jaws has a PG rating to this day and could scare the shit out of you whether you saw it with a responsible adult or not...). So, don't be fooled by the age certificate, story outline or presentation of the film on the DVD box... This specimen is not a horror film by any stretch of the imagination. It's a children's film, pure and simple...

A really good one.

To describe the plot in any real detail would spoil the film greatly... Suffice to say, it's a smart, measured piece that borrows heavily from a plethora of great eighties kids movies to put a tremendous (and dark) spin on the Christmas mythos... The pretty but barren Finnish mountain setting makes an excellent substitute for the faceless suburbia of many of the standout films of the decade whilst other story elements (the absent mother whose death is never discussed by the distracted and financially troubled father, the lonely but aware child who is the first to work out what is going on and struggles to find an ally) also strike a familiar chord with the aging viewer.

This is fairy tale, coming of age story and escapist fantasy all mixed into one with more than enough fresh material thrown into the mix to lend it a creepy urgency that easily trumps the overly conscious and baroque stylings of Mr Burton and actually puts our main characters into a scenario with palpable danger, even though the threat is a fantasy creature that no one believes to be real. The children of this film have no interest in popularity, fashion or technology. Instead, they read books, ride snow mobiles, carry guns and are ever aware of the wolves that live in the mountains around their homes... If they decide something is scary then the chances are it is.

And yes, some bad things do happen to them...

Naughty... Or nice?

Tonally, there have been a handful of similar films made in the States in recent times... Both The Hole and Super 8 harked back to a golden age of children's adventure film but neither really had the nerve to fully commit to the outright creepy or place their characters into any mortal danger (and both had very mediocre runs at the box office, perhaps as a direct result). Coming from Finland, Rare Exports doesn't really have to navigate the studio system in the same way or provide healthy revenue through family friendly merchandising... And it shows.

This is a film that is free to play out more like an authentic Brothers Grimm fairy tale than the Disney interpretation of the same narrative and it has no hesitation in reveling in every macabre twist that this allows.

Rare Exports isn't a perfect film by any means but I can easily imagine that it will occupy a warm corner in the affections of many an aging film nerd because it has no hesitation in holding up a mirror to the world we live in and, even when what is reflected back isn't safe or pretty, it can still be exciting, scary and, most importantly, fun.

If that isn't a good enough reason to sit down in front of a movie with your kids this Christmas then I don't know what is. And, as I may have mentioned, any one of my extremely limited number of friends will tell you that I thoroughly enjoy a jolly movie where kids get hurt, maimed and perhaps even killed (depending entirely, of course, on how vile the child in question may be), so you may just want to put your offspring to bed and revel in a film that will take you back to a time when you were happy to watch children put in mortal danger in order to teach you something about the world you live in.

Stakes Is High

If you were to replace the word 'vampire' with 'zombie' and the word 'bleak' with 'humorous' then the poorly constructed review that follows could well be about the curiously over lauded 'laugh riot' known as Zombieland.

It's not... That movie did very well for itself and has little to no need for some no name Tiki Artist slash Genre Movie Blogger such as myself to spread the good word on it's mainstream pleasing merits, especially as you probably all already own the aforementioned movie on DVD and Blu Ray and like to bring it up on first dates with 'hip' people (they have horn rimmed glasses, sailor tattoos and perhaps even a niece named Amelie) you are hoping to impress with your own innate coolness. This, however, is a rookie mistake... If you really want to impress them then point out that the guy who did the voice the voice for Peter Venkman in The Real Ghostbusters cartoon was the same fellow who did the voice for Garfield in the animated series. Bill Murray was Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters and then the voice of Garfield in the live action moves... Cinematic mesh!

Sweet, sweet loving is guaranteed*!

*Sweet, sweet loving is in NO way guaranteed.

In no way Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg (that dude from The Social Network)

Good luck with that... I doubt very much that a working knowledge of Zombieland or Bill Murray trivia is ever going to get you into anyone's pants. Try learning quotes from The Breakfast Club (eighties teen flicks are so hot right now).

No dear (celibate) reader, this poorly constructed but mercifully brief review/opinion is about the bleak vampire movie called Stake Land, a film that succeeds taking the sparkle out of a genre that has had its teeth unceremoniously removed by the cult of Twilight (a pop culture phenomenon I find so morally offensive that I can barely put it into words and one that I hold solely responsible for the Abercrombie & Fitch-ing of every possible horror related release of recent times, including the forthcoming reboot of The Howling). It takes the better aspects of the zombie genre and applies them to the 'Hot Topic' addled vampire genre to create a film that is fairly unto itself in this modern cinema age (although pleasantly familiar to anyone who grew up in the golden age of VHS fare and was treated to EVERY possible combination of classic monster variant inhabiting post apocalyptic wasteland scenario imaginable, primarily because it was dirt cheap to film... Hell Comes To Frogtown anyone? Anyone..?).

Stake Land is a gritty, no nonsense, no budget affair set in a VHS friendly (although very compelling to this thirty something DVD viewer) apocalyptic world over run with vampires that serves as the perfect antidote to all of the over buffed, over posturing, under written and CGI infested wish fulfilment that has muddied the horror waters of late. These vampires are feral, dirty and animalistic, not dissimilar to the antagonists of the often maligned 30 Days Of Night but minus that last shred of relatable humanity that they possessed. They have no comraderie or awareness of their state to make them as appealing as Kathryn Bigelow's affectionately sketched and portrayed vampires in Near Dark. They are victims of a viral disease (rather than the affections of a hundred and something year old man creature that hangs around high schools, looking for love in all the wrong places) and are never presented as anything other than predators and a very real, relentless physical threat to our lead characters.

Team Edward?

And so to the gripe...

It is with these aforementioned lead characters that Stake Land makes a minor rod for it's own back. As with the Zombie/Micro-budget genre it borrows from, this film spends a lot of time on the road with an ever expanding/shrinking group of characters, all searching for that elusive safe zone that they have heard about. 

Sound familiar?

Some of these characters are a lot more interesting than others (a shockingly old looking Kelly McGillis turns in a pretty decent turn as what must be THE most badass and frequently raped nun in the history of cinema), some exist solely to get killed (hey there Superfluous Black Guy Character and look, you brought Doomed Pregnant Chick with you too!) whilst others are more delicately drawn and almost allowed room to grow amidst the chaos.

Sound familiar?

Again, as with the Zombie genre, we are treated to a slightly laboured 'who are the real monsters here' sub plot involving a religious cult who try to use the vampires to ethnically cleanse the world but such is the curse of having a silent primary villain... Someone's got to reel off the bad guy dialogue (and drop Vampires out of helicopters into uninfected areas).

How about that, does that sound familiar (other than the kickass dropping vampires out of helicopters bit)?

Of course it does... You are, after all, a visually literate fan of films and have seen these archetypes in many, many, MANY films before.

So, yes... Stake Land is ultimately derivative but it also brings enough new material and fresh concepts to the table to shirk the narrative curse of the traditional or post Twilight vampire flick... It becomes a movie unto itself in execution, dedication to its concept and lean narrative and one that is well worth the investment of your time and money.

The vampire movie lives to fight another day.

Fuck you Stephenie Meyer!

Capital Venture!

It's a sad fact that many people reading this will never have heard of 'The Venture Bros.', one of the most affectionate, well written and outright hilarious pieces of animation ever to grace the small screen. Sadder still is that many people WILL have heard of it but never been afforded an opportunity to see it as it's one of THOSE series that never seems to air (whilst the lumbering cash cows that are 'Family Guy' and 'The Simpsons' hog up endless screen time with their never ending repeats, a sad destiny that awaits the once mighty 'Futurama').

Suffice to say, at one moment in Season 1 of 'The Venture Bros.' I realised that I was watching a cartoon featuring the voices of both Patrick Warburton AND Stephen Colbert in the SAME EPISODE..! If you get a moment of slightly less than cool elation at that prospect then you may wish to skip this redundant post and just go right ahead and grab yourself a copy of the show. If you're scratching your head in confusion then you may wish to skip this redundant post and just go right ahead and load up Facebook as you obviously have much better things to do with your time.

A quick look around the internet will give you pretty much all the information you may need on the show (it is, after all, where I first heard about it) and Seasons 1 to 4 are currently available to purchase on both Amazon and iTunes (which is where I first sampled it... To watch on an iPad no less! I know, right? Get me, all 'Mr Hipster Watching Cool Cartoons And Then Blogging About Them On An Oversized Mobile Phone'! No wonder the ladies are all over me, I'm quite the catch!) and Season 5 is just about to air in the States.

There's a pretty rabid fan base out there, so be warned... You may want to try some more 'objective' feedback on the show before you get forever put off by some sycophantic, 'The Venture Bros. Can Do No Wrong' style blog because, as we all know, there's nothing more off putting than a gushing nerd (ahem).*

*I would urge you not to enter 'Gushing Nerd' into your Google search when looking for information on the show.

So, with such an internet presence and obviously devoted following, why is this show such an unknown quantity? Why is it quite likely that YOU have never seen it, even if you've heard about it? I can only really attribute it to three basic things, none of which have anything to do with the fact that your life is probably far too rich a patina of events to warrant the purchase of an oversized mobile phone in order to watch obscure cartoons (unlike my empty husk of an existence):

1: Battlestar Galactica Syndrome?

Did you watch 'Battlestar Galactica'? If so, did you watch it from the first episode and then follow it week by week as it aired? If the answer to this is 'Yes' then you probably had a really good time following one of the more convoluted but well paced and involving science fiction series ever screened on the humble television set. However, if you heard it was good after initially avoiding it (because, hey, what were the actual chances it was going to do anything other than suck? I mean, Starbuck was a girl for the love of God... A GIRL!!!) then you probably dipped in midway through the Season, found yourself baffled and annoyed by how impenetrable the story line was and swiftly gave up.

Now, I'm not saying that 'The Venture Bros.' is a narrative labyrinth but it does have a lot of ongoing story lines and recurring characters that require you to pay a modicum of attention. As with 'Battlestar Galactica' it doesn't really do stand alone stories as such and that makes it a headache for an audience who may want to dip in and out and even more of a problem for a network who may want to show random episodes to fill random time slots. Imagine a world in which 'Family Guy' and 'The Simpsons' had ongoing story lines... They'd be 'The Critic' (another great cartoon that you've probably never seen if you live in the UK) and they'd very rarely, if ever, get a television outing and vanish into obscurity.

Once you get past Season 1, 'The Venture Bros.' quickly evolves into an ongoing saga which neatly develops it's central characters and themes (although it almost dispenses with the titular Brothers entirely for Seasons 2 and 3) and expands beautifully on what could easily have been a tiresome one note joke. This, however, creates the aforementioned problem... Woe betide the man who dips into the show in Season 3 without having seen what came before. If you don't know your Dr. Girlfriend from your Dr. Mrs The Monarch then you are out of your depth and need to double back to Episode 1 of Season 1 and start all over again... You'll be glad you did though, as this is a show that rewards your loyalty with some great payoffs and an absolute dedication to it's own rules, logic and continuity.

How often do you get to say that these days?

2: Where Are The Toys?

We all know that you can't have a legitimate success these days without a series of collectables to accompany your series or film (thank you Mr Lucas), they are the pop culture equivalent of standing atop a building and yelling 'Made it Ma, top of the world!' and validate your product to the public... After all, it can't be worth anyone's time if you can't touch it or OWN it. Transient concepts like stories are just SO last century...

So, five Seasons in, where in the name of collectables are 'The Venture Bros.' toys?!

Nothing ingrains your property into the minds of the masses (and thus ensures it's survival) like a series of products featuring the likeness of your stars and nothing lends itself better to this than animation (especially as you don't have to pay any unbearable child star for the use of their likeness). Now, the ever reliable Sideshow Collectibles have produced a fantastic statuette of Brock Samson and Biff Bang Pow toys are currently struggling to get a line of three and three quarter inch figures to the shelves but... Seriously?! This show has run since 2004 and the world is still waiting for action figures? Not even a crappy Burger King tie in? Even '9' (anyone?) had a series of toys and that was a hideously underwhelming movie that bombed at the box office!

It would seem that licensing really has become key to bringing a show to fore in this day and age... After all, who really wants to watch a show that doesn't warrant a lunchbox or themed board game? But then, who wants a lunchbox or board game based on a show they've never seen or even heard of?

Yeah, have a good old think on that one for a while... It's the old Chicken and Egg spiel, all spruced up for the purposes of making my point seem valid!

3: Is It Just Too Clever (By Which I Mean Affectionate)?

I loved 'Airplane!', it was a great movie made by people who respected the source material that they were lampooning. The tiresome wave of lazy rip offs that ensued (which continued through every 'Scary Movie' sequel right through to the abysmal and worryingly recent 'Stan Helsing') had no love for what they were mocking. They were a series of lifted images and stories with added fart gags and implied nudity that required no knowledge of the source material to make them 'funny'.

You know... For kids.

Sadly for those kids, 'The Venture Bros.' isn't going to let you off so easily.

You won't require an encyclopedic knowledge of Silve Age Marvel comics, late seventies and early eighties cartoons or the spy and science fiction movies of the sixties to fully enjoy this show but it will be a massive boon in catching the rapid fire visual and verbal referencing that pepper the episodes. Even when it is reveling in it's more obvious lampooning, 'The Venture Bros.' works best to an audience that has sat in front of a television on countless Saturday mornings with a minimum of two bowls of sugary cereal and genuinely loved the likes of 'G.I. Joe', 'Scooby Doo' (or any of it's identikit Hanna-Barbera siblings), 'Johnny Quest', 'Spiderman & Friends' and the endless waves of thinly disguised toy commercials that littered the airwaves.

Both visually and in it's writing, this is a show that captures the essence (and inherent ridiculousness) of these narratives and reimagines them from the perspective of their now adult audience. Characters have either never grasped the real world or just grown cynical, unable to recapture the glory of their 'boy adventurer' youth, clinging to their fading fame whilst actually living in a world of giant robots, super villains, magic and an endless stream of impossibly cool technology. Others are more cartoonish and in keeping with the look and themes of the show. Uniquely, all of them are treated as living, breathing characters and afforded opportunities to grow, reveal back story and evolve over the course of the 4 Seasons.

So, start at Episode 1 of Season 1 and enjoy. Work your way through the curiously underproduced but wonderfully written Season 2 and watch the series take flight. Then, sit back and revel in Season's 3 and 4... By the time you've finished, you'll find you genuinely miss Hank, Dean, Brock, Thadius and The Monarch (and every other GREAT character) in the same way that you might miss the narrator of a great book when you finish it.

Then, much as I did, you'll think it's a sad fact that many people reading this will never have heard of 'The Venture Bros.', one of the most affectionate, well written and outright hilarious pieces of animation ever to grace the small screen.

Loaded With Bonus Creatures!

How much you enjoy Monsters will depend entirely on your penchant for watching DVD bonus features... But I digress (and I haven't even begun).

As I'm no longer the spry movie viewing pup I once was, I am officially allowed to talk about the 'good old days' (that's the nineties to you) of film releases onto the new, space age format of DVD... This was a time when studios and production companies went all out to seduce the viewer into a relationship with this (then) unknown quantity (which looked an awful lot like the ageing Laserdisc format to the wary film fan, not a good thing if you lived in the UK). Some releases were packaged with the usual TV spots and puff pieces, some featured comprehensive 'Making Of's' with a wealth of genuinely interesting new material (a prime example being The Phantom Menace, a release so exhaustive that it almost redeemed the film itself... Almost...) and some featured an entirely new beast altogether... The Alternative Movie Set Within The Movie!*

*Not the official name.

As a rule, these would be mini movies that followed minor characters from the main feature, usually filmed on Digital Video with pared down production values that provided the answers to the burning questions raised by the main story such as 'Hey, I wonder what happened to That One Guy?' or 'What the French? How'd they get there?!' That sort of thing...

Anyone who owns Zach Snyder's rather good Dawn Of The Dead remake/reboot/totally different film with the same name should find themselves familliar with this... There is a whole mini movie on the DVD release about Andy, the gun store owner that the main cast interact with via whiteboards who later turns up dead(ish) in a sequence designed to cull the main cast down to a reasonable number. I doubt that anyone in the cinema really gave his journey too much thought (they were probably too focused on waiting to see if Sarah Polley's facial expression would change at any point during the movie) but his little mini narrative is actually rather touching and provides a nice juxtaposition to the primary narrative. Andy is alone and trapped in a confined space with very limited resources (other than a LOT of bullets), a sharp contrast to the fairly lavish mall surroundings of the main group. It changes nothing about the central plot but does serve to open up the world of the lean main narrative and provide some depth and texture. More importantly, it makes the proactive film fan feel like they have been rewarded for physically buying the movie by being given access to a secret part of the story that your casual 'Joe Schmo' will never know about.

It's that elusive 'Bonus Feature' that so many Discs claim to be 'Loaded With'... The cinematic equivalent of a Masonic Handshake.

Which brings me back to the point at hand... Monsters.

I had the good fortune to not see this film at the cinema... I think it benefits from being viewed at home, in a more intimate surround than the generic mulitplex. Also, it gave me the opportunity to look at the plot synopsis before watching, so I experienced no outrage or sense of being 'hoodwinked' when I wasn't presented with Wham Bam Monster Mash upon viewing (although the Blu Ray does have a lenticular cover that is SO aggressively three dimensional that it made me feel a little queasy... Does that count as a complaint against a film?). Also, during it's run at the cinema, the reviews I read were faily explicit about the narrative of this film and what to expect, so I don't really consider a lack of all out Monster War to be a fair critique to level at a film that has never had any intention of showing you that or promised that you'd see it.

So why were people so annoyed?

Firstly, it's set six years after the (suprisingly plausible) arrival of the titular Monsters. SIX YEARS! What manner of excitement are you expecting? Take a look at that dusty copy of Godzilla sat there on your movie shelf... Force yourself... Remember how excited you were when it was released? Remember the last time you gave it any real thought? There you go then...

The characters in Monsters have been living wih this for a long time, the novelty has clearly worn off for them and they're not going to have the 'Will Smith Double Take' that allows the audience their first good look at the Menace/Phenomenon/Badly Dated Optical Effect as it conveniently rises up from the depths/hovers over the city. This is a film about people living in a world that also happens to have some monsters living in it... The creatures are a visual aside who probably have less screen time than Bruce The Shark does in Jaws and are extremely effect as a result.

It helps enormously that director Gareth Edwards has a background in accomplished but low key visual effects. His experience is in the subtle augmentation of practical shots and location plates rather than grandstanding set pieces and the film benefits hugely from it. The titular creatures become a part of the overall look and feel of the piece rather than a key feature and are (very wisely) never shown interacting directly with the human cast (a mistake made with all but the most deft CGI that can instantly destroy an audiences suspension of disbelief and the credibility of your imagined world... Anyone who has watched a SyFy 'Original' movie will testify to this). The whole visual finish of the film clean and polished and (most important to a pedant such as myself) the creatures never change scale to suit the needs of the script (I'm looking at you Sharktopus!).

It is the characters and the actors who portray them that ultimately give the film it's DVD Special Feature feel. The central pairing of Whitney Able and Scoot McNairy and how we, the audience, meet them feel like elements that have been established and fleshed out in a larger narrative (that we have already seen in the non existent Feature Presentation that this Alternate Movie Within A Movie accompanies) where they played second male and female lead to a more cinematic (and, in the real world, more famous) pairing. The actors are solid and handle the material well (with some better than Blair Witch improvising), blessed again by not having to do battle with any 'added in post production' menaces. Their physical journey is fraught (if a little brief) and their emotional one is bearable. Long time (or jaded) Creature Feature viewers will be thrilled to discover that the moment normally reserved for the dreaded 'first kiss' scene is here replaced by a genuinely moving moment where two of the creatures bump into one another and share a moment of companionship before moving on... A great scene (achieving all of the emotional impact and catharsis that 'Another Film Couple Kissing' would have missed by a mile) that reveals the ultimate twist of Monsters. This is a film about the search for companionship, about communication, loneliness and the transience of those brief moments where we find another lost soul before inevitably continuing on alone. In a neat twist on the usual narrative, our human leads here act as a cypher for the story of the creatures and that is the ultimate trick of the film.

Like the equally devisive District 9, this is a film of touches and moments that wanted you to do some of the mental heavy lifting rather than hand you a narrative on a plate. Is that a bad thing? Is it wrong for a film to feel like it belongs in a much larger story arc that our characters can't show us this time around? Ultimately, watching Monsters left me with questions... Not about the characters whose journey I had just followed but rather the world they inhabited. I actively wanted to know more and see more... I would like to see the film that this one alludes to.

Personally, I don't find that to the problem that many (re)viewers have and would posite that it may actually be a testament to a quietly impressive achievement in this age of shoddy cinema fare... A film that left me wanting to see more rather just wanting.

The Emperor's New Movie: Inception

For Those Who Don't Know:

'The Emperor's New Movie' is a term I apply to any film that gathers massive box office success, universal critical acclaim and a fistful of awards simply on the basis of reputation rather than merit. These are the films that everyone suddenly seems to love and talk about in spite of the fact that they are clearly not as innovative, inspiring or anywhere near as good as everyone convinces themselves that they are. They are also known as 'Films Your Neighbour Loves' ("Oh, have you seen it? You simply MUST see it...") and will get you swiftly ejected from a group conversation should you offer anything other than glowing praise of the film in question.

With that in mind, let's take a look at:

Inception

Remember 'The Matrix'? Christopher Nolan does. Remember the twisty turny plot of 'Memento' that actually turns out to be a bit of a con if you stop and think about it for too long? Christopher Nolan hopes you don't. Remember what happens when you give a writer/director who thinks he's a lot smarter than his audience a massive special effects budget to distract you from the short comings of a really basic pop psychology notion that he has dressed up as a really challenging Sci-Fi concept? Well, you do now... All thanks to Christopher Nolan and the bafflingly popular 'Inception'.

Massively successful, critically acclaimed and due an Oscar or two in March... No, not Christopher Nolan's 'The Dark Knight Returns' (another post, another time), I'm talking about 'Inception', a film that I really wanted to like... And did. To a point...

It was an okay excursion into the ever more popular 'action movie with intellectual set dressing' sub genre that has been growing in popularity over the recent years...

I can only assume that this is something to do with a thirty something generation of film viewers who grew up with some of the seminal works in the action genre ('Predator', 'Die Hard', 'Aliens' et all) wanting to go back to the cinema and see more explosions, gunfights, quips and chicks but not wanting to look too low brow in front of their partners... Which is strange, because at the other end of the demographic spectrum is a generation of teens who also want films that follow the traditional formulas but dress them with characters who are 'above' the very material they populate ('Juno', 'Scott Pilgrim Vs The World', '500 Days Of Summer' et all).

What I find most baffling about this whole trend is that the films that are being referenced and 'expanded' upon didn't need over thinking or filling with self referential characters. They were films that existed within their own universes, hinted at bigger ideas but never betrayed their own narratives in order to do so. You think the characters in 'Heathers' or 'Say Anything' had never seen a movie? Of course they had, they just didn't need to talk about it in the world of the story to prove that they were real beings. Imagine how dull 'Star Wars' would have been if it had spent needless hours expanding upon the basic ideas at it's core... You don't have to, we have 'The Phantom Menace' onwards to prove the point.

The current generation of film viewer seems to need some psuedo intellectual reassurance that they are allowed to watch what they enjoy... Which is a shame as it bogs down potentially great movies with endless winks to the audience and their perceived level of intelligence.

Ultimately, 'Inception' is just another post 'Matrix' action thriller with Sci-Fi trappings, under developed ideas that it uses to mask it's narrative shortcomings and excessive use of hair product. I would have enjoyed it a lot more if I hadn't been forced to listen to several conversations about how 'mind bendingly' brilliant it was or how I'd need to see it at least twice to fully understand it.

I didn't.

I saw it once, got it completely, filed it on the shelf and moved on.

Films You Should Watch Instead:

Vertigo

The Matrix

Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind