TRIANGLE: The original INCEPTION?

WARNING: may contain spoilers.

My favourite film of last year was Inception; Christopher Nolan's epic multi-million dollar mind-bender that is as clever as it is spectacular. I truly love that film and credit Nolan with restoring my faith in the Hollywood blockbuster.

At the weekend, I watched a film called Triangle on DVD, that was originally released in 2009. I missed it at the time and regret not seeing it at the cinema. Judging by its takings at the cinema, it seems like I'm not the only person who over-looked it. It's a great shame as I really, really liked it. And after spending possibly hours on the internet afterwards looking for answers and explanations as to what actually happened, it led me to believe that Triangle might be the original Inception.

Now, before you start calling me an idiot who knows nothing about film, I know that, obviously, there have been many cryptic mind-thrillers made in the past that are similar to and have inspired films such as Triangle and Inception - Vertigo, Dark City, The Matrix, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are examples - so what I am talking about is more specific (and not only to bring up the fact that both films are directed by a British bloke called Christopher).

Triangle is directed by Christopher Smith - an up-and-coming British film-maker who also made Creep (which I haven't seen), Severance (a post-Shaun of the Dead Brit-horror which I thought was rubbish) and, most recently, Black Death (apparently very good). It is about a single mother, Jess, (brilliantly played by Melissa George), who joins a group of friends on a doomed sailing trip to the Atlantic Ocean. A freak weather storm capsizes the boat and then a large ominous ship conveniently passes them by shortly afterwards and they board it, thinking they have been rescued. Unfortunately they haven't and instead weird, scary, violent things start happening. So far, so Twilight Zone. But, as with Inception, there is much more going on underneath the surface. Inception posed as a kind of heist thriller set in the 'architecture of the mind' but in reality (excuse the pun) was more about one man's, Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), quest for personal redemption. Triangle, likewise, appears at first to be a horror film set on a scary ship but ends up covering the same themes that Inception does of loss, guilt and redemption and once again becomes about one character's search for meaning behind a tragic event. Like Cobb, Jess might be responsible for something terrible but she's lost touch of reality and can no longer remember.

Both films are well made, well performed, and gripping. They both have twisty timelines and confuse what is real and what is simply in the mind. They both must have taken ages to write due to their complex narratives (Nolan admitted that it took nearly a decade to write Inception) and they both have the kind of finale that will leave you either intrigued or reeling, depending on how you feel about open-endings. Most importantly, they are (I think) both as clever as they think they are (i.e. if you think carefully about them afterwards, everything adds up).

So why wasn't Triangle more of a success? Well, for a start, the budget was apparently a measly $12 million compared to Inception's $200 million. Also, Nolan's back catalogue is pretty special and therefore 'earnt' him the respect of Hollywood meaning he could do pretty much what he wanted. Smith hasn't got there yet. Hopefully he will.

Check Triangle out if you like and let me know what you think.

Triangle - tragedy posing as sci-fi.

BLACK SWAN review

The art of self-destruction.

After seeing Black Swan, me and my friend both agreed that it felt like we had been hit over the head with a sledgehammer. What we didn't agree on was how we felt about the film - he thought it was rubbish, I claimed it to be a masterpiece. Maybe I needed to sleep on it.

For the record, Black Swan, a psycho-horror melodrama by maverick director Darren Aronofsky, is completely ridiculous and maybe requires its audience not to think too much about it. The first half is actually relatively stable and works well as a dramatic piece about obsession. Then about halfway through it goes completely bonkers and I often found myself sitting in the cinema with my jaw dropped. It often provoked laughter from much of the audience. To say it is a 'Marmite' film would be an understatement.

The story is basic. Natalie Portman plays Nina Sayers, a determined ballet dancer hell-bent on getting both lead parts in a new production of Swan Lake (both the White Swan and the Black Swan), directed by Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel, playing a French bastard, again, and unfortunately echoing Robert Davi's performance in Showgirls). He thinks she will be great as the White Swan but doesn't think she has the ability to embrace the dark side and play the Black Swan. Complications come from the fact he is an absolute asshole and pervert (he tells Nina her homework is to, um, touch herself), her domineering and rather weird mother (an unnerving Barbara Hershey), and the arrival of new dancer, Lily, played by Mila Kunis, who is her complete opposite. It is a film about obsession and the dangers of allowing your art to become who you are. It is also a film about lesbian sex. Yes, Portman and Kunis do rude things. It would be totally unnecessary if the film was half as barmy as it is.

Black Swan is the kind of film that you have to allow yourself to be swept up in in order to enjoy it, and a film to admire for it's technical proficiency, dazzling visuals and a sensational performance from Natalie Portman. She might never be as good as this again. According to professional dancers, her dancing isn't all that. But you know what? This isn't a documentary and it's definitely not a serious film about ballet. I personally think she deserves every award that will be coming her way this year. I felt immensely sorry for her character throughout the film, especially in the early stages when you realise that she is a woman in her late 20s who has never had the chance to grow up and never had sex. Her room is like that of a 12 year old's and she is made to feel guilty by her mum for ever being born. At night she self-harms without even knowing. When the film switches to crazy mode, Portman gives it her all. It must have been such a demanding role to play. The camera is almost constantly within inches of her face; you can hear her breaths as she dances. Maybe she lost the plot during filming just like Nina does preparing to be the Black Swan.

Aronofsky is a terrific director. His way with the camera and lighting is exceptional. The performance of Swan Lake at the end is dazzlingly orchestrated and involves long, uninterrupted shots following Nina from the dark and dingy backstage areas to the glamour and beauty of the stage. When she (quite literally) becomes the Black Swan, it left me breathless. In terms of its sheer OTT-ness and schlock-horror elements, it reminded me of last years brilliant Shutter Island and the body-shock films of David Cronenberg (there are clear allusions to The Fly when Nina's body starts doing strange, horrible things). And its obvious (over)use of mirrors is very Hitchcock (Aronofsky clearly wasn't up for subtlety in this one). Black Swan felt to me like a true horror film - the horror of what one can do to their body and mind.

So I have mulled over Black Swan for a while. Do I still think it's a masterpiece? Maybe it is almost one. I think some of the script is unfortunate (mainly from Vincent Cassel's character) and Winona Ryder is under-used as the rejected ballerina who has most definitely embraced her dark side. But, still, I loved it. I'm just not sure you will.

4½ / 5

127 HOURS review

...or Saw VIII.

There is a horrible, teasing moment midway through 127 Hours where lead character Aron Ralston, played by James Franco, has a half-hearted go at chopping his own arm off with a blunt pocket knife. That alone made me wince. But it doesn't really prepare you for what is to come.

For anyone who doesn't know, and I'm assuming most of you do, 127 Hours concerns the real-life story of Aron Ralston, a youthful explorer of the Grand Canyon, who on one of his trips ends up trapped with his right arm under a boulder. He then has to do something a little bit icky in order to survive. It's a simple story and an interesting choice for director Danny Boyle. After the huge critical and commercial success of Slumdog Millionaire, Boyle was probably offered some big budget Hollywood projects. But he is clearly a film director of principle and has in the past admitted he fears mediocrity. You could argue (I would) that he is a "proper" film maker, which is why he is one of my heroes. 127 Hours must have been a real challenge to make. Boyle loves a challenge.

One of the most remarkable things about 127 Hours is how exciting and enjoyable it turns out to be. Considering it's about a man being stuck under a rock, that's pretty impressive. It is reminiscent in concept to last year's almost-as-brutal Buried (i.e. Ryan Reynolds stuck in a box), but Boyle's hyperactive directing techniques means it has a totally different feel. Unlike Buried, we are not stuck in one place with the main character for the whole movie. 127 Hours starts off at breakneck speed, showing Aron setting off on his journey, falling off his bike, and persuading two girls to fall into a pool that they don't know is there. Aron is clearly a cocky, fun-loving, risk-taking guy who likes to go off exploring on his own. He is also clearly a bit selfish (we also learn that he doesn't return his mum's calls or let anyone know where he is going).

Another remarkable thing is how James Franco makes us feel sympathy for this man. After all, it is completely his fault that he got into this situation. He is selfish and stupid. Franco, though, makes him sympathetic as well as likeable. It is a great performance and confirms Franco to be one of Hollywood's most exciting young actors. For a lot of the time, Boyle's camera is fixed on Franco's face, quite often in extreme close-up. It can't have been an easy film to act in but Franco clearly has skill.

The film doesn't let up throughout it's duration. We see parts of Ralston's past; his family, his ex-girlfriend and friends. And we see his hallucinations and dreams and slowly begins to to lose the plot. In the meantime, he keeps thinking of ways to escape and stay alive. There is, of course, only one way he can escape. It all builds up to that scene. And what a gruesome, unbearable scene it is. It made me feel quite nauseas but it also felt entirely necessary. This isn't some torture-porn movie directed by Eli Roth, it's a movie about something that actually happened. I think that's partly why I found it so difficult to watch.

127 hours is the amount of time that Ralston is stuck. But it also the amount of time it takes him to summon up the courage to chop his own arm off. It is a film about appreciating other people; your friends and family. Unfortunately for Ralston, it took a boulder and the loss of his right arm to fully realise how important other people are.

So 127 Hours isn't pretty, but it is another excellent addition to Danny Boyle's eclectic and impressive filmography. I can't wait to see what project he chooses next.

Oh, and the soundtrack is bloody brilliant.

4 / 5

THE KING'S SPEECH review

Oh it is awwf'ly good.

The immortal words 'UK Film Council' appear on the screen at the beginning of The King's Speech. For all the mistakes that now defunct funding-body made, if it helped to give us films of this quality then you begin to wish it back to life. The King's Speech is a mightily fine piece of work which shows the kind of film the British are capable of making if a decent amount of money is invested into it.

I'll be honest, I am not exactly a fan of the Royal Family and therefore not really a fan of films about them. But I went to see The King's Speech for a few reasons; Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter - three excellent actors. And it is directed by Tom Hooper, who directed The Damned United, which I liked very much. I kind of knew what to expect - a heroic story about one man overcoming his disability resulting in a climatic ending where he 'wins' and the audience is left with a big fat smile on their face. I knew it was mainly about a friendship and so there was likely to be moments of tenderness and conflict between the two friends and ultimately they would end up best buds. And I knew it would be very 'British'. I was right about all this. The film is pretty predictable. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. Sometimes all you need is a wonderfully acted and brilliantly written feel-good movie. This is one of the highest order.

The story concerns the Duke of York, Albert Frederick Arthur George (Colin Firth), i.e. 'Bertie' (to his family), and soon-to-be King George VI (in 1936). He is a deeply insecure man with a crippling stammer that results in him unable to speak in public. With his brother Edward (Guy Pearce) running off with Mrs Simpson after he has become King, resulting in his abdication, Bertie is to inherit the throne, meaning he will need to do a lot more public speaking. Add to this the invention of radio at this time and he'll be required to speak to quite a lot of people. His wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), who would become The Queen Mother, in a last ditch attempt to find someone who can help him, contacts an eccentric Australian failed actor and speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who uses rather unusual methods, which anger Bertie to begin with. From then on we have the build up to the big speech - a wartime message to the UK and British Commonwealth nations once Hitler has declared war.

The King's Speech rests heavily on the two main performances of Firth and Rush, and they deliver in spades. Firth has the kind of face that evokes a hundred different emotions with the blink of an eye; the kind of face that can make you want to cry just by looking at it because he makes you understand the sadness of this character - someone who, as Royalty, should be strong and confident. He is the complete opposite. It is a performance asking for and deserving of awards. Rush, for me, is his equal. Logue is played as an eccentric, funny and charismatic individual whose doctoring techniques and general unimpressed attitude towards Royalty make for some genuinely hilarious moments. The way the two actors play off each other is a joy to watch and the big moment at the end is expertly played by both of them. Even the most hardened anti-Royalist shouldn't feel bad if they end up giving the film (and the King) a standing ovation and round of applause at the end (most of the audience in the cinema did in the showing I went to).

The support is universally excellent as well. Bonham Carter plays the Queen Mum as a strong yet emotional wife who fully supports her husband and really wants him to succeed. For me, she is one of Britain's great character actresses and I would expect this performance to at least get her nominated during the awards season. Guy Pearce turns in an incredibly plummy performance as King Edward, somehow pulling it off, and Michael Gambon is excellent as King George V even though he is only in a few scenes.

So The King's Speech isn't anything new as such. In fact it's a confidently old-fashioned piece of work. And in the end it is about a speech (quite a lot of drama over just words). But the performances and script make it brilliant. A great start to 2011.

4½ / 5