REVIEWED BY: Nikki Baughan
RELEASED: February 3, 2012 

For his feature debut, Danish filmmaker Asger Leth follows his 2006 documentary Ghosts of Cite Soleil (co-directed with Milos Loncarevic) with something entirely different; a high concept action thriller that is about as Hollywood as they come. That’s to say that everything is overblown, from premise to location and effects, and – like so many of its genre – it’s entirely throwaway.

Sam Worthington takes the lead as Nick, an ex-cop turned escaped con who is threatening to throw himself from one of the top stories of a towering Manhattan hotel. As the city comes to a standstill below him, troubled police negotiator Lydia (Elizabeth Banks) tries to talk him down. But the more time that Nick spends on the ledge, the more Lydia begins to realise that there’s far more to his suicidal behaviour than she could ever have imagined.

And to say any more than that would be to expose the narrative foundations on which this film so depends; suffice it to say that Nick’s brother Joey (Jamie Bell) also has a part to play in this tallest of tales. Indeed, what enjoyment there is comes from surrendering to  Pablo F Fenjves twisting screenplay, which just reveals a little more at every turn; albeit casting a great deal of credibility and logic aside in its pursuit of high octane thrills. And while the cast do their best, their characters are simply not developed past being vessels to carry the plot.

Indeed, concentrate on the one dimensional characterisation, the derivative nature of the script, the cliché ridden dialogue or the pat ending, and Man on a Ledge will be completely lost. But if you can remember that the action genre has always operated within its own unique set of rules—where the most audacious behaviour always generates the most explosive results, virtually every set piece and plot point has been done before and the end always, always justifies the means—and the film’s simplistic charms may well win you over. Just don’t expect to remember them in the morning.

2 stars

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

Leading filmmaking contest community MOFILM, have announced that one of the most coveted ad spots in worldwide television, the Super Bowl, will be taken by a young filmmaker thanks to the first ever global competition for an unknown creative to produce an advert for a world-leading brand.

Tweet

Zach Borst

Zach Borst’s light-hearted film for Chevrolet (titled Happy Grad) features a college graduate receiving a gift from his parents. The ad will air and run for 30 seconds during the telecast of Super Bowl XLVI to a global audience of over 163 million.

Andy Baker, President and Co-Founder of MOFILM, said: “We are incredibly proud of Zach’s film and that we’ve helped to create what will be one of the stand-out adverts of this year’s Super Bowl. This is a great ‘David and Goliath’ situation for MOFILM and will help inspire other young filmmakers to grab the opportunity MOFILM offers them and see where it leads – perhaps the biggest showcase in the world!”

Zach Borst, winning filmmaker, said: “What I love about MOFILM is that I can make a living doing what I love most and having my film shown during the Super Bowl has changed my life. I’ve been able to have full creative control from beginning to end – which is unheard of within the world of big brands. Anyone can submit to a MOFILM contest and they are proud to celebrate and support their pool of talent and help showcase their work to millions of people around the world.”

www.MOFILM.com

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

The British Film Commission today released figures which reveal production spend from large scale international features shooting in the UK, exceeded the £1 billion mark in 2011. The figures represent a healthy year on year increase in inward investment on 2008′s low of £432.9 million and 2010′s total of £979 million.

Adrian Wootton, Chief Executive of the British Film Commission said: “2011’s production figures are further evidence that the UK is home to some of the world’s most talented and sought-after film-making talent. Coupled with our excellent infrastructure and facilities, the UK film industry is continuing to have a positive impact on the economy.”

Productions which started shooting in the UK in 2011 include the 23^rd Bond film Skyfall,  Cloud Atlas, the international ensemble drama starring Tom Hanks; Danny Boyle’s thriller, Trance; Ridley Scott’s epic sci-fi adventure Prometheus; period drama Hyde Park on the Hudson directed by Roger Michell; Gambit a comedy starring Colin Firth and Cameron Diaz; Marc Forster’s geo-political thrillerWorld War Z starring Brad Pitt; and Bollywood film Housefull 2starring Amitabh Bachchan.

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

Not content with just being the UK’s premiere studio destination for international features, Pinewood TV has also made a strong start to 2012, welcoming back four shows, recording new series for 2012. Got To Dance 3 (Sky1HD) and New Tricks (BBC1) are currently based at Pinewood. The Magicians 2 (BBC1 HD) and the cult classic, Red Dwarf 10 (Dave) are based at Shepperton.

Got To Dance and The Magicians continue the recent trend at Pinewood for large Light Entertainment shows making use of the Group’s film stages to create some amazing sets – and with Got To Dance, hosting an audience of 1200. The productions have again taken accommodation and location space, enabling them to have a secure yet flexible set up to record. Both shows are being broadcast live, Got To Dance taking advantage of Pinewood’s direct HD lines straight to BT Tower.

Paul Darbyshire, Managing Director of Pinewood TV commented: “We’re really pleased to consistently be involved with some of the biggest TV productions in the UK and we’ve started this year strongly. What’s really pleasing however is the fact that all of these productions have chosen the Pinewood Group for repeat business. It shows great confidence in Pinewood TV’s facilities and dedicated, expert team. We can tailor solutions to meet every production’s needs and we hope to continue this early success throughout 2012 as we constantly develop and improve our offering.”

The Magicians, produced by Shine TV returned to Pinewood Studios Group this month, broadcasting live on J Stage at Shepperton Studios. BBC1 aired the new series live, the first time it has transmitted magic as it happens in more than 30 years.

The third series of Got To Dance is back; bigger and better than ever. The new series exploded onto our screens on Sky1HD from January 1st and the live semi-final shows from Pinewood’s R Stage start from Sunday 29th January. Got To Dance airs at 6pm on Sundays.

BBC One drama New Tricks has been commissioned for a further two series, to air in 2012 and 2013. Starring Amanda Redman, Dennis Waterman, Alun Armstrong and James Bolam, New Tricks follows an unconventional bunch of ex-coppers brought out of retirement to work on unsolved and open cases. Series 9 and Series 10 will each comprise of 10 new episodes.

…

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

REVIEWED BY: Anton Bitel
RELEASED: February 3 2012

Tweet

In 2007, young director Jason Reitman and first-time screenwriter Diablo Cody teamed up to create whipsmart teen pregnancy comedy Juno. Now their latest collaboration, Young Adult, represents a reunion in more ways than one, as they revisit previous preoccupations (adolescence and parenthood) from the perspective of arrested grown-ups rather than precocious teens.

In her most fearless (and monstrous) performance since 2003′s Monster, Charlize Theron plays 37-year-old Mavis, an aimless, alcoholic Minneapolitan drawn back to smalltown Mercury by news that former high school beau Buddy (Patrick Wilson) has just become a father. Mavis turns to Matt (Patton Oswalt), a crippled geek who like herself has never recovered from his teen years, for help in her unhinged scheme to win Buddy back from his newfound domestic bliss.

The film’s title refers more to the genre of fiction that Mavis ghostwrites for a living than to Mavis herself—who is neither as young nor as adult as she imagines—but Cody’s writing has certainly matured, with the sparky stylisation of Juno giving way to something altogether more cynical and spare. This is a cruelly funny portrait of the scars, both physical and psychological, left by high school experience—and it is pleasingly unusual for a rites-of-passage film in that precisely no lessons are learned, as Mavis’ narcissistic fantasies are allowed to go on, dented but essentially intact.

4 stars

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

REVIEWED BY: Tom Seymour
RELEASED: February 3, 2012

Tweet

Don’t Think director Adam Smith met The Chemical Brothers—then known as The Dust Brothers—on the London clubbing scene 20 years ago. While Ed and Tom did their thing on stage, Smith created some of the best light, movement and visual shows in the business.

For their last album, Further, he worked with Marcus Lyall on a separate film for each of the eight tracks, before a worldwide tour climaxed with a no-holds-barred extravaganza at Japan’s Fujirock festival.  Don’t Think is an extraordinarily experiential account of that mildly psychedelic evening, with Smith’s camera swooping and swooning over an audience going bananas to the throbbing force of The Chemical Brother’s beats.

Watch this space. After being headhunted to direct episodes of Doctor Who and Little Dorrit, Adam Smith has got two features slated for production this year. The Chemical Brothers will do well to keep hold of him.

 4 stars

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

REVIEWED BY: Naila Scargill
RELEASED: February 3 2012

Tweet

Martha Marcy May Marlene is initially quite involving, its maintenance of mystery very effective. Our titular character has run away from an overcrowded house in which the women appear to be servants, and has no idea as to her location. The story is then drip-fed via flashback, as we learn that Martha had disappeared after indoctrination into an extreme cult.

Olsen is absolutely fantastic as the troubled individual, portraying the blank-faced trauma of her ordeal very convincingly. Without her, Martha Marcy May Marlene would be a much lesser film; it’s hard to believe this is her first feature role.

The problem is that the story’s raison d’être—the long-term psychological impact on Martha—doesn’t lead us anywhere; there is no development of character, other than the predictable inflation of paranoia. As such, the film feels terribly drawn out; frustratingly, the tension of initial scenes just does not pay off. This is more due to an overly ambitious idea for a feature debut, however, than bad filmmaking. The scene had been set well. Should Sean Durkin attempt another psychological journey in the future, it will probably be worth a watch. As for Elizabeth Olsen, she could be destined for great things.

2 stars

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

As a concept and creature designer working on the likes of Watchmen, Cloverfield and Star Trek, Neville Page is responsible for the look of some of modern cinema’s greatest successes. But, as he explains, new technologies are bringing new challenges… 

Tweet

British-born, but a long-term resident of California, Neville Page teaches at the state’s Art Center College of Design, the Otis College of Art and Design and the Gnomon School of Visual Effects, and is a design consultant for the entertainment, toy and automotive industries. He is also one of Hollywood’s hottest concept and creature designers, whose best-known films include Avatar, Piranha 3D and Super 8.

You’ve designed creatures that were very much to the director’s specifications and you’ve also occasionally had much more free rein to come up with your own ideas. Which approach do you prefer?
I like both directions, honestly. The most important thing always to remember is that you have been hired by someone to realise their vision and their dream. It’s not about you, it’s not for you to come up with your idea; even in the cases [on Star Trek, Cloverfield and Super 8] where JJ Abrams has really given me a tremendous amount of latitude, he’s still ultimately looking at my variations on a theme, selecting what he likes, and then guiding that. So I might have more input, but at the same time it’s JJ who’s at the helm, defining what he ultimately likes.

James Cameron is a visual artist, and can describe what he’s looking for not just in words but with a drawing, so you have a much clearer target to shoot for. But there were occasions on Avatar where, because Jim just didn’t have the time always to be around, we would just continue and do things he never asked for. Most of it just falls on its face, but sometimes he’d see it and go, ‘I hadn’t even thought of that, that’s a good idea, I’ll take it’. You take whatever direction they’ve given you, and try to come up with the answers as proficiently as possible.

In films like Star Trek, TRON: Legacy and Green Lantern, you’re building on design concepts that are already iconic. How do you find a balance in trying to satisfy the traditionalists in the audience and those looking for something new?
The balance sometimes is, almost thankfully, out of your jurisdiction, particularly on something like Green Lantern, where there were so many different players involved who ultimately made the decision of whether the choices that we were suggesting were appropriate. But we do have to start somewhere and give them something so, of course, we’re thinking about it all the way through. Green Lantern was a particularly odd one. The creatures in the comic book are so inventive that the starting point was pretty fantastic, but at the same time sometimes a little bit debilitating, because the concepts were so zany, so bizarre, that my concern was, how do we get that to fit into a film that is going to be visually realistic? So that’s when you really have to let physics, plausibility and the realities of nature define how something would transcend from comic book to an actual moving picture.

In the case of TRON [Legacy], that was easy, because the language that was defined visually in the original TRON was so specific and graphic. It wasn’t as difficult as on other productions for us to come up with a whole new aesthetic and pay homage and be respectful to the audience—and yet to have it feel like the original to fans—because once you impose that graphic design visual quality, you’re already in that world, and I think that when audiences see that concept elevated to the technology that we have today, they are instantly satisfied.

In the case of Star Trek, redesigning the Romulans felt to me the most high-risk, because the fan base knows the history of all the characters from Star Trek, and any deviation potentially brings some backlash. Quite honestly I was surprised that we didn’t get more ridicule for going down the path that we did, but I think that JJ and the writers came up with a brilliant storyline opportunity that gave you the latitude to create a relatively different aesthetic that did maybe go against the grain of what the franchise defined, yet still allowed the audience to feel like they’re getting their money’s worth in the revisit.

Have advances in technology and the shift to the digital domain changed the fundamentals of your work?
Over the most recent years, where digital technology has allowed the image that we create to look photoreal, the attention [is now] on design. Whereas years ago, as digital was new and the ability to create a realistic image on screen was relatively new, it was acceptable for audiences to just see something fanciful and realistic-looking. In a way the entertainment value of seeing a movie years ago, when digital was first coming out, was that you were getting a whole different level of entertainment, whereas now audiences only expect it to look real. It cannot not look real, whether it’s a spaceship flying over a planet, or a forest as with [Avatar's] Pandora, or a creature running across a landscape—with any of that now, it is just the demand and the expectation of the paying customer that it will look realistic. So much design had been done with spacecraft and worlds and aliens that the spectacle of realism is not as critical now as the story and good design.

So, strangely enough what I’m saying is that my job has become a lot harder, but I kind of prefer it to be as difficult as it is to try and be creative because that’s really what audiences are now gravitating towards: a good story, with good design. The realism that CGI offers is becoming more and more invisible, which is a shame for the people that do that work, because I don’t think they get the attention they deserve. Their work is not meant to appear overt at all. It’s kind of ironic. •

www.nevillepage.com

Taken from movieScope magazine, Issue 25 (Nov/Dec 2011)

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

Whether taking a role in a blockbuster (Pirates of the Caribbean), drama (Melancholia) or gritty thriller (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo remake), Swedish actor Stellan Skarsgård approaches them all with the same goal: to get to the truth of the character. 

Tweet

Sandwiched somewhere between ABBA and the Millennium trilogy, Stellan Skarsgård remains one of Sweden’s most successful exports. If it’s Danish director Lars von Trier that provided his most potent roles, from his Breaking the Waves breakthrough to this year’s Melancholia, Skarsgård has proved a popular force in America, with blockbusters from Pirates of the Caribbean to Thor dominating his CV. Now, the 60-year-old Skarsgård splices his homeland with Hollywood, starring as CEO Martin Vanger in the US remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, David Fincher’s controversy-baiting take on Stieg Larsson’s first Millennium novel. Sweden won’t know what’s hit it.

How do you choose your roles?
The director is extremely important to me. There are some directors who I say yes to without even seeing the script. [Hans Petter] Moland and [Lars von] Trier, I’ve worked with again and again. The roles… you usually want to do something you haven’t done. At least, I do. I try to find material that is different to what I’ve just been doing. That’s why I also go back to do independent films after doing the big American films. I have to do that—where the stakes are higher. Not the financial stakes, but the artistic stakes.

You can get into trouble if… If the director or some star is pompous or self-obsessed, it’s not nice. I hate it. I don’t care if they’re geniuses; I don’t want to work with them if they’re not decent people and they can’t respect everybody’s work and integrity and create a good atmosphere on the set. It’s not worth it. It’s just a film. But when you get a bit older, and you’ve made 90 films, there’s very few that can come and create an atmosphere that you don’t accept.

How was your experience working with David Fincher on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo?
That’s a filmmaker who knows everything about the technical side of filmmaking, the imagery. And he has his tools. It’s fun working with him. His way of getting life into his imagery is different to Lars. He does 40 takes instead. And that fucks up the actor enough to make them come alive. I like it. We shoot on Red, on video, and you just roll and roll and roll. And I’m fine with it. I can roll 15 hours, as long as the days are, and feel good. What I hate is when your flow is interrupted all the time. No, we have to tweak the light a little or fix this or that, or change the mag on the camera…

Fincher has a budget of $130m or something. But he spends it all on time. So there are not a lot of trailers and you don’t have enormous pay cheques. It’s just time. He takes eight or nine months to shoot a normal film. Which is wise. He wants it all up on the screen.

Do you feel protective over the material, given it’s from a hit Swedish novel?
I haven’t read the book! I don’t read many crime stories. I saw the first of the Swedish films. That was OK. Noomi Rapace was great in it. But Rooney Mara, she’s great too. She’s a different character. Less of a woman and more of a child. Which is interesting.

What do you wish to achieve through your acting?
To be as truthful as if I was an amateur. If I ever use my skills, it must be invisible. I’m technically extremely skilled; I can hit a mark blindfolded. There’s one film where we didn’t even have marks. I was out of focus several times. And the focus puller said, ‘It can’t be Stellan. It must be something wrong with the lens.’ And it was. But all this technique, I have to destroy all the time. And then working with Lars, when you get all that freedom, you can try everything. That has also influenced my way of working with more traditional directors. I crave more freedom and I crave the opportunity to make mistakes now. I tried to be perfect once. I don’t try that any more.

You just worked with your son, Alexander, in Melancholia. How was that?
Ah, it’s great. I have three sons that are actors, and I’ve worked with all of them. It’s fun because you see… First of all, being in a room with your family is nice. But also when you start working, it’s very easy when you start talking about the scene; you reach a point of understanding so much faster because you think the same way. Also, you know each other so well, and you recognise things in each other and laugh at them. It’s very funny. It’s also a warm feeling. And it was nice to see him work so well with Lars, and Lars loved him so much. After every take, Lars came up to me and said, ‘You see, he’s much better than you are!’ I’d say, ‘Lars, that’s evolution for you!’

Are you amazed by Alexander’s success in True Blood?
Yeah, but the kind of success in terms of fame, you cannot predict. But I saw him in Generation Kill, where he was very, very good. Flawless American accent. That was a great, great job. When I saw my son naked on the front of Rolling Stone magazine, then I realised he’s gotten somewhere!

You’re coming up in the ultimate Marvel film, The Avengers. Will it be the greatest superhero film of them all?
I don’t know. There are a fucking lot of people [in it]! Poor Joss Whedon is writing it, and he’s got to get all those characters in, all those stars happy, and still have a story that somebody can follow. It’s a tough task but I think he’s done a wonderful job. •

Taken from movieScope magazine, Issue 25 (Nov/Dec 2011)

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View

While there is a widespread, vocal opposition to the advent of 3D, there are many who believe that it is crucial to the future of filmmaking. Here, film critic Scott Jordan Harris explains why we should embrace the third dimension…

Tweet

To many film critics, 3D is a disease. They think it is a gimmick that pushes audiences into paying more than they should and that pulls filmmakers away from the traditional skills of their art. Mark Kermode, for example, believes the issue important enough to identify himself as ‘militant about 3D’ even when limited to the 160 characters of a Twitter bio, and many like him oppose the stereoscopic image whenever it appears, arguing that the development of 3D is entirely unnecessary for film. They’re wrong. 3D is essential to the health of cinema, and those who can’t see that fail to understand the evolutionary principles that drive, and have always driven, filmmaking.

There are many complaints against 3D: it is too dim; it is too expensive; it encourages the retrofitting of 3D into films shot in 2D; and it turns films into a fairground attraction. Some of these complaints are, in the short term, quite correct. 3D films are more expensive and their pictures are dimmer. But this will not always be the case. If technology improves, and if 3D becomes commonplace, prices will fall and standards will rise. When sound first came to the cinema, cinematography suffered. Cameras became too heavy and awkward to rotate and glide and swoop as they had before. But these limitations were soon overcome; they were not used to dismiss sound as a disposable gimmick.

Those who love film should never fear its evolution but only its stagnation

The complaints against retrofitted 3D are right: it is an abomination akin to the colourisation of black-and-white films. But, again, if 3D filmmaking becomes more commonplace, retrofitting will quickly become unnecessary and unprofitable. The argument that 3D makes film into a fairground attraction is nonsense; it has always been one. From the first freakish appeal of witnessing images appear to move on screen, to the wonder of seeing astonishingly sophisticated 21st century CGI, the marvel of new technology has always been one of cinema’s chief attractions.

Beneath the specific attacks on stereoscopy is a single, simple, fear: that a 3D film—or perhaps a future in which 3D films make up the majority of major releases—simply isn’t cinema as we understand it. This fear, though understandable, is all but baseless.

Film is a uniquely capacious art form; it is capable of absorbing and extending almost every other art we have created. What’s more, whenever a new art or technology appears (and the emergence of one is often linked to the emergence of the other), film seizes it too, and, eventually, great movies are made because of it. So it will be with 3D.

But the success or failure of 3D itself is actually immaterial. What matters is the principle behind the 3D experiment: that finding radically new ways of making films—and, yes, of finding radically new ways of making money from films—has always been essential to maintaining the power and prominence of cinema.

Film is forever moving forward. Had cinema ever stayed as ‘film as we know it’, it would have rejected feature-length productions, sound, colour, Technicolor, animation, widescreen, special effects and a hundred thousand other innovations, enormous and minuscule, that have stretched cinema to be all that it is. Those who cringe at the idea that the majority of movies will one day be in 3D would, years ago, have been appalled at the prospect that the majority of movies would one day be in sound or colour.

Film will only ever truly cease to be ‘film as we know it’ if it abandons its built-in mechanism for expansion, adaptation and appropriation. And that means it must forever change from that to which we are accustomed into that of which we are unsure. If it does not, film will stop being what it has been practically since its birth: the frontier of both art and entertainment. Those who love film should never fear its evolution but only its stagnation. To resist progress, and be overtaken by other forms of art and entertainment more in line with contemporary technology, therein lies obsolescence.

To those who make movies, I say this: go out to the technological limits of filmmaking and keep pushing forward. Many of your experiments will fail. Some will succeed. But all will benefit filmmaking. To those who fret over the future of film in the age of digital 3D, or the age of CGI, or the age of holograms being beamed directly into our brains that seems certain to follow, I can say only this: relax. Film will be fine. •

Taken from movieScope magazine, Issue 25 (Nov/Dec 2011)

movieScope Magazine movieScope Magazine - Movies From An Insider's Point Of View