2 Days in New York with Chris Rock and Julie Delpy

The background

2 Days in New York is actress, screenwriter and director Julie Delpy’s sequel to 2007’s 2 Days in Paris. We join Delpy’s character Marion after she’s broken up with her partner from the first film; she now lives with Mingus, played by comedian Chris Rock, in New York, with whom she is bringing her son and his daughter. Marion is holding an exhibition of her photography, and her French family have been invited across the Atlantic for the occasion — offering an opportunity for a multilingual, cross-cultural comedy of errors, full of the requisite translation confusions and awkward misunderstandings.

Having already experienced considerable success on the continent, can 2 Days in New York charm British audiences as it opens on 18 May? 

A mostly good sequel           

Most critics are saying that lovers of ‘2 Days in Paris’ wont be disappointed by Julie Delpy’s performance or directing in the film’s sequel. The Telegraph said “this film functions as a kind of punchline to the first one”, whilst The Guardian said “after 2007′s 2 Days in Paris, it’s great to see her again”. The Evening Standard commented that “watching it is like reconnecting with a fizzy old friend”. However, the Gloucestershire Echo disagreed, saying the film is “scatter-shot and sporadically funny, but lacks the bonhomie of its predecessor”.

A sincere family tragicomedy

Delpy’s own father, Albert Delpy, plays her father in the film, grieving over his late wife just as the father and daughter are both grieving in real life. The Guardian claimed that this makes the film more “emotionally sincere – not least in Delpy’s dealing with the death of her mother (in real life as well as in the movie)”. The Guardian also praised Delpy’s comic performance, saying of her character “she’s a lovable mess of neurotic babble, intellectual uncertainty and unmanageable lies”.

An eccentric culture clash well played

The Telegraph praised the film’s “zingy conversational back-and-forths where something crucial is always getting lost in translation”, whilst The Guardian said “family relations and cross-cultural mishaps might be the stuff of Hollywood cliche, but Delpy whisks it all into a delightfully eccentric comedy”.  Tribeca Film also praised Delpy’s “sharp observation of relationships and her wicked and silly sense of humor”.

Great comedy performances

The Metro, interviewing Chris Rock, had great praise for the actor, noting that “it’s not every day you see a world-famous US comedian in a part-subtitled European production”. The Telegraph agreed, declaring, “[H]is facial expressions when fending off a mad, beardy French father-in-law who stinks of sausage and keeps wanting to knead him are alone worth the admission price.” Tribeca Film praised the entire cast, saying they give an “ensemble of winning comedic performances”.

 

 More in film

• Moonrise Kingdom charming, but lacks passion
• How good is Sacha Baron Cohen’s The Dictator?
• Jeff, Who Lives at Home
• Dark Shadows: Johnny Depp and Tim Burton bite back

The release of Diablo 3 has been plagued with hiccups. Photo credit: gamerscoreblog, at www.flickr.com/photos/gamerscore/2627184852/

The background

Dark fantasy role-playing game Diablo III was released on May 15, and with thousands of fans desperate to return to the hellish underworld, the game’s servers promptly crashed. Frustrating – but perhaps not surprising for the most pre-ordered game on Amazon.com ever, one that’s expected to sell more than 4 million copies.

Blizzard Entertainment’s latest PC and Mac-only game release comes 12 years after its enormously popular predecessor, Diablo 2. Set 20 years after the events of Diablo 2, the world of Sanctuary is under threat again from evil forces and it’s up to a new band of heroes to save it.

But was it worth the wait – and the server-crash frustration?

Frustration abounds at Error 37 and more

In the first few days of live gaming, the game’s site angered players by showing up the dreaded “Error 37″ – server busy – message. “We’ve lost track of how long we’ve been fighting this demon. It’s relentless, unstoppable. We’re exhausted, and losing faith. And the demon’s name? Error 37,” explained computerandvideogames.com. Games blog Gamespy lamented, “Blizzard, why are you making it so hard for me to love your game?” Meanwhile, some gamers were also frustrated with the game’s need for constant internet connection – Tom Francis of PC Gamer said, after losing all his data in a connection failure: “There’s a lot to say about the fact that this can happen even in single player, but I’ll keep it brief: this is utter bullshit’.

Addictive and satisfying, say gamers

Despite these hiccups, Gamespy said, “When it works, it performs flawlessly. Computerandvideogames.com called Diablo III an “incredibly fun, polished, and madly addictive game”, and said that “cutting through waves of enemies is madly satisfying”; bit-tech.com agreed, calling the dame “incredibly satisfying”. The Guardian’s Mike Anderiesz said the game had “all the potential to be the kind of lifestyle substitute that Diablo’s legion of hunter-gatherer fans should relish”.

Diablo III brings new levels of detail

The visual features of the new game have also been lauded by reviewers. “What we’ve noticed about playing with other people is that, despite there being only four classes to choose from, everyone looks different,” noted videogamer.com, whilst PC Gamer said that “the environments get more diverse and artistically cool”. The Guardian also comment that “it’s clear that the new 3D engine has been put to work on rendering a level of detail we haven’t seen in the series before”.

Game story at odds with its mechanics

But while many games reviewers were taken with Diablo III, some weren’t as charmed. Ryan Rigney, in a first-look review for Wired.com, noted that it seemed that the game’s story was developed separately from its mechanics, “because they often clash”. He continued, “This game has no control over its own mechanics. When people die, funny money and enchanted doodads always come flying out. The game’s rules don’t bend, even when those rules ruin attempts by the developer to tell an interesting story.” That said, Rigney was similarly amazed by the sights and sounds of the game, and lauded the actual game parts.
Trailer for Diablo III

More in gaming

• Gears of War 3 an explosive, fitting end to trilogy
• FIFA 12: Rooney loves it – do you?
• The fall of World Of Warcraft?
• First look at Halo 4 whets appetites

The young leads of Moonrise Kingdom. Publicity still.

The background

Moonrise Kingdom, Wes Anderson’s new film (co-written with Roman Coppola) has opened the 65th Cannes Film Festival. It’s set in 1965, on a fictional New England island called New Penzance. It stars Bill Murray as Mr Bishop, who lives in a converted lighthouse, and Frances McDormand as Mrs Bishop. Their daughter, Suzy (Kara Hayward) is a rebel, and finds a friend in Sam (Jared Gilman), an orphan. The two run away, instigating a search. It also features Bruce Willis as a policeman, Tilda Swinton as a social security officer, and Edward Norton.

Read about the Cannes film festival on Periscope Post

Anderson divides people

It’s a “canny maneuver,” said Richard Porton on The Daily Beast, to open Cannes with Anderson. It’s an arty film with “populist appeal.” His films are “highly personal” yet “visually alluring,” and Moonrise Kingdom, though “far from a masterpiece,” is definitely a hugely “respectable opening choice” than, say, Da Vinci Code. Yet Wes Anderson still polarises critics – some think he’s original, others twee. It’s not the “relatively banal narrative” that makes the film, but the director’s “flair for oddball details.” And the film is tinged with melancholy – Vietnam lurks just around the corner.

A mood elevator of a movie

David Gritten on The Telegraph said it was “something of a return” for Anderson. The island community is typical of Anderson, and his “gifts are evident from the dazzling first sequence.” Interestingly, Anderson uses Benjamin Britten as his score. The ending might be “faintly messy and rushed”, but it’s still a “mood elevator of a movie.”

What Anderson sees in America

It has “sweetness, sadness and charm,” said Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian, “an evocation of young love in a younger, more innocent America.” His films occupy their own “weirdly regressive, faintly dysfunctional space”, and this is no exception. He’s no David Lynch: he sees beneath America “something exotic but practical and self-possessed.” Britten’s music is “an interesting assertion of the Angl0-Sazon character of this parochial, islanded corner of America.” The film has “elegance and formal brilliance”, and whilst it “may be nothing more than a soufflé of strangeness,” it certainly “rises superbly.”

Weighty issues, but lacks passion?

There are “weightier issues at hand,” said Film School Rejects: “parental neglect, of revolution.” It’s about “two storms” – a “real monsoon”, and “the storm in a teacup of the young leads’ burgeoning and forbidden relationship.” It’s “hugely charming,” and the “sexual awakening scene” serves “a wider purpose.” Hitflix was less impressed: Anderson lavishes love on his films – but there is “precious little passion.”

Watch the trailer and decide for yourself

More on film

• How good is Sacha Baron Cohen’s The Dictator?
• Jeff, Who Lives at Home: review
• The Dictator: Trailer
• Dark Shadows: Johnny Depp and Tim Burton bite back

Skrillex - the underground hates him, but what do toddlers think? photo: weeklydig

Skrillex: He is, some claim, the most hated producer in dubstep. The American former frontman for screamo band From First to Last alerted the pop charts of dubstep’s existence, earning him more than a few enemies.

Check out Gawker‘s handy guide to Skrillex from November 2011.

But the kids seem to love him – even the really, really little ones. In this review from Noisey.com, glow-stick armed, neo-raver toddlers give their take on Skrillex. Reactions? “Sounds like my dog!” “Robot music!” And from one sober young gent, “This song makes me feel crazy, like I’ve eaten loads of sweets.”

Michael Apted in 2005. Photo credit: Sheffield doc/fest http://flic.kr/p/5HRrU

The background

What began in 1964 as a one-off World in Action documentary entitled 7 Up has become one of the longest-running documentary series of all time, returning to our screens as 56 Up.

Inspired by the Jesuit maxim ‘Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man,’ Michael Apted’s much-loved documentary series charts the lives of seven working-class and seven upper-class children every seven years. The Guardian said that the series is “a social history of this country.” Giving a window into how their lives are changing and developing, Apted’s most recent installment follows 13 of the original line-up that have “become like a family,” according to The Daily Mail.

In 56 Up, viewers will be able to see how the lives of familiar faces such as Sue, Neil, Tony and Bruce have progressed since they were last on our screens in 2005. The first installment of the three-episode series aired on Monday 14 May, and it will continue on 21 May.

Like old friends

The critics have insisted that the power of the series comes from the way the viewers have grown up with the subjects. The Mirror said that “it’s hard not to look on this group as your canaries in the coal mine of life and compare their circumstances to your own,” whilst The Independent said that “if you’ve grown up with these characters over the series’ nearly 50-year run you will know all too well how steadily the years can reel you in.” The Guardian argued that the series works on a sense of familiarity: “It is actually a bit like having real friends, but friends you see only every seven years,” and that the intervals between shows creates something “regularly spaced but looking on to something that’s always moving and changing.” The Independent suggested that the rich history of the show affects its authenticity: “If there is a problem with the series now, though, it’s that the accretion of past history has made it increasingly difficult to get a deeper sense of how these people feel.”

Too few women

The press has been keen to point out that the original formula of the show, which was meant to reflect British society, under-represents women. The Guardian comment that “It’s not perfect. There’s that lack of women – just four out of 13. And what probably looked like a very broad cross-section of society in 1964 now looks rather narrow.” However, Apted’s later works include strong female characters.

63 Up?

The question over the future of the momentous series has occupied the press. The Telegraph said that “over the next seven years, mortality is likely to become an important issue in both Apted’s life and the lives of his subjects.” Celia Walden wrote that “for Apted, this is a project that should be taken as far as it can go. It’ll be the longest longitudinal study that’s ever been done and it will live forever.” The Daily Mail quoted the show’s producer, Claire Lewis: “When we lose somebody it’ll make the others think very hard about doing it again … I don’t know what effect that would have on us and on them. It’s very hard watching yourself grow old on screen.”

More on TV

• Homeland: The finale
• The Bridge: Rival to The Killing?
• Edward VIII drama sheds new light

Sacha Baron Cohen as The Dictator

The background

The Dictator is the third collaboration between director Larry Charles and character actor Sacha Baron Cohen, following the success of Borat and Bruno. It is loosely based on Saddam Hussein’s novel Zabibah and the King.

The Dictator is the story of the awful Admiral General Aladeen, leader of fictional oil-rich Wadiya, whose heroes include Kim Jong-il and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. The film follows Aladeen as he survives a deposition plot, but is left alone and unrecognisable, wandering the streets of New York City until Zoey, a political activist, comes to his rescue.

Slapstick brilliance

The press are confirming that none of Baron Cohen’s love of the disgusting and ridiculous has been lost in The Dictator. The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw noted that “there is a horribly funny scene in which Aladeen confronts his nuclear scientist about slow progress and reveals his assumptions about rockets … are based entirely upon cartoons.” Similarly, The Telegraph’s Robbie Collin said “where the film really succeeds is in its embrace of the grotesque … It’s not merely disgusting, it’s dazzlingly so.” Hitfix.com agreed, commenting that, “This is the sort of comedy where the gasp is as important as the laugh, and Cohen earns both repeatedly,” whilst The Washington Times reassured, “not chuckling at jokes about beheading? Don’t worry, before long you’ll have the opportunity to laugh at full-frontal male nudity.” However, Rebecca Cusey from Patheos.com said that the “crude scenes interrupt the flow of the funnier, edgier political material.”

Commitment to character 

The critics were impressed by Baron Cohen’s continual dedication to his characters. Joblo.com praised “Cohen’s total emergence into the character, which once again proves that he’s probably the finest character-based comic actor since Peter Sellers.” Katherine Monk of The Vancouver Sun agreed that “Baron Cohen launches himself into the arrogant, sexist chauvinism of the general with … abandon.” Time Out praised “Baron Cohen’s talents as a clown,” which “find their the ideal vehicle in this onslaught of sheer tastelessness.”

Comic integrity?

Most of the critics agreed that The Dictator marks a comic departure from the ‘real-life’ formula of Borat or Bruno. The Telegraph observed that “the people around him are actors, the stakes are noticeably lower than they were in Brüno or Borat.” Hitfix.com argued that this creates “a far more standard comedy than Cohen’s earlier films,” and that it “is far less interested in creating confrontational situations.” Time Out lamented that The Dictator has “far less satirical bite.”

More on film

• Jeff, Who Lives at Home: review
• The Dictator: Trailer
• Dark Shadows: Johnny Depp and Tim Burton bite back

Weeping Woman by Pablo Picasso. Photo credit: jmussuto http://flic.kr/p/88vD3C

Arguably the most famous modern artist, Pablo Picasso’s life and works have been charted by many galleries across the world. In an attempt to put a new spin on the Spanish master’s greats, Picasso & Modern British Art at Tate Britain explores Picasso’s influence in Britain and British art over the past century. The responses of different artists to Picasso vary greatly, and the juxtaposition of different artists’ takes on Picasso’s various phases (cubism, primitivism, the blue period) is certainly intriguing.

It is also interesting to understand each chosen artist’s relationship with Picasso: Duncan Grant was a contemporary of Picasso and directly inspired by meeting the artist in Paris, yet David Hockney only turned more to Picasso after his death, completing two tribute pieces in homage to Picasso. Others, including Wyndham Lewis, Ben Nicholson, Henry Moore and Francis Bacon, are all shown to have drawn inspiration in various forms from Picasso. This is particularly remarkable in the room showing Moore alongside Picasso, where interesting parallels are drawn between painting and sculpture, not least between Picasso’s The Source (1921) and a similarly posed sculpture by Moore.

The exhibition follows a clear sequential path, and it is fascinating to see such influence changing as Picasso’s own style developed over time. The gallery does show deference to Picasso’s pieces, as I think has to be the case in an exhibition showcasing many different artists but so clearly led by one. Although some of Picasso’s most celebrated works are on display, (of particular note are Child with a Dove, Weeping Woman, and The Three Dancers) I found myself seeking these out a little more keenly than those by undoubtedly great British artists, but nevertheless still falling under the magical spell of Picasso.

Picasso & Modern British Art runs at Tate Britain until 15 July 2012.

This piece was first published for Creatures of Culture.

Adasinsky and Zeiler in Faust. Photocredit: Publicity still

The background

Aleksandr Sokurov’s Faust won the Venice Golden Lion in 2011. The film is shot in German, and is based on Goethe’s Faust Part One (published in 1808). Sokurov has directed Moloch, Taurus and The Sun, about Hitler, Lenin and Emperor Hirohito respectively. The film is taken out of its literary context, and set into a historical period. Mephistopheles is played by Anton Adasinsky as a moneylender called Muller. Margarete (Goethe’s Gretchen) is played by Isolda Ychauk. The main part of Faust is Johannes Zeiler; he enters into a deal with Muller to gain everything he could wish for – but at a high price: his soul. Critics agree that though the film is difficult, its rewards are worth it.

“Goethe believed that earthly life was a mirror image, finite and partial, of eternal truth, so Sokurov starts the film – stunningly – with a giant mirror suspended in the skies,” said Nigel Andrews in The FT.

Rude, lewd and irresistible

Faust “comes roaring into view, shaking its glorious mane,” said Nigel Andrews in The Financial Times. Sokurov presents Faust as “an antic authorial alter ego, seeking fame and lucre through destructive self-assertion.” It’s number four in Sokurov’s “tetralogy on the nature of power.” Adasinsky is “surreal and satanic,” with “rear-placed genitals,” “carrying on as a real-deal demon trading in the world.” Zeiler “looks like Ralph Fiennes after several nights on the town.” The film is “rude, lewd” and “irresistible”, the action “like some fugitive, glittering, mercurial reflection of reality.” It leaves us panting with its “bustle of macabre and farcical science and pseudoscience.” Ultimately, “[i]f the film were any madder it would be locked up.”

Adasinsky excels

The film “revels in ugliness,” said Wendy Ide in The Times, belonging to “that sector of arthouse cinema which is both artistically admirable and a seat-squirming ordeal to watch.” You feel a bit madder having left. “Toothless crones cackle, arguments rage just out of shot; a tide of boozing carousers surges and weaves in the background.” It’s all very “disorientating” – which is no bad thing. Adasinsky’s performance as a “grotesque clown” drives the “rotten heart of the film.” He’s “brilliant: a monstrous ringmaster for Sokurov’s circus of depravity.”

Part bad-dream, part music-less opera

By linking Faust with three historical figures, Sokurov adds value to the discussion of “power, destiny, heaven and hell,” said Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian. “Sokurov’s signature visual style is present,” with “sepia-soft cinematography.” The dialogue has been overdubbed in the studio, with an “aural effect” that is “unique to Sokurov” – which Bradshaw is “agnostic about.” It’s “certainly distinctive,” and emphasises “the centrality of Faust’s consciousness – and his loneliness.” It’s “part bad dream, part music-less opera,” and moves in “an eerie trance of disgust.”

Keep going

The Russian Film blog said that though critics were split over the film, it’s lost “little of its enigmatic zeal” having made its way to London. It’s still “one of the most mesmeric, hypnotic cinematic experiences” of the last year. Don’t be disheartened or overwhelmed – if you persist with it, you’ll be “richly rewarded.”

Watch the trailer

More on film

• Jeff, Who Lives at Home: review
• The Dictator: Trailer
• Dark Shadows: Johnny Depp and Tim Burton bite back

Jason Segel and Ed Helms in Jeff Who Lives at Home: Publicity still

The background

Jeff Who Lives at Home is directed by Jay and Mark Duplass, and stars Jason Segel, Ed Helms, Judy Greer and Susan Sarandon. It’s set in Baton Rouge; Jeff (Jason Segel) is 30, and lives at home – he loves M Night Shyamalan’s Signs, a film about alien invasion, and believes that his true purpose will show itself if only he can see the signs. The film sees the characters’ lives spiralling around a sports car and suspected affairs. The Duplass brothers are known for the style of film called “mumblecore.” Critics mostly enjoy it. Watch the trailer below.

 A confederacy of dunces

This is an “amiable comedy,” said Robbie Collin in The Telegraph, which owes a lot to John Kennedy Tool’s The Confederacy of Dunces. The ending, though, is “mildly disappointing.”

Sundance self-consciousness

The Duplass brothers’ direction is “gaining in clarity and volume,” said Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian. This is a “quasi-stoner parable” aboud Jeff’s “odyssey of adventure, meaning and personal growth.” It’s “watchable,” but is “encumbered with a kind of Sundance-indie self-consciousness.” Is it doing anything more than the Harold and Kumar films? It could actually be played as “a dead straight, emotionally choked drama of the cosmic supernatural.”

Old-fashioned movie magic

Ellen E Jones said, also on The Guardian,  that the “suburban Taco Bells and parking lots” provided “a context in which the film’s characters are unhappily at home.” It’s “still amusing to see mumblecore’s trademark naturalism leavened by some old-fashioned movie magic.”

 Winning performances

Segel and Helms are “extremely well-matched”, said The Shropshire Star, and the film is “distinguished by flowing, naturalistic dialogue and winning performances from an impressive ensemble cast.”

You’re all wrong – it’s rubbish

Nonsense, said Nigel Andrews on The Financial Times. It’s a “squandering of space, time,” and Jason Segel. It’s “persistent, tireless and annoying.”

More on film and reviews

• Johnny Depp and Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows
• Meet the Romans with Mary Beard
• Game of Thrones: It’s won the viewers, but can it win the critics? 
• Mad Men’s fifth season
• The Cabin in the Woods
• Bully ‘required viewing’

Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson: A new drama sheds light on the abdication. Photocredit: Channel 4

The background

The story of the abdication of Edward VIII for his love of Wallis Simpson well-represented in media:  there was the huge success of The King’s Speech; there’s also Madonna’s biopic of Simpson, W.E. Edward VIII: The Plot to Topple a King is a Channel 4 docudrama that takes a different perspective on the motivations and details of the event. It chooses to focus on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, who “believed that Edward VIII’s love for Wallis Simpson made a mockery of all that he stood for and threatened the Crown and the Church of England,” said the Channel 4 website. David Calder played the Archbishop; Louise Wardle produced and directed.

The show focuses on what The Telegraph calls “the first media archbishop”. Lang exerted pressure on the editor of The Times to influence the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, to take steps towards ensuring Edward’s abdication, to be replaced by his brother Albert (who became King George VI.) Here’s what the critics think.

“One hopes that whoever succeeds Rowan Williams won’t take their inspiration from Edward VIII: the Plot to Topple a King,” said Iain Hollingshead on The Telegraph.

Tension and intrigue

What’s on TV’s website describes the documentary as “more a conspiracy thriller than a simple retelling of the facts.” This is a view shared by Lucy Mangan from The Guardian, who praises the “wonderful job” done in “recreating the passion and intrigue, as the unholy trinity bent circumstances to their will.” She describes the portrayal of the swift changing of public alliances, after the Archbishop spoke out publicly condemning Edward, as impressive: “So well did the programme capture the intensity of it all that as the credits rolled you had to shake your head a little to clear it.” The Telegraph described this speech as “a spectacularly ill-judged act of hypocrisy” that added “insult to injury” following the abdication.

New evidence

According to Metro the documentary is based on a new perspective to that shown in The King’s Speech. It takes its evidence from “unpublished diaries, personal notes and Lang’s own secret account of the abdication” which were found in Lambeth Palace.

Archbishop of animosity

The critics are united in focusing on the hostility and fervour of the Archbishop in this documentary. The Guardian describes the lengths to which Lang went to effect “a royal coup […] even suggesting that he [Edward] was deranged”: The Radio Times’ Alison Graham goes further: Lang “is painted here as a shady power broker and poison-dripper.”

Could he be justified?

The Telegraph’s Iain Hollingshead says that some of Lang’s actions could be justified: ‘some of the Archbishop’s behaviour could be excused as the actions of a man trying to do what he fervently thought best – not just for himself, but for the country, the monarchy and the Church,” adding that “ at least everyone from the Duke of Cambridge to Colin Firth to everyone who enjoyed The King’s Speech can be grateful for what he did.”

More on TV

• Homeland, the finale
• The Bridge: Rival to The Killing?
• American Pie: Reunion is limp
• The Hunt for bin Laden: Review