Sunday, 26 December 2010 21:48 Written by Andrew Hewson

Top 10 films of 2010!

Top 5 underseen films of 2010

These films, although well received on the festival circuit, did not quite reach the wider audiences they so deserved. There's always time to catch them all on DVD mind. In fact that's a must!

Top 5 films that deflated established filmmakers...just a tad

Don't get us wrong, these films aren't god awful; it's just they're not that great either. In all fairness expectations can be a hindrance to one's wholehearted enjoyment of a film, but lets face it if you went to Heston Blumenthal's restaurant and was served up an egg mayo sandwich, well... These films haven't exactly affected the careers of their critically acclaimed Directors by any means; but you can't help but expect more from filmmakers of their calibre.

Don't agree? Let us know which films you think deserve to be up there instead.

Monday, 13 December 2010 22:39 Written by Tom Hewson

Somewhere

Nearly Possibly Maybe Nearly Possibly Maybe Nearly Possibly Maybe...probably.

Wednesday, 17 November 2010 00:59 Written by Tom Hewson

After last month’s wonderfully cosy and candid Film Forum West Midlands Q&A at The Victoria (a success determined by a variety of factors...), we were far from needing spoon fed the notion that we should return once again; this time around armed with films and our Filmrats' faces. Seeing as we’re dedicating our final screening event of 2010 to short films only, what better place to set up screen and light than in The Victoria; amongst its glum-yet-gracious decor.

Whilst we’ve been busy sieving through some of our favourite shorts of the year to screen alongside a host of newbies (equally awesome in character), illustrator Hayley Warham took it upon herself to design the poster. The D.I.Y cut & paste style - or I suppose the somewhat literal method of Hayley’s – has really grasped the spirit of Filmrats: to create a bare-back-to-basics event where any preconceived conceptions of a film evening being cold and pretentious are made redundant upon arrival. Hayley’s scrapbook approach to her work made us happy. It’s what Filmrats was born from...

Here’s a link to Hayley’s official site: HERE. Have a good ole’ peruse of her work because it certainly has an awful lot to say. And of course, what’s a voice without its recipient? Also her angst towards the Royal Mail in one particular piece is hilarious and oh so true, at times.

We’ll hopefully be chatting to both of our design contributors very shortly. So if the work of Hayley Warnham and Benjamin Phillips interest you then watch this space, or keep those eyes peeled, or just make a note, possibly next to the one about that screening evening on the 29^th November @ The Victoria?

We know we’ve been rather hushed over recent months, but we’re currently head down making plans to better/make more of Filmrats for 2011. Y'know, fresh start and all. Our current aim is – and always has been - to make the somewhat unsocial, social. We’ve certainly exhausted this aim in all its positivity/entirety. This is why we’re evolving. Are we excited? Yes. Are we going to digress more on the move now? Shh.

So yes, our last event of 2010...

We really do hope to see you there.

Tuesday, 12 October 2010 15:20 Written by Tom Hewson

Pretty much what it says in the title; we are looking for illustrators/artists who would be up for the challenge of designing the next Filmrats poster.

Last month London-based illustrator Benjamin Phillips put his mark on Filmrats. His design - the one you can see above! - was both provocative and comical. Perhaps because of the naked woman...yes possibly, but it certainly made us smile and brought a new element to the evening.

Benjamin has previously worked with an eclectic mix of clients including Wichita Records (for which he's done various album sleeves for post-folk primer's Peggy Sue), The Big Issue and even Topman.

Go and look at his illustrations. now. And don't forget to browse over his 'top 5' collection he did for Quench magazine. It's a personal favourite.

(keep your eyes peeled for more on Benjamin Phillips in a later post. here on Filmrats. hopefully a Q&A...)

Anyhoo, we're open to all ideas and eager to see what gets thrown our way, so if you would be interested in the challenge please shout on over (or email us - This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it - just thinking it might be easier...)with any questions or ideas or concerns or, well practically anything & everything.

Thursday, 09 September 2010 19:23 Written by Tom Hewson

Unfortunately my third day at FrightFest was initially halted courtesy of First Capital Connect and their utterly dire Sunday service. As a result I missed out on a truly exceptional film. Thankfully Andrew managed to get to the EMPIRE in time for We Are What We Are though. Here’s what he had to say about it:

WE ARE WHAT WE ARE (aka SOMOS LO QUE HAY)

We Are What We Are is an astonishing, dark and fascinating film by Mexican director Jorge Michel Grau. It tells the story of three teenage children having to take responsibility for the family after their father passes away. These newfound responsibilities include the hunting and putting of food on the table; the only thing is the food they happen to eat is human flesh as the whole family are cannibals. This is not just your average cannibal movie though; there is real substance to it. The film focuses more on the relationship between the three teenagers and their mother whilst they struggle to survive rather than vacuously having one gory scene after another of them eating people. Although gore isn't central to the films appeal, it's still not short on brutal violence and moments of harrowing terror, especially during the films tense finale.

The characters are remarkably well written and the acting is tremendous. The performances from the two brothers and their sister shine through in scenes where they appear truly vulnerable and - in times of pure desperation - completely sociopathic and relentless.  This makes for very menacing but intriguing viewing. We Are What We Are is beautifully shot and is possibly on a par with Let The Right One In as it conveyed just as much anguish, isolation and proved that you can make an intelligent horror without relying on cheap generic tricks to desperately keep the audience engaged. This haunting story is an exceptional debut by Jorge Michel Grau and it will resonate with you long after seeing it. Fact.

DAMNED BY DAWN

I did arrive in time for Damned by Dawn though...

According to the programme, if we were after Evil Dead 4 then we needn’t look any further. According to the programme, Damned by Dawn is the scariest Australian flick since 2003’s Undead. It’s never nice being lied to is it? Prior to watching the film it wasn’t difficult to grasp the nature of Brett Anstey’s cheese-horror. The poster: a hazy 1970’s horror pastiche; the story: the dead will rise to seek revenge upon the living. Essentially – we thought – Damned by Dawn will serve as a nostalgic trip to a time we have no recollection of; to a time when horror and comedy consummated their partnership many a time; and to a time when critters crawled back to Earth. But the result wasn’t quite what we had been promised or what we had expected.

The beginning certainly showed some promising qualities. As main protagonist Claire - a recently molded city type - arrives back at her childhood home accompanied by her husband Paul, her father’s erratic small-town-folk attitude contrasts greatly from the couple’s urbanised behaviour and as a result brings forth some great comedic moments. Such moments become incredibly sparse as the film goes on though, for it hastily becomes a series of outtakes from an Iron Maiden video. By no means is this film as visually pleasing as The Evil Dead. That’s not only an insult to Sam Raimi, but also a grave-lazy comparison in a desperate bid to gain some quick recognition. Instead, after some brief jumpy moments, what originally seemed interesting (the shrieking Banshee with the bleeding eyes) soon enough became monotonous to watch and painful to listen to. The film is only 81 minutes long but it couldn’t end soon enough. The problem was that it couldn’t decide what it wanted to be. If it wanted to be a camp-creature gothic horror then it desperately needed to have more creatures, more visual ugliness and certainly more over-the-top gore. But it didn’t and instead it sat on the possibility fence. What it should have been I can’t tell, but I do know what it definitely isn’t.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

Can I play with nostalgia? No.

Tuesday, 07 September 2010 22:23 Written by Andrew Hewson

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Exhilarating, innovative & charming. Flawlessly blends comic-book imagery with video-game visuals.

Wednesday, 01 September 2010 22:40 Written by Tom Hewson

Garrisons, werewolves and middle-class house invasions all in one day: only at this year’s FrightFest. It’s this sheer curiosity that carries me to London’s West End this morning. For today is crucial. After a disappointing start to the festival - kudos to F – I was eager to get stuck into something gritty, something gory and certainly something with more substance than a wank-rag. I was in high hopes that today’s varied selection of films would quench my thirst and settle my apprehension that British horror is in need of waving its white flag...

The first of our three films today was Cherry Tree Lane, written and directed by London to Brighton’s Paul Andrew Williams. Taking to our seats it was obvious that this film needed to inspire and it needed to put to rest the demons from last night’s prolific failure. We were not the only ones who required Cherry Tree Lane to prove a point about British horror either; the tension was very much audible. “Turn your phone off” echoed from behind. “Yeah I am love” whispered in response. That’s caring I thought; this lady doesn’t want this chap’s phone to distract us whilst we’re watching the film, and he didn’t fancy kicking up a fuss. A unity of a niche passion - I thought - is what must drive people to look out for one another then, like some sort of a cult that I now feel a part of. Although when I was at a Glastonbury debate on tackling racism, a lady in the crowd began her comment with “Hello, brothers and sisters...” which was most definitely cringe-worthy.

Anyway, we wanted to watch this film and so did this guy who was midst turning off his phone in fear of any animosity. It seemed co-operation and respect is the key to this cult’s success then. “I can still see the light coming from your phone, turn it off now”. Okay, so perhaps persistence is the key. “It’s being turned off love” he replied, but alas came another complaint, “It’s still on - I can moan at you all day if you like...” As she continued to whinge about the phone, I wasn’t the only one feeling irritated. Clearly thinking people were in agreement with her (“brothers and sisters” style) she continued to bellyache before a voice from the front of cinema screamed “Shut up!” which was followed by a raucous burst of applause. Rule #1 of ‘Feeling Part of a Cult’: don’t presume people agree with you.

Cherry Tree Lane; very much a film of-the-moment then, and a film of stereotyped viewpoints borrowed from The Daily Mail and last night’s F. As a middle-class couple sit down to eat their dinner at their Muswell Hill home, sipping on their red wine, a knock on the door turns into - yet again – another Revenge of the Hoodies. There to seek vengeance on the couple’s son, the film sees the gang wait in his lounge until he arrives home from football. As chaos and violence ensue, we bear witness to a battle of the cultures. That’s gang culture, and, err, posh culture. This is the problem though; it’s very much a one-idea movie: all filler and no killer. They sit in the lounge, they argue in the lounge, they drink orange juice in the lounge, they steal his credit cards in the lounge, they smoke joints in the lounge and they even watch TV in the lounge. Banal isn’t even the word...

This could be the director’s motive though, to show us what really happens during these makeshift house invasions that aren’t Bruce Willis/guns blazing and all. For entertainment value though it required much more meat. Sure there are some shocking moments that question the state of our society, but the tension built throughout the film went to waste on its sudden climax. I just wish we had more than 5 minutes of gripping drama other than at the end. After a slow build-up, Cherry Tree Lane flowers a little too late and is over before you can say ‘hug a hoody’. Also, why do filmmakers believe the term ‘blood’ makes for a more fearful character? There’s no room for another Noel Clarke, and it’s usage in this film seemed forced and all too cliché.

The hype surrounding our next film was unprecedented. Everywhere you looked you couldn’t help but be reminded of what was about to go down in the Discovery Screen. Garrisons patrolled the area; mostly posing for photos with fans that carried Fanboys satchels filled with a range of freebies – from a copy of Total Film, to chocolates, to even DVD’s. Why such a high-profile promotion, possibly even the biggest out of all the FrightFest’s films you may wonder? Well, Fanboys isn’t exactly a new film (nor is it a horror). Made in 2008, Kyle Newman’s geek-homage has only recently been picked up by Anchor Bay Entertainment after a series of complicated problems. The promotion then can be seen as a desperate means to finally getting Fanboys out there, but today it excites, it unites and most of all it sets the scene for a truly anticipated movie.

Its 1998 and four childhood friends united by their love of all things Star Wars drunkenly decide to break into Lucas’ Skywalker Ranch in search of something special, something life-changing and something film-defining: a copy of Star Wars Episode 1. Its six months until the theatrical release but their friend Linus has only a mere four months left to live. This drives the bunch across the whole of America and we play witness to their antics and encounters along the way.

Fanboys is certainly a geek haven. It’s a love letter to one of the most fantastical movies of all time. It’s riddled with references - some of them subtler than others - and the cast undeniably take the film to another level. Alongside cameos from William Shatner, Carrie Fisher, Danny Trejo and even Kevin Smith & Jason Mewes, the actors who really hit you are the protégé’s of the ‘bromance’ period - the Judd Apatow generation. You’ve got Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel and Kristen Bell all of whom have been involved in an Apatow production. And it’s this fact that makes Fanboys a postcard from a time of bromantical hype. It’s undeniable that if this film had been released when it should have been (2 years ago) - alongside heavyweights such as Superbad, Knocked Up and The Hangover - then it would be a different story today. Then again it’s almost underdog appeal makes for a more alluring movie. Coming out this October, watch Fanboys you must...

Third time’s a charm right? Andrew and I decided to swap some spare tickets we had at the last minute to watch 13 Hrs, a British horror in the same vein (and the same pockets of the producers) as Dog Soldiers. The plot: a lady travels back to her family’s mansion after being away for a while to discover - amongst other things - drugs, destruction, deterioration, oh yeah and a werewolf. Your typical gore story then, where - slowly but surely - each character is mulled to death one by one. With a recognisable cast, most notably Gemma Atkinson & Tom Felton, it seemed rather promising if only purely as a gorefest.

With such a basic premise though, the film required much more than a bit of gore to get an audience to jump onboard. A scare factor perhaps, or some half decent characters, or even some nudity (hey, it’s worked before), but 13 Hrs lacked all of these. The relationships between the characters were hollow and regimented, I mean for fuck sake there’s more chemistry when I wipe my arse. We found ourselves laughing at the film’s ridiculous casting and the portrayal of some characters. There’s a truly uncomfortable moment when the younger dude from BBC 1’s My Family gives a heartwarming-i’m-going-to-miss-you-if-i-die-so-please-know-that-i-love-you speech to his sister. It verges on incestuous and seems all the more satirical than serious. Stephen, played by Peter Gadiot, was so utterly posh he made the ‘gap yah’ comedians seem like extras on Eastenders. In fact, watch that sketch instead. It’s better than the film.

Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!

During the Q&A, I’m glad there was a guy sitting behind us who was loud and rude. When the actors were asked about the make-up process and the bald cap that was used, the sarcasm that came from this guy’s mouth was genius and more than welcomed. “Oh no, not the dreaded bald cap, how ever did you cope.” Then it got better when the cast were asked how long it took for the bald cap to be put in place. My saviour shouted, “What, all of 5 minutes.” Thank you sir.

So there you have it; my Saturday at FrightFest 2010.

Tuesday, 31 August 2010 15:29 Written by Matthew Way

Each year twelve British and Irish artists are given the glory of having their albums nominated for the Mercury Prize, celebrating music of all genres and tastes. As the website states, ‘the music on the album is the only thing taken into account’. There is no prize for best live act, sexiest female or most elegant walk down the red carpet – it’s simply all about the LP. So an all round well respected and worthy prize, yes?  You would think so. But there is often controversy over the prize and with rumours that Fuck Buttons and Gorillaz refused to put their albums up for nomination, you may wonder whether there is credit and even life behind the awards. Furthermore, this year’s shortlist has been termed one of the ‘safest’ shortlists of the Mercury’s history. But let us not be cynical as we explore this year’s line-up, looking at the favourites, and seeing what the prize can do to a budding artist.

Dizzee Rascal and The xx share odds on taking away the prize of £20,000 this year, fighting for their album to become the nineteenth winner of the Mercury Prize. I use the term ‘fighting’ loosely in this context, as there are artists out there who are rather sceptical towards the Mercury’s. Accompanying the xx and Dizzee on the list include Foals with their second album Total Life Forever, Biffy Clyro’s fifth LP Only Revolutions, and Laura Marling’s second album and second nomination I Speak Because I Can.

The list was introduced in 1992 to celebrate the full length and has always been considered an alternative to mainstream award shows like the Brits (despite previous nominees Take That and Spice Girls!?), and a certain level of credibility has always been associated with the awards. One thing the Mercury Prize can be appreciated for is the diverse nature of the music that is selected to represent the year that has been.

2010 is a little different. The list presents a largely guitar heavy collection of artists, with Dizzee’s album Tongue N’ Cheek actually looking quite alternative alongside an array of strings. The shortlist always seemed to employ a ‘tick box’ system in what music was included, feeling as though every genre and musical taste must be covered, which often resulted in the odd few novelty artist inclusions. Although this year the list does arguably tick many of the genre boxes, it seems somewhat less controversial or daring than in recent years, as most artists listed are no strangers to radio airplay. This could be a reaction to the result of last year in what could be considered a severe case of the dreaded Mercury curse.

The Mercury curse is something nominated artists often refer to, declaring that naturally they would love to take home the cheque, yet are slightly concerned of the result that the prize can hold for the winner. Speech Debelle was the winner of the 2009 Mercury Prize, but that created little fortune for her following year in music.  Since then, she has been unable to sell many records, playing to relatively small crowds and ultimately departed from her record company. One of the advantages of simply being nominated is that album sales increase, yet the Mercury Prize has a bit of a history in crowning its winner before waving the artist off into the setting sun of their career. Perhaps the most famous case of this is 1999 winner Talvin Singh. But of course this is no guarantee.

For this year, it would seem intelligent to back The xx debut, as one could argue they are the most original artist on the shortlist, receiving both critical and commercial acclaim. Yet the winner can never be decided using straightforward intelligence. Perhaps the openness of the prize makes it as interesting as it is, and interesting the Mercury’s must be; otherwise they simply become another award ceremony glorifying the music of the past year for the sake of television audiences and sponsorship deals (note the full title of the awards – the Barclaycard Music Prize).

The Mercury’s do have importance in their celebration of alternative music, boosting the repertoire of up and coming artists, or as in this years case, highlighting the work of legendary artists such as Paul Weller. The Mercury’s are not exclusive awards, but rather all-encompassing of great song writing on the album. So why are artists like Gorillaz steering away from them?  Is it the old cliché of being too cool for school (or rather awards)?  Or are the Mercury’s simply not worth the trophy plaque they are engraved on?

The traditional album format is in decline as digital sales become more prominent, yet for the industrious musicians who work towards this ultimate product surely the Mercury prize awarding the best album of the year is an honour.  While the future of the album in its physical and actual sense may be unknown, it is important that it is kept sacred for as long as it is here, and any award that promotes the importance of the album should be valued. Maybe it is time to put aside the award show snobbery and the politics associated with the Mercury Music Prize and to just be glad that the album is still getting the all important recognition. Here’s to another (hopefully) interesting year at the Mercury’s.

Sunday, 29 August 2010 02:41 Written by Tom Hewson

Having never been to a FrightFest before I was eager to find out what the mass appeal was to hoard out the socially elite. By no means am I being sardonic; I’m not saying there were more bandanas/pony tails than a female beef-cake convention and I’m also not saying that Leicester Square’s EMPIRE Cinema was encapsulated in a shell of a particular odour, but at times certain stereotyping – although severely offensive – can’t be helped. Especially if there are so many horror fans being cliché characters of their own misfortune...

Having already seen the original cut of the eagerly-anticipated remake of I Spit on Your Grave - shotgun raping, knob engulfing and all – I was certainly energized to indulge in some more gorno this weekend. Knowing that a few British low-budgets were also being premiered in the humungous 800 capacity cinema, I felt impeccably supportive - as we all should be – towards such home-grown talent, particularly since the demise of the UK Film Council.

F really does stand for FAIL

Whilst the festival kicked off last night (Thursday 26), I decided to pop my festival cherry at tonight’s World Premiere of F. In brief the film follows a teacher, who after having been head butted by a ‘hoody’ (pfft, fucking glue sniffing nobodies thinking it’s fine to intimidate us Daily Mail supporters ay? Take your finger guns and hatred for David Cameron and stick it where the police don’t search, probably somewhere in Runcorn) for failing him on an essay (what else?) The teacher turns to drink as he battles to save his flailing relationship with his wife and daughter, who he also so happens to teach. Giving his daughter detention in a bid to spend time with her, time restraints go awash and a whole night spent in school detention turns into a Revenge of the Hoodies...

Film for thought:

“Felt like it was shot as a commercial – every scene would be focus frenzy. The constant use of blur made for an uncomfortable watch. Certainly frustrating and at times rather nauseating.”

“Zero character development. 2-Dimensional portrayals led the 2-Dimensional action. There was no purpose for the characters apart from getting killed. Here’s the first to get killed, here’s the second, here’s the third. It comes across overly melodramatic.”

“Don’t use people from Hollyoaks! You instantly lose credibility”

“A one trick pony – there’s only so many times you can see a hoody free-run behind the yet-to-be-killed before it gets mundane.”

“Watch F for Frustration.”

The film happened. Admittedly your ‘first time’ isn’t always the best anyway; it’ll take a few times to really enjoy it. Anywho, like many of the films over the weekend there was a Q&A afterwards with Thee Director and most of the cast. The film had ended though, and we fancied leaving, quite desperately. Andrew stands up, turns to myself and Scott with a face like a deflated balloon and decides to lead the way out. “The entire film was just people walking backwards. Ergh." Andrew babbles whilst we collate our belongings, completely oblivious to one of the actors sitting in front of us. I'm not sure which one is more embarrassed out of the two...

As we were leaving the Director walked on stage to much weary applaud. He was rather painful. Like a Richard Curtis protégé, he went on to talk about F: “I’m just a boy, standing in front of an audience, asking them to like my film”. We left. Did I mention an actress who used to be in Hollyoaks was also in the film (the girl with the vacant face in the programme)? Well she signed autographs outside for fans, and again when I say fans, I mean men in Hatebreed tees and leather-bound autograph wallets. At one point I could have sworn a signature-hunter asked whether she was allergic to nuts. Hope she wasn’t because certain peanuts were being smuggled throughout the entire film. Okay, that’s a lie.

We left EMPIRE to discover a Christian preacher perched in front of a Last Airbender gigantic-poster talking about the consequences of sinning and going straight to Hell (he obviously did his homework). He argued, “How many times do you have to lie before you are called a liar and how many times to you have to murder before you are called a murderer?” Then he punched an onlooker in the face (he may not have) but who cares, I was there and you were not. If only he ventured into the actual cinema to see the real Jason Voorhees - but rather than killing people, he was making a killing by signing fanboy autographs.

Tuesday, 24 August 2010 22:38 Written by Andrew Hewson

Our short film Eric is being screened at this year's ArtsFest as part of their 'Short Cuts' section. It's being shown on Saturday 11th September from 3pm at The Crescent Theatre in Birmingham. As stated, it's the UK's largest free  arts festival so make sure you pop on down. There will also be a vast array of other screenings for you to engorge in that weekend!