Grown-Ups Premiere!!

No, this is not a review...I was,unfortunately, on the outside looking in for this one. Adam Sandler, Chris Rock, David Spade and Kevin James were in Dublin tonight for the premiere of their new film Grown-Ups. Among the throngs of fans, Jedward-spotters and rude Spanish students with pointy elbows was me with my camera and my beautiful special edition Punch Drunk Love DVD. I know this is a one-way ticket to film critic oblivion but I don't care, I'll admit it loud and clear I love Adam Sandler. He's been my favourite since I first fell in love with him in The Wedding Singer. And no amount of really, really dreadful films can ever change that!

I was uber-excited when I heard he'd be in town and even though I know someday I'll be in a position to interview him for this very blog, I grabbed my Punch Drunk Love DVD and queued and squished and pushed and pulled for a couple of hours and it was totally worth it!!

David Spade arrived first, followed shortly by Chris Rock who seemed unusually subdued. Perhaps his great new documentary Good Hair isn't getting the audience it deserves. Crowds went insane for Kevin James who inconceivably got perhaps more red carpet love than Sandler himself. Do that many people love King of Queens. Hmm...apparently so!

Adam Sandler arrived dressed in what was nothing short of an Adam Sandler costume, backwards cap, scruffy jeans, t-shirt and plaid shirt. He worked the crowd for about 20 minutes before being ushered to the stage to receive his personalised Dublin GAA jersey from 98FM. The boys quickly posed all together then went inside to watch the movie (or hang out till the crowd leave then scarper off to the pub).

Fun was had by all, but especially me because I have such love for Sandler it's ridiculous!

Interview with writer/director Neasa Hardiman

Interview with writer/director Neasa Hardiman

Toy Story 3

Written by: Michael Arndt

Directed by: Lee Unkrich

Starring: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty

Rating: 10/10

There’s something about the Toy Story franchise that is universally emotive. Presumably that “something” is the fact that everyone had toys as a child. Toys taught us how to love. Not loving someone because they are related to us, or because they live on our street and happen to be our age, but because we feel a connection to them. Now, as grown-ups, we all know that toys are only toys and our love is wasted on them. I suppose that’s what is so haunting about these films. They remind us all of that part of ourselves that left us many years ago, and dredge up guilty feelings about old Rebecca the Christmas Bear who now sits, dusty in the attic somewhere...if she’s lucky.
Toy Story 3 deals with just that idea. It is about what happens to the toys when Andy grows up. The film begins with the toys in a typically epic adventure. It is complex, it involves teamwork and it could be dangerous. As it turns out, the toys are plotting a very complicated ploy to get Andy to play with them. He is 19 now, and headed off to college. The toys have been sitting in their chest for years now, without being played with at all. When a chain of events see the toys accidentally donated to a day-care facility, the race is on for the toys to be reunited with their owner before he leaves for college.
If the first film was sci-fi, the second was a western then this is a prison movie. Their “great escape” is just as exciting and fresh as the previous two outings and certainly just as hilarious. However, what makes this film special is that it balances heartbreak and loss with warm-hearted sentiment so it never feels depressing, but certainly has a sense of tragedy looming throughout. We know there can be no happy ending and that whatever comes our way in the third act will make us sad, but the journey there is so joyous that the tone never gets too blue.
Writing about Toy Story 3 is difficult because it is not about the little bits of clever writing and brilliantly realised characters or perfectly balance sense of humour. This film is so much more than the sum of its parts. It accomplishes what so few children’s films can. It gives equal pleasure to children and grown-ups. It manages to entertain but also make the audience feel truly invested in the fate of these characters...these toys! No easy task!
This is perfect popcorn viewing for all the family and I dare you to sit through this film without at least a small lump in your throat. If this film doesn’t make your heart simultaneously jump for joy and burst with emotion, you’re made of stone!

- Charlene Lydon

Inception

Written & Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Leonardo Di Caprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard

Rating: 10/10

What do we ask for in a summer blockbuster? What is it that incites hysteria this time every year for whatever dross the studios churn out? Epic hugeness? Blowing stuff up? Romance? Action? Heroes? What are we looking for in a blockbuster? I think it all boils down to thrills! Audiences want the thrill of a car chase, the thrill of romance, the thrill of the spectacular! If that is the case, then Inception just might be the greatest summer blockbuster of all time as it also contains something we often don’t look for...brains!

“What is the most resilient parasite? An idea” says Leonardo Di Caprio's character Cobb. Well, Inception is all about ideas. It’s all right there in the title. The film central idea revolves around “Extractors”, who are paid to extract secrets from people’s subconscious minds by sneaking into their dreams, usually for the purpose of corporate espionage. However, when one client asks them to plant an idea in the mind of their corporate rival, “Inception” is born.

The less said about this film the better. It is full of ideas and invention and for each set piece I divulge, a piece of the film’s genius is weakened. This is a film that cleverly and intricately brings the audience through several planes of existence simultaneously but never allows the viewer to feel lost. Such is the power of Christopher Nolan’s script which, I imagine, is likely to get overlooked due to the sheer visual magnificence of his direction. But everything that makes this film so great is in the script...in the ideas! Everything else is just spectacle.

This film bears an uncanny resemblance, thematically, with DiCaprio’s other instant classic this year, Shutter Island. Both films investigate in depth the tricks a traumatised mind can play on the individual. Both films are luscious to watch and both films keep the audience firmly outside the realm of reality. However, Inception is an even more layered film than Shutter Island and I believe the sci-fi genre setting will prove to be less alienating for audiences than the prison noir of Scorsese’s film.

There is not a single dull moment in Nolan’s film. There is style, charm and intelligence in every frame of the film. Every performance is pitch-perfect with some strong support by Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt particularly who have grown up right before our eyes into undeniable movie stars. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a typically flawless performance as the muddled, grieving man who we never quite trust to be living in the real world. The best part of Inception is the large amount of effects which were done in camera. While the film does make use of CGI, there are some pretty mind-blowing practical effects which are as simple as the camera telling beautiful lies; a rare treat these days.

This is a blockbuster that ticks all the boxes; smart, sexy (femme fatale, sexy brainy girl, very beautiful men in very beautiful suits) and magical. Inception is the kind of film that reminds me why cinema will never die. Because anyone who thinks it’s ok to watch this film on a laptop or iPad is a fool! This is pure cinema, and proud of it. Not to be missed on the big screen!

Film Ireland "Get Into Film"

Everybody be sure to pick up the current issue of Film Ireland and check out my COVER STORY, Get Into Film, a 5-page argument for why you should go to film school! I also have a review of the very interesting Pyjama Girls and a wonderful little On-Set Horror Story by director Conor McMahon...if you like your stories maggoty, this one is or you!
So pick up your copy before they all get eaten up at the Galway Film Fleadh. Meanwhile here's my ridiculously comprehensive list of film courses available in Ireland:


http://www.filmireland.net/2010/07/01/get-into-film-listings-of-film-courses/

Good Hair

Directed by: Jeff Stilson

Starring: Chris Rock, Rev. Al Sharpton, Nia Long, Maya Angelou

Rating: 5/5

I have to say, the topic of this documentary had me curious from the get-go because I was simply interested to see if it could possibly make a decent documentary. Well, the answer is yes, it most definitely did. Good Hair came to fruition after Chris Rock’s young daughter asked him “why don’t I have good hair?” Being a man, he had no idea how to answer the question but began to ask himself, what is good hair? What does good hair mean to a black woman and what does hair say about African-American identity?

His search brings him to a hair convention in Atlanta, a barbershop in Harlem, a temple in India and many other interesting places. To discuss here what truths Chris Rock reveals in this documentary would ruin the element of surprise, as some of the content is actually quite shocking. However, Rock never attempts to be Michael Moore. The subject is treated with amusement and respect but never over-dramatic or heavy. Chris Rock proves to be a smart, funny guide through the black hair industry and he makes the film a joy to watch at all times. There was not one dull moment in this documentary, every point that is discussed is utterly fascinating and usually hilarious.

There is a sad reality that black women’s sense of beauty is based on Asian and European women’s hair and that these women feel having and Afro is seen as unkempt. There are two popular alternatives. One is relaxant, which straightens black women’s hair. This relaxant is a frighteningly potent chemical which strips the hair and burns the scalp, but it permanently straightens the hair. The other option is a weave, which is a fascinating concoction. A weave is a wig, literally sewn into the hair. It takes hours to fit and they are jaw-droppingly expensive. Rather chauvinistically, but still very interesting, Rock chooses to focus not on the economic ramifications of this constant expense in black women’s lives, but rather the expense on black men. He asks if they worry when they meet a woman, about paying for their weaves for potentially the rest of their lives. He discusses with them the issue of touching the weave. Apparently, this is a big problem between black men and women, one man claiming he hasn’t touched a black woman’s hair since 1986, and he remembers that occasion vividly.

Good Hair is an exceptional documentary which manages to shock, while making you laugh. It is brimming with loveable and fascinating characters and most importantly, it is infused with a sense of fun and good natured curiosity. This is delightfully insightful and incredibly entertaining. I cannot recommend this film highly enough. The random story of black women’s hair is one of the most fascinating stories you’ll see all year. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself!

-          Charlene Lydon

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Written by: Melissa Rosenberg

Directed by: David Slade

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner

Rating: 3/10

I’m sorry to report that this third installation in the infernal Twilight franchise is disappointingly similar to its predecessors. I had been hoping that director David Slade who is responsible for the fang-tastic 30 Days of Night might have injected the franchise with the dose of blood that it so desperately needs. Unfortunately, it seems he is as sanitised as the others. It is very clear that these film are so desperately in need of the tween audience that the filmmakers refuse to allow any glimpse of gore; even going so far as a focus pull when the villainous Victoria bites someone’s neck and making it so vampires heads smash like glass when they die! No blood n guts here, no sir!

This instalment follows Victoria planning vengeance for her boyfriend’s death at the hands of Edward (way back in the first movie) by trying to kill Bella. Of course this sparks a war between the evil vamps and the veggie vamps. As the evil vamps recruit an army of newborns the veggie’s join forces with the werewolves in a truce formed with Bella’s best interest at heart.

Meanwhile, Bella must choose between the very lovely Jacob who will love and protect her forever and ever and Edward who will make her a vampire and she can fend for herself. Bella’s decision to become a vampire, thus losing her soul, for the love of a boy is made even more troubling by the fact that she seems hardly distressed by the thought of ending her life. Despite pretty much everyone telling her it is a bad decision, she is staunch in her determination to do it. I dread to imagine the suicide tallies in a few years time if this is the stuff that is feeding our young teenagers imaginations.

Although this is certainly the least boring of the three films so far, it is as still almost completely devoid of humour, and the story structure is bafflingly tedious. The problem is that every dramatic setup is merely a way for the audience to gain insight into how much Edward and Jacob love Bella. There’s never a sense of danger, because we know that none of them die and despite the beautifully desolate cinematography (by Javier Aguirresrobe, fast becoming my favourite), there is not enough darkness to ever really thrill the audience. Eclipse tricks the audience into thinking that there is a dark, fearsome story going on but really it is just sanitised nonsense with no bite to it whatsoever. I cried for sex, blood and rock n roll after the first two films and hoped this film might give us some of that but unfortunately it has become clear that this franchise just doesn’t have the balls!

If you’re a Twi-hard you know not to bother reading reviews anyway, but this is definitely the best of the bunch. For those of you who haven’t been seduced, this probably won’t be the one to do it. That being said, Eclipse is shot beautifully, there are topless werewolves aplenty and it is far less boring than the last two films.

-          Charlene Lydon

Woody Allen: When it Works, it Works

Woody Allen's new film, Whatever Works hits screens this week. This enjoyable and heartfelt comedy is one of his more likeable efforts in recent years. Consistency has never been Woody Allen's strong point. His repertoire has certainly had incredible moments of genius but it is also peppered with some unfortunate cases of mediocrity and even some downright terrible films (Curse of the Jade Scorpion, anyone?). In the 50 years or so that Woody has been making movies, the divide between the good and the bad films have grown into canyons. Perhaps the reason for this is that Woody Allen is one of the only directors who has complete and total creative control over all of his work. That luxury is every director's dream, but perhaps it is sometimes more of hindrance than a help.

When watching one of Allen's less successful endeavours one can't help but wonder if the film would have been improved by someone telling him to cop himself on. One of his most notorious commercial failures was the 2007 film Cassandra's Dream starring Colin Farrell and Ewan McGregor. This film is definitely amongst his darker work, a twisted morality tale that balances broad comedy and philosophy very nicely indeed. Cassandra's Dream is a beautiful script with two first-class leading actors. The problem is it feels like it was directed by an amateur. It is an ugly film to watch, with no regard for style or attention to detail. The performances felt somewhat stilted, and despite the best efforts of the cast, the film just felt a little "off". Maybe this script could have become the film it deserved to be if it had a director who put in the effort, or if that director had perhaps had some studio standards to comply with.

That being said, for every Cassandra's Dream, there's a Vicky Cristina Barcelona, a joyous celebration of love and life that proves beyond any doubt that he's still got the skills and they're as sharp as they were in the 70's. Watching Whatever Works evokes questions about the pros and cons of the way Woody Allen makes films. Despite the inconsistency in the quality of his output Allen is still pumping out at least one film a year, sometimes more. Some of them are wonderfully fresh and honest, while others are contrived and bordering on self-parody. Whatever Works is fortunately one of his better efforts. It feels in every way like classic Woody Allen, and Larry David proves to be inspired casting in the leading role. In the film he plays Boris, a grumpy, ageing science genius who embarks upon a relationship with beautiful young bimbo Melody (a wonderful Evan Rachel Wood) and as a result gets pulled into her world and the world of her family. Slowly but surely, Boris' life and attitudes begin to change as he realises that over-thinking things isn't always wise and that life is all about "whatever works".

The charm of this film lies in the simplicity and beauty of its central philosophy. If looked at within that context, Allen's career can be given a brand new perspective. Maybe this is more than just a nice story, maybe this explains a lot about Woody's work in recent years. His films can be seen as experiments, as ideas that he brings to fruition by any means necessary. Some of them become great films, some of them become giant failures, but Woody's intention is to be as prolific as possible in the hope that all of his stories get told, some more successfully than others. It might be said that he believes that, at this late stage in his life, he can afford to take risks and hope for the best. Instead of getting bogged down in trying to find perfection, maybe he feels that it is a case of "whatever works" when it comes to his films.

Woody Allen is one of those rare people in the world who is so ingrained in modern culture that there is nothing he can't survive. He has survived a very public failed marriage, a gigantic sex scandal, and a string of commercial failures. The fact that his films are rarely commercially successful has never resulted in an inability to get more films made. Woody Allen is a legend, and I can't think of another director about whom the phrase "return to form" has been used so much. His audience can rest assured that if he makes a bad movie, chances are, his next one will make up for it. His legendary status allows him the freedom to do whatever he pleases. The idea that Woody is simply trying to get every story he has in his brain on to the big screen is noble enough to forgive any missteps he has taken along the way. At the end of the day, he is still one of the most brilliant filmmakers working today and it is clear that he still has plenty to say about the human condition and the complex nature of love. And let's not forget beneath the clever philosophising, he is a razor-sharp comedian and a genius wordsmith and that will always make a Woody Allen film in some way enjoyable. Despite his hiccups, there are still great moments of brilliance to Woody Allen's career and at 75 years old, the cultural awareness in his films is admirable. It‘s safe to say that although his experiments are not always successful, when it works, it really, really works.

 - Charlene Lydon for Totally Dublin.

Pyjama Girls

Directed by: Maya Derrington

Rating: 7/10

Anyone who frequents Dublin’s inner city knows to whom this title refers; a particular social group who walk the streets wearing obnoxiously brightly-coloured pyjamas. These girls are not from one particular area of Dublin but often seem to be found near Dublin City Council flats. Maya Derrington’s intimate documentary chooses one such girl and follows her for a few months in2009.

The wonderful thing about Pyjama Girls is that it does not try to be shocking, it doesn’t try to attack the culture that bred these girls, it doesn’t try to condescend to anyone; the film merely shows, very personally, the lives that these girls lead. Our leading lady, Lauren, while not always likeable, is brave and honest and clearly never allows the camera to influence her actions and reactions. She proves a perfect subject as she hides nothing, nor is she ashamed of anything. Her reasoning for wearing pyjamas is slightly odd though, as she claims they wear them around “the flats” because they are like one big house and it feels normal to just wear your pyjamas around. So why wear them into town? Who knows? That question was left unanswered, but the film alludes to the idea that society cares little for these girls so they care little for society’s norms.  This may be a rather grandiose claim, but one that may, in some way, be true.

Personally I was expecting a documentary about the phenomenon of the pyjama girls and how widespread it is, but what this film does is far more intimate. Perhaps my questions about these girls who swarm all over my local Spar were left largely unanswered, but the content itself is sincere and touching enough to make up for that and this is ultimately and engaging and enjoyable human drama.

-          Charlene Lydon

MacGruber

Written by: Will Forte, John Solomon, Jorma Taccone

Directed by: Jorma Taccone

Starring: Will Forte, Kristen Wiig, Ryan Phillipe, Val Kilmer

Rating: 2/10

Saturday Night Live may be responsible for some of the greatest comedy of our generation but for every Wayne’s World there’s a Night at the Roxbury and for every Blues Brothers there’s a Coneheads. Unfortunately, MacGruber is strictly in the latter category. Based on the popular Will Forte MacGruber sketches, which parody 80’s classic action TV show McGuyver, this is one stinker of a movie that truly fails to stretch out the sketch to feature length.
A bad start is stealing your opening sequence from Hot Shots: Part Deux and Ace Ventura 2: When Nature Calls. This says it all about the film. It is infuriatingly contrived and the jokes fall flat as pancakes. The plot sees revered renegade hero MacGruber called out of retirement after a nuclear warhead is stolen by the evil Dieter Von Cunth (Kilmer). There’s a silly back-story about Von Cunth killing MacGruber’s bride and some crap about seeking revenge on a driver who disrespected him. This is a very stupid film.
Having said that, there are some funny moments mostly due to the tremendous Kristen Wiig. Val Kilmer doesn’t quite work as the evil Von Cunth and for the record, the Cunth joke was funny the first time but it got old very quickly. However, there are some good moments of banter between the two and Kilmer does look like he’s having great fun. Unfortunately, despite a few laughs, the character of MacGruber is not very likeable and unlike a character like Austin Powers, he isn’t very clever. This makes it very hard to care about anything that happens in the course of the film.
A huge part of the problem is the casting. Will Forte is just not a leading man. He is smug and arrogant and lacks the charisma to make that charming. When movie stars show up as guests on SNL we all laugh at the outrageous performances they give and go along with their mannered comic timing for the good of it all. Here Kilmer and Phillipe feel just like that. They feel like awkward guest stars out of their depth. Kilmer has done comedy before, and done it well. Here, however, he just doesn’t pull it off. Ryan Phillipe is just a victim of poor casting. He plays the straight man to Forte’s lunatic but he is not able to rise above the fact that he just doesn’t have the chops for comedy. The female cast do much better as Kristen Wiig proves yet again that she is a force to be reckoned with and the lovely Maya Rudolph is suitably campy as MacGruber’s wife’s ghost.
You might find a few things to laugh at here and there in this action comedy but overall this film is a big waste of time. MacGruber is boring, unoriginal and suffers from an inexplicable awkwardness throughout. Not worth the price of admission.

- Charlene Lydon

Killers

Written by: Bob DeRosa, Ted Griffin

Directed by: Robert Luketic

Starring: Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl, Tom Selleck, Catherine O’Hara

Rating: 7/10

In this day and age, the standard of fluffy rom-coms has sunk so low that any film of that type that doesn’t leave me fuming and offended as I leave the cinema gets a tremendous amount of goodwill from me. It sounds like the easiest thing to do; make a silly piece of brain candy that is so fun and silly that you forget that it has no cultural or artistic value whatsoever. Well, unfortunately, if recent memory serves me (and believe me, it does, vividly) there have been some absolutely horrific examples of the genre in the past year.  Killers, fortunately falls into the former category of inoffensive nonsense that provides giggles, thrills and a good spirit.

Killers opens with lovelorn Jen (Heigl) on holidays in Nice with her parents, disturbingly comic alcoholic Catherine O’Hara and protective and stern Tom Selleck. As they check into their hotel she meets half-naked Spencer (Ashton Kutcher) and, as any woman would, falls head over heels in love with him. What she doesn’t know is that he is a CIA hitman who is in town on a mission to blow up a helicopter. However, soon after he meets Jen he decides he wants a clean slate and quits the CIA forever. Soon they are married and loving every minute of each other and their life. However, it isn’t long before Spencer’s old life catches up with him.

This film is not very inventive, nor does it tickle the funny bone as much as it could but it really is an enjoyable romp with a genuine sense of good intentions. The chemistry between the leads is great and, as a couple, the characters match well enough for the audience to engage with them. Heigl is a bit bland as always but she is likeable enough as the vulnerable and fastidious Jen. However, it is surprisingly Ashton Kutcher who provides the warm heart of the film. We all knew he could achieve levels of comic genius at time with his portrayal of lovable moron Kelso in That 70’s Show, but who knew he could give an underwritten character like Spencer some depth. There is a pleasant mix of heroic integrity and underlying sadness to Spencer, and this lends the film some subtle but much-needed poignancy. I suppose one of the most admirable things about this film is that it allows the audience to feel for Spencer but without falling into the third act sap trap.

This is a silly film, with nothing much to say. It is 100% fluff and doesn’t pretend to be anything else. But Ashton Kutcher proves a likeable leading man and a pretty cool action hero, which raises this to the status of decent popcorn movie. Do not expect anything inventive with this film, but take it for what it is and you might just have a great time!

-          Charlene Lydon

Melissa Rosenberg Interview

Melissa Rosenberg is one of U.S. television’s most prominent writers with credits such as Ally McBeal, The Outer Limits, The O.C. and most recently Dexter. However, these days she’s more well-known as the poor soul who must adapt the Twilight novels into screenplays. This month sees the release of Eclipse, the third in the series and a considerably darker film than its predecessors. Melissa spoke to TD about her work on the Twilight series, why she loves Dexter so much and the reason why US television drama is so damn good nowadays.

The Twilight franchise is outrageously popular. Is it daunting to take on the challenge of adapting the novels?
Well I’m thrilled to be a part of it, that’s for sure. It is daunting. And its also surreal. It’s so separate from my day to day life. I wake up, I go to my office and I sit at my computer and I have to come up with the next idea which is a very humbling experience. It’s very grounded, day in day out. It’s just me and my dog hanging out in my office every day and then you go out and you see this frenzy that surrounds the movies and all this connection and you think “wow, I wrote those”. It’s very divorced from reality for me.

What approach do you take to the material in terms of making it cinematic?
Film is a visual medium, the direction, the actors can tell so much more than dialogue can so very often what I’m doing is actually taking dialogue away so that the actors can tell the story with a look or a visual representation. It’s really about letting the visual tell the story and not just dialogue. I think a lot of people think writing screenplays is about writing dialogue but that’s just a very, very small part of what the screenwriter does.

Each film has had a different director? Has this had any effect on your work?
Catherine (Hardwicke) was the only director who was onboard before I was. I worked very closely with Catherine on Twilight because I had a very short period of time to write that one. I had the very definite deadline of the writers strike that was looming. She was a very close collaborator on that but the other two I was onboard before the directors.

Eclipse is much darker in tone than the previous two novels. Did you embrace the darkness of Eclipse?
I completely agree. It is darker. And the stakes just continue to grow and I completely embraced it. My job is to really bring the novel to the screen. There have always been dark undertones to all the Twilight movies but this one gave me the freedom to go even darker. It’s kind of my natural tendency anyway. I like dark. I like edgy.

Why is the Twilight franchise so popular?
I would say its two-fold. One, you have the character of Bella who is such a universal character. She is the “everygirl”. Everyone can see themselves in her. So you have a character that brings you into a world and everything is told from her perspective so you have a very intimate guide into the world. And then you place this character into this very epic romance. It’s so evocative for older people of their youth and the rush of  first love and for younger people its just everything you could hope for. So, it’s a combination of these two things. This very intimate, real character to invest in and then placing her in a world that is the ultimate situation we all yearn for…the ultimate romance.

Your background is mostly in television. Do you think adapting a series of books is more comfortable for you than a standalone film?
I think adapting a movie as rich as Twilight is a different kind of challenge than producing a standalone film. It’s such rich material to play around in. Writing this series of books is not unlike writing for television because of the continuing storyline and the same characters and there are four books and serialised storytelling is what I have been doing for many years so I ended up playing to my strengths. When I first signed on to do Twilight I approached it as a standalone film. I didn’t read the other books because I wanted to experience it as the audience experience it. Coming into this world from Bella’s perspective and not knowing more. So as soon as I finished writing Twilight I went home and quickly read the other books, delved into the thick mythology. So Twilight started out as a standalone film. It’s a challege, you’re kind of writing in a vaccuum. You’re inventing everything anew for the screen. There’s something freeing about it, you’re not locked into any voice or character but there’s also something very challenging about it writing for characters you know really well, pushing them into new places.

There’s a rumour that the next film Breaking Dawn is to be split into two parts. Do you have a preference between one film or two films?
Well, I think its still up in the air. My preference would be for two films. it’s a really dense novel. There’s a lot of story in there.

Your career has mainly been focussed on TV, with shows such as The O.C., Ally McBeal and Dexter. People say TV is going through its best and worst time ever regarding quality. TV drama is better than ever but there’s a lot of terrible reality TV out there too. Do you have any thoughts on this?
I honestly feel that some of the best writing in the film industry in general is going on in television. And that has a lot to do with cable coming to the forefront. Cable is a very creative place to be. On network television you’re writing twenty episodes per season. You’re lucky if you get to write a second draft of a script. The time limitations are not particularly conducive to good writing. So when you have a successful, high quality network show its amazing. I’m always in awe of the people who can pull that off because it’s very difficult. With cable, you’re doing only ten or twelve episodes and you have time. On Dexter, we have four episodes written before we even start shooting. And quality has everything to do with rewriting and time. Yes, you can pop something out quickly and it can be good but the more time you get to spend with your script the better the work. I’ve had more time on the last couple of Twilight movies so they keep getting better. Quality is rewriting.

The cable shows, from HBO and Showtime are wildly popular over here on DVD. Your theory translates well…
They’re extraordinary. They can tell really, really intricate stories and really unusual stories. They don’t have the censorship guidelines that the network have. They have to be pushing the envelope or they don’t stand out. And, as a writer, its just heaven. For me the possibilities of television, as a writer, has become wonderfully expansive.

So, Dexter is a cable programme. Did you find that a positive working experience.
Dexter is my favourite working experience of all time.

Why do we love Dexter so much? What is it that makes us root for him, in your opinion?
I always approach Dexter like he’s an alien and he’s landing on the planet and he’s exploring what it is to be human and there’s such an innocence about that and a vulnerability. He really doesn’t know what it is to be human, he’s just so dissociated and damaged. So he’s gone through life making a study of what it is to be human so he can pass as one. But he also, over the course of four seasons become more and more human with each episode. It’s very, very gradual. So we root for him to reach there and then he surprises us by showing us the monster inside him. This is not a vigilante. This is a beast! That’s what I love most about Dexter. The audience is invested in him and we’re shouting “yeah! Kill that guy!” and he kills him and then we see the evil in it, we see the monster in him and I think its reflective of the monsters within ourselves. Its really also an allegory about the death penalty in a way. Are we willing to pull the switch?

Is it easier returning to a character each week than writing for all new characters in each feature film?
Well, its interesting because each situation presents different challenges. On one hand you know the voice of your character. You know how this character that you know so well is going to respond. On the other hand you have to push the character into new territory. Where can you go with this character? It really forces you to push your own limitations and to really go places you wouldn’t normally go.

Have you got any other TV projects in the works or is it going to be Dexter and Twilight for the forseeable future?
Actually I am sorry to say I have left Dexter. After four years working on my favourite show I thought the time had come to move on. I’ve loved my time over the past few years working on the Twilight series and Dexter but its been pretty intense, seven days a week. I left with a very heavy heart because its been my favourite working experience to date. But I am by no means leaving television. I will always work in television. I love working in television. Its definitely a much happier place for writers than feature films.


TWILIGHT SAGA: ECLIPSE OPENS JULY 9th

Tracing the Roots of "The Killer Inside Me"

Film Noir and sexual violence have gone hand in hand since the genre’s inception in the 1930’s. Battered molls, stolen kisses, emotionally abused wives; they are part and parcel of what we love about film noir. From a time when it was ok to shut a brazen woman up with a sharp slap to the face, film noir was rather cavalier in its treatment of women. However, in its heyday the notorious Hays Production Code was brought into effect, which was a censorship bill which enforced the strictest possible guidelines for “appropriate” imagery in film. This is where film noir started to get really naughty. All of the sultry glamour that has become synonymous with the genre is due to the art of allusion.

While film was finding it difficult to express itself, pulp fiction novels were at their trashiest.In 1952, Jim Thompson published his novel "The Killer Inside Me" which caused a sensation due to its graphic depiction of sex and violence and most importantly, the blurred line between the two. The protagonist is Lou Ford, a sunny, charming small-town cop who moonlights as a sadomasochist and a vicious murderer. The content of the book was shocking and also seemed to be making rather grand accusations about society's attempt to gloss over the darker aspects of life and art. The character of Lou Ford acts acts as narrator and, although a completely unreliable voice, he sounds as innocent and as wholesome as Forrest Gump. The reader figures out soon enough, through his actions, that he is in fact an evil psychopath who takes pleasure in torturing the women who love him.

As a piece of literature, "The Killer Inside Me" says a lot about the era it came from. It comments on the supression of the dark side of life and the dangers of this darkness leaking out in the most unimaginable ways. The book has some very graphic examples of sexual violence and these are particularly troubling because each event is described in the first person, and even justified in a very unconvincing way by Lou. Hollywood in the 1950's was not averse to violence. In fact, violence was seen as spectacle and very popular, but it was always suggested violence, never explicit. Sexuality on the other hand was not tolerated. These restrictions are what created Film Noir. Over the years, as censorship lost its grasp, Noir has become something altogether different. The sexuality that burst from the films of the 1940's was suddenly visible for all to see in films such as Blue Velvet and Body Heat. Although we always think of wide-brimmed hats and femme fatales and monochrome cinematography, film noir has taken on a life of its own in modern cinema. Films such as "Fatal Attraction" and "Basic Instinct" mirror the eroticism and somewhat emotionally detached sensibilities of Film Noir. More recently, films such as "L.A. Confidential" and "Brick" have embodied Noir more explicitly, openly recreating the genre and paying homage to it.


Finally, almost sixty years after its first publication, Thompson's novel is finally getting the adaptation it deserves (the rather dull 1976 film doesn't count) and it is wreaking havoc on every festival it screens at. Starring Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba and Kate Hudson, Michael Winterbottom's adaptation of "The Killer Inside Me" pulls no punches in its depiction of sex and violence and, sexual violence. There have been walk-outs and storm-outs and accusations flying that even the filmmakers are ashamed of themselves for creating such a nasty piece of work. Nasty is actually a fair accusation towards this film. This is a film with a dark heart, if it has one at all. Casey Affleck, perfectly cast, has created a character so believable, so hideous and so likeable (I use that term as loosely as possible) that it is easy to understand how women fall for his charms. His demeanour is so unassuming that nobody would ever suspect he hoardes so much darkness.

It took Hollywood sixty years to catch up with Thompson's book, and out of the darkness of the 1950s leaked a story that is so shocking that it can still cause uproar in our desensitised, media-savvy world.Investigating the blurred line between a little kinky fun in a sack and actual sexual violence is surely the best way to land yourself with a bunch of picketers outside your film (short of making a film with any sort of allusion to the Catholic religion). "The Killer Inside Me" is far more cavalier in its portrayal of sexual violence and because our narrator has little, if any, idea that he is a psychopath, there is nobody to condemn him. The only voice we hear is the voice of reason from Lou Ford and although any idiot can see he's not your typical hero, or even anti-hero, the violence portrayed is so frank and cruel that there is a distinct lack of judgement or condemnation going on within the film.

Despite the controversy there is much to admire in this film, most notably the impressively dark character of Lou Ford. He is a presursor to Hannibal Lecter, to Patrick Bateman, to Dexter; he was the first of the gentleman killers. When you consider this character came out of the early 1950's it is difficult not to admire him and fall in love with the story, however gruesome it may be. Sex and violence are what makes film noir, it is what shimmies off the screen and slinks into our hearts when we watch Film Noir. With "The Killer Inside Me" it could be argued that Noir has come full circle, finally rid of allusion and showing audiences all the darkness they can stomach...and even more in some cases.


 - Charlene Lydon

Letters to Juliet

Directed by: Gary Winick

Written by: Jose Rivera, Tim Sullivan

Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Vanessa Redgrave, Christopher Egan, Gael Garcia Bernal.

Rating: 4/10

The problem with gratuitously romantic films is that they often tend to alienate those audience members who have a lick of common sense! While there is nothing wrong with a film wearing its heart on its sleeve, it is quite something else to try to embrace an airy-fairy heroine with no sense of maturity whatsoever.

Sophie (Seyfried) is in her mid-20’s, working as a fact-checker for New Yorker magazine, living in Manhattan and engaged to gorgeous, passionate chef, Victor (Bernal). Victor is just weeks away from opening his own restaurant and is unfortunately rather busy in the run-up to his launch. When they go on holiday to Verona he drags her around beautiful vineyards and gourmet food tastings (very difficult to sympathise) and she moans and groans until they decide to do their own thing. Sophie visits Juliet Capulet’s house where women flock from all over the world to bring love letters which they leave on the wall outside. The plot thickens when Sophie meets the women who reply to the letters known as the Secretaries of Juliet. She soon joins in and becomes involved in a 50 year-old love story involving an elderly British lady (Redgrave) in search of her true love, much to the chagrin of her snooty grandson (Egan).

The plot is silly, but rather fun. The Tuscan countryside is incredibly beautiful which makes the film pleasant on the eye and the plot moves along at a good pace, never leaving the audience bored. However, it is very difficult to villainise the “unromantic” fiancée who only seeks to live life with his feet on the ground. The term “true love” is tossed around constantly but the fact is Sophie has no concept of working through problems or allowing her partner space during a stressful time. She has no time for his passion for food but gets in a strop when he doesn’t listen to her nonsense love stories.

This is a silly, fluffy film with a small amount of charm which comes in the form of the enchanting Amanda Seyfried. Her love interest (Christopher Egan) is thoroughly unlikeable and they certainly don’t have enough chemistry to suggest that she should give up her whole life to be with him. However, Vanessa Redgrave’s search for her long lost love proves infinitely more affecting, and this part of the story is sweet and seems to have more of a grown-up sensibility. Letters to Juliet will probably delight die-hard romantics but it is difficult not to be annoyed by its simplistic and downright naive view of what “true love” really is?

- Charlene Lydon

Wener Herzog: a History

This week sees the release of Werner Herzog's much-anticipated Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans. A remake of Abel Ferrera's Bad Lieutenant (1992), a film which Herzog admits he has never seen, much to the chagrin of the film's director. Who directs a remake of a film they've never seen? How about an auteur who has an almost pathological desire to follow his vision; demanding and uncompromising, Herzog seems detached from many of the traditions of cinema. He doesn't watch very many films and this is evidenced in the originality of the work that he creates. His body of work is unlike any other. He has no particular modus operandi, as he drifts from documentary to drama to horror to comedy. Bad Lieutenant is about as crazy as one might expect from a joint effort between Herzog and Nicolas Cage.

Herzog has occasionally enjoyed critical success for films such as Fitzcarraldo and Aguirre: Wrath of God, and documentaries such as Grizzly Man and Encounters at the End of the World but he transcends conventional acclaim and has become accepted as something of an eccentric genius whose work always has something exciting to say but is not always successful. A case in point being his recent effort The Wild, Blue Yonder which has the fascinating conceit of having Brad Dourif play an alien musing at the camera for 90 minutes about life on Planet Earth. While most of this film is insightful and often profound, it's not quite E.T. in the entertainment stakes. ......

Herzog has a deep and often tumultuous relationship with nature, a beast that he seems fascinated with taming but knows he cannot. Many of his films contain themes of nature and he often sees nature as unsurmountable by man despite his best efforts. In Herzog on Herzog he refers to the "embarrassed landscapes of our world" which he clearly respects above all else. They are embarrassed because humanity thinks it can overcome nature, and despite its best efforts all humanity can do is beat, bruise and torture nature. Herzog's films contain beautiful imagery but I suspect their rugged authority is meant to be feared rather than admired. Grizzly Man is a documentary about a man who goes to live with and defend the grizzly bears in Alaska and (here be spoilers!) ends up being eaten by one of them. This is not Disney, this is one man's warning to the world about the perils of trying to overcome nature.

Herzog himself is an interesting character. In 2007, during an interview with British film critic Mark Kermode, he was shot at with an air rifle. Seemingly he had no interest in pursuing the gunman as he was unhurt. He merely mused that the gunman was "not very friendly towards filmmaking". He also famously ate his shoe publicly after betting his friend Errol Morris that he wouldn't follow through on a film idea he had. He went on to proclaim that he was saving his other shoe for when a big distribution company picked up Morris's film for international release.

Herzog is also noted for his fiery creative partnership with Klaus Kinski as documented in his film My Best Fiend in 1999. During the filming of Aguirre, Kinski tried to escape the film set on a speedboat, but when Herzog caught him ye is quoted as yelling "I have a rifle. You might reach the next bend in the river but you would have eight bullets through your head. And guess who gets the ninth?" The friendship flourished in some ways, the two seemed to continuously gravitate towards each other and they were responsible for some of the best work of each others' careers.

One cannot help but wonder if his new partnership with the increasingly eccentric Nicolas Cage will be another match made in creative heaven. Following the lunacy of his performances in The Wicker Man and Knowing, Cage is given free rein in The Bad Lieutenant to be as crazy as he likes. This works to remarkable effect and Herzog brings out Cage's best performance in years as the crack-addicted, morally bankrupt detective. Full of fun and hilariously over-the-top scenarios, The Bad Lieutenant is arguably Herzog's most accessible film to date. Awarded the Special Jury Prize at this year's Jameson Dublin International Film Festival, The Bad Lieutenant is sure to find an audience. By far the craziest film to be released this year, its mix of b-movie guilty pleasure and raw human emotion is volatile and undoubtedly entertaining. With serial killer drama My Son, My Son What Have Ye Done? and drama The Piano Tuner in the works, Herzog shows no signs of retiring. Approaching his 60th di recting gig, will no doubt keep making films until he stubbornly allows the reaper to drag him off to join Kinski in what will undoubtedly be a very odd mix of heaven and hell.

Words: Charlene Lydon (From: www.totallydublin.com)