Wednesday, 31 August 2011

A Decade of Documentary Excellence

Writing my latest article for Media Magazine about the documentaries that have criticised America for so many reasons over the last decade got me thinking about how great these non-fiction films are. The likes of Michael Moore, Alex Gibney, Morgan Spurlock and Charles Ferguson are giving docs a reputable name with many cinema-goers.

Box-office records have been broken, awards have been won (including Cannes' Palme D'Or), critics have drooled and audiences have cued up like never before to see docs on the big screen.

And it's not just muckraking. Yes, many docs have laid into America's foreign policy, illegal and immoral war-mongering, inhumane treatment of prisoners, obesity problems, economic crisis and alleged covering up of the truth of what happened on 9/11, but there have been so many other docs that also deserve a mention for raising issues, confronting the powerful and sometimes just being bloody entertaining.

Michael Moore may have brought non-fiction film to the masses with Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 9/11, but other filmmakers are working hard to catch some of that box office appeal. Morgan Spurlock with his gimmicky, silly docs for one.





But most interesting is the direction of Kevin Macdonald. With Touching the Void using vivid reconstructions of a mountain top disaster accompanied by interviews with the real-life stars of the story, a documentary became a gripping thriller in the hands of a skilled filmmaker. Following this with a couple of less interesting and significantly less thrilling fiction films (The Last King of Scotland and State of Play), he then returned with this year's brilliant doc Life in a Day. Taking thousands of hours of footage uploaded by ordinary people to You Tube and turning it into something beautiful, mesmerising, depressing, uplifting and life-affirming is one of the greatest achievements in cinema history. (See my review on this blog back in June 2011)





In the Media Magazine article I look at a range of documentaries that have attacked America from Taxi to the Dark Side (Alex Gibney, 2007) to Inside Job (Charles Ferguson, 2010) but a couple of other docs not mentioned due to their subject matter are Collapse (Chris Smith, 2009) and Waking Life (Richard Linklater, 2001).



Collapse is a terrifying must-see, particularly for anyone who enjoys conspiracy theories or just thinks that civilisation is always on the brink of collapsing. It might be just one guy sitting in a chair but by the end I was quaking in my boots and could not stop thinking about this doc for weeks after.



Waking Life is not generally considered a documentary but, and I quote, 'Waking Life is more a documentary than a work of fiction, because most of the speakers play themselves and talk about their real views' (http://www.aboutfilm.com/movies/w/wakinglife4.htm). This amazing film's use of animation (or more specifically rotoscoping) and its ideas about 'identity, dreams, consciousness, and free will' are mind-boggling and great fun to watch.



So if you don't like documentaries or you think they're boring, next time you start mindlessly watching a piece of reality TV crapola, try finding a classic doc to watch instead. Here's my top 10 in chronological order:


  1. Gimme Shelter (Albert and David Maysles, 1970)
  2. Waking Life (Richard Linklater, 2001)
  3. Bowling for Columbine (Michael Moore, 2002)
  4. Touching the Void (Kevin Macdonald, 2003)
  5. Farenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore, 2004)
  6. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (Robert Greenwald, 2004)
  7. Glastonbury (Julien Temple, 2006)
  8. Taxi to the Darkside (Alex Gibney, 2007)
  9. Collapse (Chris Smith, 2009)
  10. Life in a Day (Kevin Macdonald, 2011)
Seek them out, engage your brain, laugh, cry, be outraged and never forget! What have I missed? Is there any doc missing from this list that I need to see or include? If you read this, don't be scared to let me know....


Sunday, 31 July 2011

Paranormal Activity 3 Trailer



So it looks like a prequel featuring the female protagonists of the first two films when they were kids back in 1988 and their Dad was the annoying bastard that never put down a camera.

This has got a great spine-tingling scare in it but seems a little strange in that we know the two kids survive so not sure where this story is going to go. Surely we'd have heard in one of the previous films if their parents died at the hands of 'Bloody Mary' by now?

Still, I'll join the queue for this as the first two had enough scares to satisfy. What do you think?

Friday, 29 July 2011

TOP 10 SEQUELS

Another week, another list. This time its sequels. Love them or hate them, there's been some classics. As with all lists, this is very subjective. I'm not suggesting that these are the BEST sequels ever made but they are my FAVOURITE sequels ever made. These are probably all pretty popular choices (well the top 10 anyway... maybe not the near misses) but I think the films that are missing are what may be the biggest surprise. In chronological order:

Aliens (James Cameron, 1986)
: Cameron ramps up the action, tones down the horror and gives us one of the best fights in movie history. The marines are badass but Ripley outlives the lot of them and gets to deliver the greatest demand ever written.



Evil Dead 2 (Sam Raimi, 1987): Raimi remakes the original overdosing on slapstick, gore, insane camerawork and making the best horror comedy of all time. Bruce Campbell's performance is easily the most physical and funny ever seen in a horror film.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (Steven Spielberg, 1989): The best of the bunch; charming, exciting and with Connery at his best. Great stunts and a stroke of writing genius teaming 'Junior' with his old man.

Back to the Future 2 and 3 (Robert Zemeckis, 1989 and 1990): Part 2 is head twisting fun with an imaginative future, a dark turn in an alternate 1985 and a finale that returns to the superior original. Part 3, though the worst of the trilogy, still deserves a mention for an amazing train pushing Delorean climax that is edge-of-the-seat stuff.



Die Hard 2 and 3 (Renny Harlin, 1990 and John McTiernan, 1995): How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice? Not sure but I'm glad it did as the airport set 'Die Harder' has some truly brilliant scenes. Ejecting out of grenade-filled exploding plane. Fighting on wing of taking off plane. Bruce killing the frikkin T-1000. It's all here. 'With a Vengance' is cleverer and pairs Willis with none other than Samuel L. Mother F**king Jackson for excellent buddy movie banter.



Terminator 2 (James Cameron, 1991): In my humble opinion, the BEST SEQUEL OF ALL TIME. Improves on the already great, original classic. The special effects are eye-popping and the story is filled with set piece after set piece of mind-blowing action. The performances are all round perfect. And Cameron delivers another of the greatest action heroines ever in the buffed up, semi-psycho Sarah Connor. The T-1000 in truck vs 10 yr old John Connor on little motorbike is the best action scene ever!



Lord of the Rings 2 and 3 (Peter Jackson, 2002 and 2003): The 'Fellowship' was stunning but this is where the story really steps up a gear. Gollum shows up, Gandalf returns, the armies of Mordor advance and the fellowship is spilt. The final part of the trilogy brings it all together for epic battle after epic battle and a hugely emotional journey for Sam, Frodo and Gollum.



The Matrix Reloaded (The Wachowski Brothers, 2003): Overdoses on special effects in parts but the action is still incredible from the 'burly brawl' (Neo vs endless Agent Smiths) to the freeway mayhem and with the incomprehensible ramblings of the Architect, leaves the audience clueless about where the trilogy closer is heading. Unfortunately 'Revolutions' lost the plot.



The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008): Batman Begins brilliantly explained Bruce Wayne's turn to the 'dark' side. Backstory taken care of, The Dark Knight explodes with chaos thanks to Ledger's wild card Joker and the increasing strain on all Gothams do-gooders (Wayne, Dent, Gordon) that guarantees this is a comic book movie that is unlikely to have a happy ending.



Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010): Toy Story is genius. Many say the second improved on it. But for me the second one was too soppy and sing-songy. But the trilogy closer goes dark with real menace, a horrible bastard of a villain, and an emotional and tense climax that is apocalyptic, terrifying and at the same time absolutely beautiful.

And here's the 5 that just missed out:

Ghostbusters 2 (Ivan Reitman, 1989): Funny but also bloody terrifying!
Child's Play 2 (John Lafia, 1990): Chucky's back and malicious as ever!
American Pie 2 (J. B. Rogers, 2001): Very funny but also very sweet!
Jurassic Park 3 (Joe Johnston, 2001): Flying dinosaurs!
Austin Powers in Goldmember (Jay Roach, 2002): Cruise, Paltrow, Spacey, Spielberg.

What no Empire Strikes Back? No Godfather? No... sorry. Am I mad? Blasphemous? Joking? Does this list make you want to hurt me? Get in touch and vent your spleen!

Saturday, 23 July 2011

TOP 10 HORROR FILMS

Having been HORRORendously ill and injured for sometime now, I have had ample time to sit and think about the films I love and to compile various lists to amuse myself. So in honour of my HORRORific injuries and HORRORible illness, here are my top 10 horror films of all time in chronological order:

Night of the Living Dead (George A. Romero, 1968): Under seige from shuffling zombies, strangers trapped in an isolated house and a shocking ending in which the hero meets his death at the hands of trigger happy rednecks, not flesh-eating monsters!

The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973): Takes a long time to get going but this is still the best posession of an innocent little girl film that exists. Still terrifying, shocking and convincing nealy 40 years on.



The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (Tobe Hooper, 1974): Very slowly builds a sense of dread but chosen mainly for the final half hour. Once poor Sally ends up at the dinner table with the mad family, this is very scary, tense stuff!



A Nightmare on Elm Street (Wes Craven, 1984): Utterly terrifying for any 10 year old who has to go to sleep every night with fears of Freddy fresh in mind.

Scream (Wes Craven, 1996): Funny, clever, gory and an unbeatable 8 minute opening of horror movie geek heaven.


The Blair Witch Project (Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, 1999): Clearly inspired by Cannibal Holocaust but far less nasty and with better acting, 'less is more' direction and an incredibly detailed backstory created by the website etc.

The Others (Alejandro Amenabar, 2001): Creepy ghost story with some great scares and a brilliant twist that is surprisingly emotional.

28 Days Later (Danny Boyle, 2002): Beautiful digital photography and running rage-infected uber-zombies. Final half hour is ridiculously exciting!

Dawn of the Dead (Zack Snyder, 2004): Proof that horror remakes aren't all complete crap. Blasphemous maybe but for me this beats the original. Stylish, funny, less of the satire but more running zombies!

Wolf Creek (Greg Mclean, 2005): If you want your horror to be truly horrific, look no further. Grim, nasty and sadistic, this film takes it time getting to know its pleasant backpacking trio of characters. Wolf Creek has a movie monster so sick and twisted and a last half hour of rape, torture and murder that you will never forget this film.



And just because top 10s are so hard to do, here's another 5 that just missed out:

The Wicker Man (Robin Hardy, 1973): Brilliant ending!
Evil Dead 2 (Sam Raimi, 1987): Hilarious!
Switchblade Romance (Alexandre Aja, 2003): Bloody disgusting!
Saw (James Wan, 2004): Twisted and clever, like Jigsaw!
Rec (Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza, 2007): Mock-doc frights from Spain.

But what do you think?
Can't believe there's no horror from before the 70s?
Have I missed your favourite classic monsters; Frankenstein, Dracula?
Disgusted that Jaws or Rosemary's Baby isn't here?
Missing Hitchcock, Kubrick or Argento?
What about Jason, Michael or Chucky?
What's your favourite horror movies? Go on tell me!

Sunday, 26 June 2011

WHY I LOVE... FIGHT CLUB

Here I go again; breaking the first two rules of Fight Club!

Fight Club opens with a pounding, fast-paced, Dust Brothers-scored, computer-generated ride through the protagonist’s brain. It sets off at a terrific pace and rarely lets up.
So much of this film feels, if not experimental, then at least bold, daring, challenging and thought-provoking, in terms of its visuals, its structure and its themes.

Utilizing a circular narrative structure, the voiceover is used to guide the viewer through the story. The postmodern and sardonic drawl of Norton’s voiceover demonstrates his awareness of being in a film, even stopping the progress of the story and skipping to an earlier scene to ‘back up a little’.

I love Fight Club’s visuals because they are dazzling. Cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth and director David Fincher pull off a dark and dirty film shot with bold visual ideas that look like they cost the earth. The pioneering and stunning use of photogrammetry combines live action with computer-generated imagery in several amazing sequences such as the camera pulling out of the bin full of rubbish and the camera whizzing down a building, into the building’s car park, into a van filled with explosives and then whizzing through the streets to another building’s explosive-filled car park all in a matter of seconds.

The film is full of incredible visual effects from the plane crash to the self-inflicted shooting of the protagonist. But it is the experimental elements that are the most eye-catching and memorable. Subliminal frames of Tyler Durden being spliced in to the early scenes of the film, the flash of a single frame of porn at the end, the visible sprocket holes as Tyler addresses the camera and almost seems to be leaping from the film itself all combine in making Fight Club a film that violently breaks free of Hollywood’s restrictive visual conventions.

Accusations of style over substance are unfounded as the film is full of ideas and many of its visual flourishes serve the story and develop the ideas of the film in interesting and creative ways. It may not have answers, but it is filled with food for thought.

Released in 1999, after a delay due to the recent Columbine High School massacre, Fight Club divided critical opinion. Presciently referencing the massacre in its scene where Norton threatens his boss with a similar rampage, the film is also an eerie premonition of 9/11 with its final scene of the destruction of capitalist towers of power (by a group of indoctrinated young men) and repeated references to ‘Ground Zero’.

Like another 1999 film ‘The Sixth Sense’, much was said about Fight Club’s rug-pulling twist. It’s a shame as this is such a small reason to discuss the film. However it does make for fulfilling repeat viewings of the film spent spotting its liberal peppering of hints throughout. The narrative does not fit easily into a genre, lacking conformity with any rigid set of conventions. Some call it a thriller; some have called it a dark romantic comedy. Either way it is bleak but hilarious, exciting and strangely romantic and definitely not predictable, leaping from scene to scene with pace, wit and unexpected escalations of the action.

I love the script because it is littered with dark as dirt, blackest of black humour. Occasionally uncomfortable and insensitive with its cast of cancer sufferers, it still makes you snigger. And who wouldn’t laugh at a little girl crying at the sight of a single frame of porn spliced into a harmless family film?

But of course the film would be nothing without its central trio of brilliant characters and the talented cast’s performances. Norton plays troubled, depressed insomniac with a childlike quality but the film belongs to Pitt and Bonham Carter. Pitt plays hunky and alluring, charismatic and crazy while Bonham Carter is cast against type as dingy, dirty femme fatale Marla.

Marla looks as though she has walked in off the set of a film noir, smoking, dressed in black and ruining the life of our protagonist. She seems fearless, in control, independent and contrasts with Jack’s reserved, uptight personality. Marla punctuates the film; like an annoyance she disappears and keeps reappearing in Jack’s life. She is the one who comes across as a sympathetic victim on repeat watches. It is a gutsy and funny performance.

Meanwhile Tyler may come off as an initially enthralling and exciting character but on repeat viewings, comes across more as a bully and a hypocrite; he manipulates and pressures people to conform to his expectations. He is a modern day preacher but his word is anti-God, anti-capitalist and anti-society. He ridicules the unnecessary consumption of modern life but then smokes a cigarette (no doubt made by a huge multi-national corporation and in no way necessary to his survival). However he comes across as charismatic and intelligent, filled with little nuggets of information like why they give oxygen on planes and how to make napalm. Nevertheless for all his speeches on freeing yourself, Tyler turns into a drill instructor and for all his anti-authoritarian mischief, Tyler ends up a Fuhrer figure, manipulating the masses into becoming thoughtless pawns.

But really it’s the films themes, ideas and messages that are why I love Fight Club. Getting to the bottom of what this film is really about is tricky and pointless. It has no answers and has no message. It is nihilistic and bleak but very funny. It deals with corporate life and the corporate world but has product placement in many scenes. It touches on corporate practices with its brief explanation of formulas and protection of profits over consumer safety. It deals with consumerism, capitalism and the emasculation of modern men.

Some have called it a fascist film for its suggestion that violence is good for men and the world. Spill blood and you will feel alive it seems to say at some points. Follow and obey your leader unquestioningly to attain enlightenment. But the film does not fully endorse this. Yes bleeding and fighting do come across as self-help remedies that hugging and sharing will never get close to. But compassion is also shown as Jack realizes the error of his ways.

Some have called the film misogynistic but Marla is the most interesting and sane character in the film. Tyler may show contempt for women and there may be some strong homoerotic undertones, but the resolution delivers a reconciliation of man and woman that could easily be seen as conservative.
 
Fight Club also deals with religion and the Space Monkeys of Project Mayhem become parodies of cult members. The early stages of Fight Club are often compared to religious gatherings with ‘shouting in tongues’ and the aftermath of feeling ‘saved’.

The film is neither right-wing nor left-wing; it walks a tightrope of extremes. Ending with one of the most memorable and breathtaking shots of modern cinema accompanied by the haunting music of the Pixies, it is a film that I love and I can watch again and again and again.

Saturday, 25 June 2011

Rise of the Planet of the Apes trailer

Finally a prequel that has an interesting and exciting story to tell! Yes the fall of Anakin had its moments and X-Men: First Class sounds vaguely entertaining but this looks like its going to fill in the details on how one of the greatest twists in cinema history came to occur!



43 years after the original dropped its bombshell of an ending on unsuspecting audiences, comes the story of how the apes took over the planet. And what a story! The first trailer showed promise, but this most recent one shows the potential for real heart and a finale on an epic scale. Caesar the ape leader looks like an anti-hero worth cheering for despite something not being quite right about WETA’s effects used to depict the apes.

Like Deep Blue Sea before it, the premise of experimenting on animals to find a cure for Alzheimer’s is not particularly new. However if it results in increased intelligence in sharks and now apes and a ride as fun as Deep Blue Sea, I’ll be in line to see this on August 12th. Even if it is just to try and wash away the dirty taste Tim Burton’s 2001 ‘reimagining’.

And how come there’s never been a sequel to Deep Blue Sea?

Friday, 24 June 2011

Inglorious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009) Review

Synopsis: Jewish-American soldiers, the titular ‘Basterds’ hunt, kill and scalp Nazis in WW2. Massacre survivor Shosanna makes her own plans to bring down the Third Reich.


Thank God Tarantino’s back on track! After the double whammy of disappointments, Kill Bill Vol.2 and Death Proof, the director returns with this blistering, uber-violent, very funny ‘masterpiece (his words!).

The cast handle the script brilliantly with standouts being Pitt and Waltz. Pitt’s accent and jutting jaw are hilariously OTT and Waltz’s ‘Jew Hunter’ is another deliciously watch-able villainous and charismatic bastard that makes the audience wait in suspense for the bouts of (often) vicious violence.

Tarantino unfolds the story with trademark chapter headings and makes it plain from the opening title that this is a fairytale fantasy (though set in a very real, very sad time of world history). The script crackles with dark humour and cool characters, flying high above the (frequently) boring dialogue of Tarantino’s last couple of efforts. Building to a bloodthirsty climax in a cinema, the setting is fitting for a film that is all about film; filmy film where cinematic references are plentiful and the film-lovers in the audience are in on the jokes.

The opening scene is classic Tarantino and sets the tone for the rest of the movie with its promise of violence, a cracking villain and another Tarantino heroine out for revenge. If you were losing patience with the masterful cinematic magpie, give Inglorious Basterds a spin and then settle in for the long wait till ‘Django Unchained’.

Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Russia 88 (Pavel Bardin, 2009) Review

Synopsis: ‘Russia 88’ is a gang of fascist skinheads who roam the streets filming themselves being a right bunch of racist twats.


Continuing the filmic trend for charismatic psychos followed by sensation-seeking camera operators, Russia 88 successfully uses the mock-doc aesthetic to deliver its derivative but engaging narrative. Following in the footsteps of Man Bites Dog, The Magician and Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, Petr Fyodorov plays Shtik, an angry, ranting lunatic who just loves having an admirer film his every move. Though not as memorable as Edward Norton, Stephen Graham or Russell Crowe’s terrifying performances as Nazi thugs, Fyodorov holds the movie being reminiscent of Colin Farrel’s early appearance in Tigerland.

While the pace lags at times due to the minimal plot, the last act of the film veers into predictable but vaguely silly territory after building up a strong sense of realism in the rest of the film. The handheld camera and other traits of the mock-doc format such as the voxpops with (real?) members of the public, direct address to camera and seemingly unedited material give the film a powerful feeling of watching the footage of a bunch of rhetoric spouting racist thugs keen to share their life and views with the world via the internet.

Like an anti-American History X, the film uses no fancy tricks like excessive slow-mo, black and white or orchestral and choir filled music, making the film feel more real and closer in tone and style to This is England. However there are also moments of humour (mainly in the first half of the film) where the mock-doc style is used to undermine and humiliate these characters who take themselves too seriously.

Briefly touching on what turns young men into Nazi’s, the film comes up with one or two interesting (if not very surprising) answers. The scene in a training camp may be a reminder of the hatred and indoctrination that is spawned in other training camps around the world and the use of voxpops and the constant references to the footage being put on the internet make this a very contemporary spin on the skinhead psycho cycle.
Overall, Russia 88 is filled with realistic detail but tries too hard to create a powerful and shocking ‘movie’ ending that feels out of place with the rest of the ‘documentary’ style. However Bardin may be a director to watch out for in the future.

Friday, 17 June 2011

Review of 'Stake Land' (Jim Mickle, 2011)

Synopsis: Orphaned Martin is taken under the wing of bad-ass Mister as they travel across vampire-ravaged America in search of the refuge known as ‘New Eden’.


Aside from the fairly frequent jumps, scares and gore, Stake Land feels surprisingly subdued for a recent horror film. With its melancholic tone, ravaging of the religious right and focus on characters over action, the film succeeds in being a bit more thoughtful than many of its contemporaries. And don’t go into this expecting sanitized, pretty-boy vampires a-la-Twilight. These monsters are old school to the core- more like zombies than modern takes on vampires; all ferocious snarls and messed up faces. With fairly few jumps or scenes that are likely to scare a grizzled horror fan, Stake Land is easier to recommend for its realistic world-building, mournful soundtrack and interesting, well-drawn characters.

Opening with Martin’s voiceover as he introduces himself and his travelling companion, the enigmatic father figure and teacher, Mister, the film quickly flashes back to a vicious encounter between Martins family and the horrific vampires. Sticking with most of the rules of the vampire myth, it is soon established that stakes and sunlight are still useful in this tale of vamp vs human conflict. The pace is deliberately slow and the film painstakingly constructs a very authentic feeling vision of post-apocalyptic America. Guarded communities living in fear while supplies dwindle, drinking and sleeping together in packed bars until the sun rises and religious nutjobs taking over the wilderness to rape and murder as they please. It is this rendering of the Christian crazies that strikes the biggest false note in the story, feeling over-blown and too simple for the subtleties of much of the rest of the story and character drawing. 

The cast are great, particularly Nick Damici as Mister who delivers a convincing performance with the familiar role of mean old git with a soft heart underneath. Kelly McGillis is barely recognizable as a constantly victimized nun (bet she must be wondering what happened to the days of getting jiggy with Tom Cruise in a Navy uniform) and the youngsters, especiall Connor Paolo are good in their less demanding roles. It’s particularly nice to see Danielle Harris still working, even if she has lost some of the spunk of her early appearance as Bruce Willis’ daughter way back in The Last Boy Scout.

Jim Mickle should be applauded for his direction; the film works very well as a whole, with good performances from the cast, a bleak soundtrack and pacing that could have easily been spoiled by trying to appeal to a bigger audience. It is a brave movie; not overly rushed and taking its time to build to its understated climax. The action and horror are handled well and the villain is a right nasty piece of work that should stick in the memory.

The film is most memorable for its details of life after the vampires take over. The small communities that have popped up round the country feel realistic and lived in. A sense of community, of something we have lost to some extent in 2011 shines through and gives the film a nostalgic feel, as if the vampire apocalypse may help America return to a simpler, more caring time. The positioning of the cult of Christian crazies dropping ‘bombs’ on peaceful communities and their obsession with deliverance and the ‘will of God’ is the least subtle and most forceful of themes on display and does feel a little OTT in places but the journey of the characters and their encounters with ordinary folk ground the film and make up for its excesses in other areas.

Stake Land is a very well made film and can be enjoyed as a simple horror film but also as an experience of a post-apocalyptic society and the highs and lows of living in a world with a drastically reduce population.

Thursday, 16 June 2011

Review of 'Bridesmaids' (Paul Feig, 2011)

Synopsis: Down-on-her-luck Annie becomes maid of honour for her best friend Lillian’s wedding. Fighting and bonding with the other bridesmaids, Annie attempts to deliver the best wedding she can.


Kristen Wiig is officially a comedy Goddess. The co-writer and star of Bridesmaids takes centre stage after years on American television’s Saturday Night Live and being sidelined with smaller roles in recent comedies like Paul and Date Night. Here she is barely off screen and is a hysterical joy to watch throughout. Funnier than the entire cast of The Hangover (either of them), she would be enough to single-handedly split your sides, but with an ensemble this brave and funny and writing this hilarious, Bridesmaids is a laugh-out-loud comedy that deserves to rule this summer. The sisters are doing it for themselves!

Bridesmaids is very rude, occasionally very sweet and often ass-clenchingly awkward. If you think gross-out comedy belongs to boys, wait till you see these girls at their dress fitting. If you think men being mean to women is funny, wait till you see it as written by a couple of women. If you think the writer/producers of films like The Hangover push the boundaries of taste, wait till you see these girls get angry. But most of all if for some reason you think women, can’t be funny, give yourself a slap and go see this film!

The story might follow a fairly conventional path with the romantic-comedy trimmings resulting in an ending that lacks much surprise. However the narrative is tightly constructed and Annie really ‘hits bottom’ (allowing for countless awkward and self-deprecating moments) before the film delivers its predictable resolution. The script is brilliantly written with a touching and believable relationship between the two best friends, Annie and Lillian. The comic set-pieces escalate in a consistently hysterical fashion, standouts being the dress fitting and a plane journey that allows Wiig to show off what a gifted comedy performer she is. The script crackles with witty and memorable dialogue, much of it delivered by Wiig, but the supporting cast all get their own moments to shine as realistic and funny characters.

The best reason to see this film is Wiig. There is nothing she won’t do in this film for a laugh. Whether it’s flailing her legs in the air in the opening sex scene, toilet humour, acting drunk, selfishly ruining parties, or swearing at a young woman, all vanity is left behind. Wiig’s performance is consistently hilarious. As writer she has rightly put herself up-front, giving her a vehicle to finally show off her comedic prowess. The supporting cast are excellent with particular standouts being Melissa McCarthy as Megan (in another unflinchingly funny/awkward performance) and Chris O’Dowd as a sweet cop. However despite the presence of a couple of male British TV stars (O’Dowd and Matt Lucas), the women get all the best lines and even Matt Lucas is totally outshone by his look-a-like ‘sister’ in the film. All give solid, believable and occasionally completely over the top performances, but they are anchored by a sweet script that (like so many other Judd Apatow produced/directed movies) isn’t afraid to poke and prod at the state of people trapped in unhappy marriages.

Paul Feig directs effectively, drawing riotous performances from the cast and keeping the pace brusque throughout. Like many recent comedies that are produced, directed or executive produced by Apatow, the film is over two hours, but unlike some others, Bridesmaids does not drag or sag after the half way mark and its story feels full and not overburdened by an abundance of improvisation.

The film is a sweet look at female friendships, the madness that surrounds wedding preparation and could be seen to deal with the pressures put on modern women to conform, succeed (in both love and career) and above all get married! Wiig’s loveable loser clearly does not have enough respect for herself and the audience will find themselves rooting for her to make big changes in her life. However Bridesmaids is a comedy; there’s no message of self-empowerment and marriage and heterosexual romance are still held as the aspiration for modern women.

Aside from the overly familiar romantic comedy elements the film should be enjoyed for the hilarious script and the performance of a brilliant ensemble of very funny, very entertaining women. It is hugely refreshing to see a film with female performers totally lacking in vanity that is this rude, this vulgar and this amusing. Written by women, starring mostly women but aimed squarely at both men and women, Bridesmaids deserves to be a huge comedy hit.