BATTLE ROYALE (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000)

People know that I love film and I get recommendations to watch movies all the time. And although there are a few people I listen to when it comes to these recommendations, for the most part I tend to ignore what people tell me. It's not that I completely discount what they say, it's just that with tastes so divergent and choices being limitless, there are very few I trust when it comes to people telling me a film is a must see. Also, when you hear things about a film prior to watching it you go into that viewing with preconceived perceptions of what the film will be like. Earlier today I wrote about FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (Will Gluck, 2011). I went into that with all my ideas and prejudices against its genre and came away pleasantly surprised at how much I liked the film. So, a film like BATTLE ROYALE (Kinji Fukasaku, 2000) came to my attention with more baggage than a divorcee at Sharkey's in Huntington on the Fourth of July. Recommended by one who I trust, she told me how the film has been banned in the U.S., how I probably wouldn't get to see it and finally how the film is brazenly stolen to craft the narrative for the popular book and film THE HUNGER GAMES. As you can see, there was a lot going on when lo and behold one day in my Netflix there was BATTLE ROYALE! My expectations for the film were rather high. Because I had been told it was banned (more on this later) and since I knew the plot involved school age children murdering each other I wholly expected a blood bath of epic proportions. Knowing that INFERNAL AFFAIRS>THE DEPARTED I expected this film to so devastate THE HUNGER GAMES film adaptation and to further cement my belief that there is no American originality left regarding film. I wanted the film to be a revelation; I wanted a film that inspired me. This is why you never listen to others. First, the film has never officially been banned. It has never been able to acquire American distribution therefore securing itself a similar legacy. And there is no reason for it to be banned. The film is rather tame, particularly in its representations of blood and violence. Far worse is released here in America each month. The narrative to the film was rather pedestrian and the translation from Japanese to English was just awful. This translation being so bad really hampered the film, because after reflecting on it and reading some production history, the film actually deals with some great thematic content. Thematically the film deals with the transition from childhood to adulthood; how we all face it differently, how we each take separate paths, the differences which we all encounter. The film chose kids which were just finishing middle school, an age which bridges this gap most effectively. Many of the children in the film profess love for other characters and it is this confused reflection which speaks volumes about this transition. Still children, they don't know what real love is, yet they speaks the words of people who are adults. Just a magnificent representation of a difficult time for every person. The film also shines light on another aspect of this transition, a generational one. The children are chosen due to their refusal to submit to the authoritarianism of their elders. In a society like the Japanese, one that brings many together for the benefit of one, this is a big problem. And the children that survive longest are those that adhere to the old ways; ones that work together, sacrifice for others, become a part of a microcosm of society. Basically they survive because they successfully bridge that transition to adulthood better than the rest. I've read there are those that intend to make an American version. If this comes to pass then I'd hope it would be with significant import placed to what the original film set out to accomplish and actually did rather well.

FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (Will Gluck, Sony, 2011)

Romantic comedies are not a genre that I usually choose to watch. They are formulaic, predictable and usually use tired language all of which mostly makes we want to hit myself in the head with a hammer. So I ask myself if this is such a huge genre, what would make it work for me? And my quick answer would be two likable stars playing likable characters. A plot that doesn't border on unbelievably impossible, maybe dialogue that doesn't scream fifty year old man writing for his angst ridden and horribly disapproving teenagers approval. Ultimately a romantic comedy has to make you feel good about finding someone to love and that's the number one reason people watch romantic comedies right? To feel better about love. One other thing about romantic comedies before I reveal what I watched last night. They have a strange way of creeping up on me. What I mean is this. When I expect the least from a film, when I watch the trailers and tell others I'd rather hang dry wall then see that film, when I roll my eyes upon hearing others swoon over said film, somehow every now and then something jumps up and grabs me and I realize I like the film. Such is the case with FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS (Will Gluck, Sony, 2011). I wanted to hate this film. I wanted to deride the writing and it's choice of stars. I wanted to write scathing words telling everyone how smart I was and how anyone who would watch such drivel has to be utterly insane. But you know what? I really liked this film. Let's go back to what makes a romantic comedy work for me. For me it is always, always the films stars and the characters they portray. FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS stars Justin Timberlake as Dylan Harper and Mila Kunis as Jamie Rellis. I like both already and they just give everything they've got in this film. Dylan and Jamie are likable and real. Even though you see them hurtling towards each other at light speed, resisting it with all they are, you want them to be together. They have good chemistry and they fit together. And both JT and Mila provide daring portrayals, each allowing the camera to gaze seductively upon their equally hot bodies. What's next on my checklist? Well, the narrative isn't utterly out of the realm of possibility (flash mob ridiculousness aside). I really like the way the film crafts the dichotomy between New York and Los Angeles. Our two greatest cities (America) are as diametrically opposed as fire and ice, yet this narrative brings them together and quite intelligently and with a deft touch. Sure they use stereotypes to some extent but what film doesn't? The films writing is also done rather well. It starts fresh and stays that way. In fact their is some rather comedic moments. When Jamie's mother Loma (Patricia Clarkson) brazenly demands of Dylan "so my daughter is just a slam piece?" I almost cried. And for that matter, anything Woody Harrelson did or said as Tommy, the gay sports editor at GQ was priceless, giving us a wizened and hardened version of Woody Boyd, albeit gay and in New York. FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS is a great little film. Not overly ambitious and sincere in approach, it even proves an argument I have been making for years. I defy ANYONE to sleep with someone five times EXCLUSIVELY and not lose that FWB status. Try it, you'll end up in a relationship! This film works for me and it resolves that ultimate of dilemmas, it makes you feel good about love. It did for me, which is why it worked so well.

TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY (Tomas Alfredsson, Studiocanal, 2011)

If dense, intricate and superbly detailed adaptations of spy novels are the type of films you like to see, then TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY (Tomas Alfredsson, Studiocanal, 2011) is, forgive the Brit slang, your cup of tea. The narrative is full and vibrant, always evolving and gives us a glimpse into the not so distant past, one that is quickly fading in our collective memories. The performances provided by a stellar ensemble cast, headed by Gary Oldman, literally take you to the era the film is set in. Finally, the various entities of the films production are done rather well, from the directing to the writing and every aspect of the production design, making the entire film just a superb spy thriller to watch. The film begins and ends with it's compelling narrative. Adapted from a popular spy novel, the film is not for everyone. It takes time for the narrative to unfold, but when it does the film breezes by. Besides it's slow pacing the film is extremely hard to follow and multiple viewings would be beneficial. Time is fractured quite a bit in the film and this will also lead to a larger scale confusion for most. What struck me most while watching this film is the realization that those whom know and remember the cold war are slowly disappearing. The characters portrayed in the film, the people these characters are based upon, are gone. It has been almost twenty five years since the Berlin Wall came down, and honestly it seems like much longer. The films narrative is set in a different era, one not as easily understood in the age of technology. We have forgotten the paranoia of the cloak and dagger cold war since information has become such a marketable and all encompassing commodity. The life or death stakes waged by the Cold War's combatants seem trivial now in a world more on the edge of economic collapse rather than nuclear meltdown. Taking us to this world is an otherworldly performance by an amazingly strong cast. Each member of this cast is a strong actor in their own right and they are led by the incomparable Gary Oldman. Much has been made of him only receiving his first Academy nomination for the role of George Smiley and it is warranted. Oldman has been giving us incredible performances for years. He has that rare ability as an actor (much like George Clooney) to provide so much to the audience without doing seemingly anything. He is so still in the role of George Smiley as to appear inanimate at times. He can sit and observe easily though, as the remaining cast is superb. Every casting choice was excellent with each performance having depth as well as being rich with emotion. The role of Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a perfect role to examine. Seemingly an innocuous character, one to be glanced over, his scene going home to tell his lover that their relationship is over is remarkable. With no words you see a mans world crumbled, and Cumberbatch brilliantly gives us this. I wonder how many viewers caught this subtle angle to the narrative. The remaining members of the cast are equally as superlative. Other aspects of production are also done quite well. Alfredsson makes great directorial choices throughout the film. One that struck me particularly was when Westerby (Stephen Graham) tells Control (John Hurt) about the shooting of Jim Prideaux. Without needing dialogue, Alfredsson frames Control within the larger frame of the film and then slowly pulls back to reveal Westerby informing him of the development. The viewer focuses on the face of Control, a man trapped by his position. A man who has no control over anything. The production design for the film is also amazing. There were no details overlooked. Set design, costumes, hair all hearkens back to the temporal setting of the 1970's. Finally, the writing. I have not read the novel, but I know many John Le Carre fans. I can imagine the adaptation is not particularly close to the book as a store this dense becomes exceedingly difficult to adapt. But the writing for the film was so good, I can only imagine it is much the same as the book. I do look forward to reading it as soon as the chance presents itself. Do not watch this film when tired or with a lot on your mind. Give it a chance to develop and unfold and you will enjoy it thoroughly.