When London Boulevard’s Mitchel is released from a three year stretch at Pentonville he fully intends to do the right thing.  To turn his back on his underworld past and shake off the ties that bind him to the tower blocks and petty crime of a London he left behind.

Reclusive movie star Charlotte is a prisoner in her Holland Park mansion, trapped by the paparazzi and the ghosts of her own past.  The two are drawn to one another and dare to imagine a future beyond the London they have grown to despise.  Finding comfort in stolen moments together they tentatively take the first steps towards a new life.   Mob boss Gant despises the thought of losing Mitchel to the straight and narrow – he’d rather see him dead than redeemed.  Despite himself Mitchel is seduced by the prospect of battle, he has no intention of going down without a fight and when first blood is drawn he steps up to the front line prepared to take the fight all the way to the top.  Damn it feels good to be a gangster!

London Boulevard pairs prettily pouting powerhouses Colin Farrell and Keira Knightly in a loose reworking of the Sunset Boulevard story written and directed by The Departed’s William Monaghan based upon Ken Bruen’s noir crime novel.  Their supporting cast boast equal star power with David Thewlis, Stephen Graham and Anna Friel joining Ray Winstone’s Gant in the gangland love story.  Rather than fear the encroaching grip of age, in this particular Boulevard Charlotte is terrified of the price she has paid for her fame.  She has one true friend in druggie luvvie Jordan (David Thewlis) who, though a failure as an actor, has been a greater success as her companion and protector.  But Jordan is quick to recognise that he needs a helping hand and he brings Mitchel into their home and their lives setting in motion a chain reaction that dominoes destruction through the lives of anyone Mitchel has ever known.

I will open on a positive note by saying that David Thewlis’s performance in London Boulevard was an absolute delight.  That man gives good sharp-witted stoner!  Sadly though it is here we must bid a fond farewell to positive thought as every other thing I have to say about London Boulevard is well…not so good.  You will doubtless hear numerous accounts and re-enactments of Colin’s comedy cockney accent this week.  It would be cruel of me to dwell on it further here and tacky to make even passing reference to Dick Van Dyke.  So I shan’t.  I will, however, point out that Ben Chaplin’s accent is equally preposterous and just as worthy of the world’s derision.  And as for Mr Winstone…

It’s a shame about Ray, a sad, sad, shame.  He should never have been allowed within a hundred feet of this script and I’d advise him to re-enact a little Gant-vengeance on anyone who failed to tear the pen from his brawny fist when he signed on the dotted line.  I’m as big a fan of angry swearing Ray as the next girl when the C-words are spewing from Nil by Mouth or Sexy Beast yet onscreen here the profanity was gratuitous, lazy and dull and that is inexcusable.

I’m sorry to say I wasn’t very impressed by London Boulevard.  I found the premise implausible and the film ultimately rather unpleasant.  The talented cast were thrust aside by a convoluted and lazy story which flounced onscreen with yob bravado, pogoed aimlessly for 104 minutes and shuffled off without troubling its viewers with anything like original content or the will to care.  I suspect William Monaghan’s provenance has given what is a rather puerile picture ideas, and pull, above its station – were Danny Dyer and his ilk to be found leering from the poster one would at least know what to expect.  Lacking originality and heart, this nasty little number is a step back in time and talent for the principle players and a waste of time for anyone with the misfortune to shell out their hard-earned.  Avoid.

London Boulevard opens across the UK on November 26th

HeyUGuys consider ourselves fortunate to have the opportunity to while away our days watching, thinking, eat, sleep-and-dreaming film.  We recognise that the things we get to do on a daily basis are extraordinary.  Topping our list of the extra extraordinary this month was the opportunity to sit down and talk with Colin Farrell.

We have loved the irrepressible Irish native since his mesmeric, screen-dominating turn as Private Bozz in Joel Schumacher’s Tigerland.  Hollywood fell in love with him too and he went on to achieve critical and box office success in the decade that followed.  He is hoping to replicate that success with the two pictures he has opening this winter: Peter Weir’s The Way Back – an epic escape/adventure that trekked him across three countries during the challenging shoot – and William Monaghan’s London Boulevard.

London Boulevard opens here in the UK on Friday 26^th November and we were keen to talk to Mr Farrell about his perception of gangster-with-a-heart alter-ego Mitchel.  We also found it hard to resist probing Colin about his involvement in the Fright Night remake – a career decision which has only made us admire him all the more!  So without further ado here is the man himself…

Keener eyed readers among you may have observed that HeyUGuys have gone the extra (terrestrial) mile in recent weeks to bring you heaving piles of Predatory goodness.  Dave crossed the globe to meet the talent at Troublemaker Studios. The mighty HUG Video Vault swung open for Dave Roper’s take on Predator and Predator 2. Jon broke down what you can expect from the Predators Blu-ray when you dash out to buy it later today.  And then on Sunday night – on Halloween for pity’s sake – we ventured into deepest darkest Leicester Square to watch all three movies just for you.  Call it foolhardy, call it quality control or call it dedication to our cause.  We went, we watched and we lived to tell the tale.

The legendary Prince Charles Cinema (home to the Kevin Smith toilet cubicle fact fans) was our host for the triple bill.  There in the starlit upstairs screen we congregated – a captive audience of thrill seekers and tired journalists – all hopped up on E-numbers, blood lust and sheer force of will, ready to test our endurance for the Predators cause.  We left the Preds themselves outside to hold off the tourists and gawkers, set our seats to recline, put our caffeinated beverages in the armrests and our fates in the hands of the gods.  We were the lucky ones, the chosen few.  We wouldn’t all make it through the night…

First up to the plate was Predator, all bulging biceps, manly banter and steaming piles of guts.  We laughed at and with the tribulations of He-Men Bill Duke, Jesse Ventura, Carl Weathers and Richard Chaves as their intrepid leader Dutch led them deep into guerrilla territory and inevitable death.  As ever I fell for Billy the noble tracker and decided (in the face of common sense, prior knowledge and the cheap charms of Arnold Schwarzenegger) that he would save the day.  As ever I had a lump in my throat at his dignified demise.

As Arnold flew away to fight another day the lights came up on the screening room.  We shook thoughts of the fallen from our minds and ran to the lobby for supplies.  It was every man for himself down there (though in a very English “after you” way of course).  Two of our comrades never returned from that queue, they ran out into the night and cowered in the neon safety of the West End.  Slackers, we didn’t need them, this was a unit for real men – a unit for survivors.

As the survivors and their fizzy drinks bedded in for Predator 2 a weary pall of acceptance settled over the room.  I must confess that I was a Predator 2 virgin.  I didn’t know what to expect from the film but from Chinese whispers in the playground, the groaning in the rows behind me and chuckles in the halls of HeyUGuys I suspected it was going to hurt.  It began as surreally as I’d expected with big guns, big shoulders and big spliffs aplenty but what unfolded onscreen was quite the revelation – Glover and Paxton and Busey?  Oh my!  I lost my marbles somewhere between the Feared Jamaican Voodoo Posse, Bill Paxton’s yeehaw overacting and the Predator loose in Los Angeles targeting crime lords premise.    It was a terrible film.  I liked it a lot!

By the final film only the truly hardcore remained.  Popping M&Ms for fuel and jiggling the Coca Cola in our tired veins to life as the Troublemaker Studios logo flamed across our pulsing pupils.  I am not ashamed to say that I think Predators is awesome.  It fulfils all my popcorny needs in one very tidy package.  Aside from the flaccid pointlessness of Topher Grace (go away please and do not return), the nicely drawn action stereotypes are each perfect Pred fodder.  The addition of the Predator pecking order – which failed to make any real impact in the shabby Vs crossovers – works far better here and the respect Rodriguez holds for the origin story is evidenced by clever breadcrumbs of back-story scattered throughout.

So we made it.  We lived to tell the Predators tale.  It was an amazing night and one that rushed by us in a bloodletting blur.  Watching all three films on one sitting was quite a ride and reminded me of a dreadful character flaw I have tried my best to suppress…

When it comes to Predator I always root for the bad guys!

Predators is available on Blu-ray and DVD now!

Yesterday HeyUGuys kicked off our Halloween celebrations in style by watching a family fall apart in the home of their dreams.

The Union Chapel Islington was the setting for our disquieting entertainment, as once again, Jameson Cult Film Club threw open the creaking double doors for a night of Chills in the Chapel.  The all-star line up for the Chills 2010 season were Dracula, which screened on Thursday night in Liverpool, Quatermass and the Pitt – which alarmed a whole new generation on its Friday London debut – and The Amityville Horror last night.  In addition a fortunate few have grabbed gold dust tickets to Psycho this evening – never have the chilling chord shrieks of that theme had such an atmospheric home to echo through!

A clue to the affection the Cult Film Club is held in was apparent as we crossed the road to where the fingertip of the chapel spire broke through the misty night.  A wraparound queue had formed, despite the cold, and buzzed as it hugged the building with whispers of what might await.  The whisperers upgraded to shrieks of delight as they entered the mood lit vestibule and followed a sunken cheeked butler into the singular screening room.  If only I could request that every movie I see would be at the Union Chapel!  Necks strained to catch a glimpse of an excited young couple sharing a sofa on stage before the giant screen.  The Lutzes were enthusing about a property they were viewing that very day – the perfect family home by all accounts – ideal for a happily ever after…

Anyone who remembers the events of The Amityville Horror well will know how very wrong that unfortunate young couple were!

Here’s what I remembered before the screening began: one priest, many flies and a very serious beard.  A good clue to the twist of wrongness the movie would soon take headed to the stage to jog our memories as young George Lutz returned, axe in hand, to have a little meltdown right before our eyes.  With that the lights dimmed, the soundtrack mumbled to an end and the credits rolled on my return to Amityville and the start of my Halloween of film.

I cannot believe how much I had forgotten about The Amityville Horror, great gory chunks of film had entirely escaped my mind.  I forgot for instance that the walls of the house ran with blood, that a demonic force lived in the basement and that the Lutz’s dream house was a huge horrible nightmarish box of evil sent straight from hell to steal their souls and kill them all…

Ahem.  I forgot rather a lot.

Some of the lighter moments had also fallen out of my head, not least Margot Kidder’s incredibly eccentric and borderline schoolgirl wardrobe and her ill-explained penchant for painting figurines of Jesus’ Mum.  I particularly relished her rocking the one legwarmer look as she seduced bearded hubby James Brolin – the kids from Fame had nothing on Kidder!  An altogether more powerful force onscreen was elder statesman of cinema Rod Steiger as tormented man of God Father Delaney, fighting in vain to hold off the dark spirits feasting on the hopes and dreams of the innocent young family.

It was, as ever, a pleasure to snigger and shriek in such good natured company.  To share chills in the chapel and cocktails in the pews still feels a naughty treat and The Amityville Horror was a perfect slice of classic cult cheese to accompany the drinks.  Tonight thanks to Jameson I have learned two extremely valuable lessons: NEVER creep up on a man with an axe in his hand and always spend my spooky holidays at the Cult Film Club!

On Friday 29^th October the John Landis directed Ealing dramedy Burke & Hare has its UK release.  You may read our review of the film here.  The slightly true story of Edinburgh’s most notorious killers has, in this case, been retold as a comedy of errors with a pair of romantic leads engaging in wrongness of the mass murdering kind.  A wrong com if you will!  The leading men in question are Andy Serkis and Simon Pegg. Though we were not entirely mad about the film we are mad about the boys and were excited to have a chance to sit down with them.  They did not disappoint.

Our allotted time with Andy and Simon was cut frustratingly short and we lost the opportunity to get Simon’s scoop on Star Trek and Paul and to ask Andy how he is preparing to make the transition from Rise of the Apes to reprising Gollum. (Keep it HeyUGuys for news on all four projects as it breaks!)  But, overenthusiastic stopwatches aside, the talented pair kept us most entertained.  They were refreshingly informed and considerate about the true lives Burke and Hare had led and spoke with candour about the forces that drove them.  Nerd Do Well author Simon Pegg is an enthusiastic social networker and he also shared with us the way Twitter has altered his relationship with fans.  Andy Serkis has yet to tweet but seemed intrigued at the prospect of dipping his toe in the “twattering” waters.

They were also hilariously frank about a rather unusual bedroom scene.  I think we’ll leave it to Simon Pegg and Andy Serkis to tell you that story themselves…

In 1820 Edinburgh stood at the centre of the modern medical world.  It was a pioneering city in which anatomical demonstrations were the theatre of choice for any discerning academic.  In a world where medical innovation bestowed immediate renowned and prosperity, competition was rife to attract the attention of the King with ever more dramatic displays.  However this theatre was staged in a time before preservation techniques had been truly perfected.  With a corpse as the star of the show and a body shortage depleting the talent pool some progressive doctors would do anything it took to ensure that the show could go on…

William Burke and William Hare are two Irish grifters scratching out a living in the slums of the city.  Surviving on the chickenfeed profit made from their hit and miss cons, the two rely upon income from Mrs Hare’s lodging house to keep them fed, whiskeyed and watered.  Serendipitously the pair encounter a dead tenant ripening under her roof just as the city’s doctors are crying out for cadavers.  Mourning the loss of a jolly good income Burke & Hare set out to dispose of the body and confront the pressing issue of precisely how one crams a grown man into a barrel.  Stopping en route to drink to their misfortune they discover how very lucrative their loss has been and garner a fiver for the poor unfortunate soul into the bargain!  Perceptive William Hare understands the value of their new venture and determines to find a way to replicate the events of the day.  His sweet-natured sidekick understands the value of the coins in his pocket and bumbles along for the ride.

The Williams do their very best to keep the whole unfortunate business away from Mrs Hare leaving her face down in her porridge, and conveniently unaware, to recover from a minor case of severe alcoholism!  A few failed attempts to make a killing do nothing to thwart their ambition, though their initial enthusiasm for grave robbing is somewhat dampened when Ronnie Corbett and his toy soldier militia disrupt their dig and foil their cunning plan.  Mrs Hare eventually sobers up supportive and suspicious and enterprisingly demands her cut.  Meanwhile true love comes calling for William Burke when Isla Fisher’s comely actress Ginny sees in him a future patron.  In the face of such gentle feminine persuasion the two Williams graduate from confidence tricksters to (dis)honest to goodness entrepreneurs.  The siren whisper of cold hard cash grows louder than the voice of their consciences and lo a business is born. Hasn’t it ever been thus?

By choosing to tell the story of Edinburgh’s notorious mass murderers as a romantic comedy of errors, writers Piers Ashworth and Nick Moorcroft and director John Landis have challenged both the expectations of their audience and the strength of their delivery.  The film opens well enough with Bill Bailey lurching on screen as our hooded narrator – a ghoulish Henry Fielding sent to share the terrible story of Burke & Hare with the world.  The rivalry between the medical old and new schools, played out between Tim Curry and Tom Wilkinson, is great fun and the two have a beautiful bitter chemistry.  However not all the casting is as strong.  Simon Pegg, while eminently likeable, is a little too nice to truly convince as a murderer for profit – even playing lesser of two evils Burke – and one wonders if things might have been different had Mr Bailey been persuaded to stick around and take on the meatier role.  Andy Serkis too seems ill at ease, though better cast, struggling to inject true depth into manipulative Hare.  His darkness is diminished by Pegg’s earnest face and “what me?” wackiness and the production tips off kilter in the wake of their mismatch.

Happily there are some excellent early examples of toe-curling, bone-crunching, death and here the two are given the chance to shine.  My personal highlight was a deadly threesome perpetrated in bed with Christopher Lee but be reassured there is a body count high enough to satisfy even the most blood thirsty among you!

By the halfway point I was still struggling to engage with Burke & Hare, desperate to find a foothold in the insubstantial story.  I wanted to like it yet struggled in vain.  Somehow the film has taken all the right ingredients and combined them in all the wrong proportions.  I had a sudden flashback to Perfume: The Story of a Murderer – to Monsieur Baldini endlessly, desperately, mixing notes of scent trying to emulate Pelissier’s Amor and Psyche – of grubby Grenouille appearing in his basement workshop and shaking a note-perfect bottle at first attempt.  In craftier hands the story might have been perfection, in these it ever so slightly stinks.

Where Sweeny Todd or Sleepy Hollow were note-perfect in their mastery of the macabre Burke & Hare is tone deaf.  Wrong chords of timing and tone distract the mind’s eye from the sticky footprints of treacle-black guilt and glee left in the wake of Burke and Hare’s crimes and turn your head towards the wacky antics gurning for attention at centre stage.  Packed with some of Britain’s finest actors and a clutch of jaw-dropping cameos it seems a woefully light-hearted way to treat such gorgeously gothic subject matter and a waste of a talented cast.

Undoubtedly Burke & Hare is an unconventional twist on a horrible history.  It offers a vaudeville version of a notorious story and the intention, if not the execution, is worthy of praise.  I can picture it rebranded as a BBC Boxing Day drama – it is unobtrusive and harmless enough.  The fluffy tone, energy and enthusiasm would make an ideal companion for fighting hangovers and digesting leftovers and the sport of cameo spotting is well suited to the Christmas spirit.  As cinema however it falls far short of the mark.

Burke & Hare is released in the UK on 29^th October

Ahead of the Friday release of Bruce Willis’s brand new action comedy RED (a film in which the first foe he fights is the tedium of retirement) HeyUGuys went along to the London press conference to bring you the behind-the-scenes story on the unusually star-packed set.  We wondered what a stand out day would be on such a production…

Well who better to ask than the all-American action man and his beautiful co-star?  We also borrowed his leading lady, Mary-Louise Parker later that afternoon for a one-on-one to discover more about life around Extremely Dangerous Retirees!

Mary-Louise, star of The West Wing and Weeds, was strikingly pretty and dry humoured and enjoyed a teasing chemistry with her husky voiced love interest.  Poor Mr Willis was afflicted with a cold and husky of voice from germs more than gravitas!  He valiantly hung in there and tackled topics as myriad as politics, paternal powerlessness and unpleasant cough sweets with great humour.

The pair agreed that the RED experience had been a fantastic one.  And singular in that the production brought together a dozen strong principle actors.  Mary-Louise was initially lured to RED by the prospect of working with Bruce but found herself especially taken with another star with whom she shared screen time– the incomparable John Malkovich.  Her romantic lead found himself rushing to the set each day.  He was tickled by what a “nebbish” his character was at the art of wooing and loved his screwball-comic interactions with Mary-Louise’s Sarah.

You may read our review of RED here and enjoy the press conference in full below.

RED is released in the UK on Friday 22^nd October

HeyUGuys, along with the entire UK population, spent the first half of this week awaiting word of the latest governmental spending review.  Word went out on Wednesday afternoon that, among the many controversial reforms our coalition government intended to enforce, the state pension age was set to rise to 66 by the year 2018.  On Friday in the UK an unusual new action comedy opens in which a group of pensioners take issue with a rather more permanent retirement plan and tool up to fight back.  The film is RED.

Frank Moses is trying hard to live the suburban dream.  He puts out his bins, marks the changing of the seasons and keeps himself to himself like any good neighbour.  Sarah Ross is slowly losing faith in the dating game.  She daydreams away much of her day in her tiny grey cubicle, looking at postcards of anywhere-but-here and wishing someone would take her away from all this.  Frank and Sarah meet on the phone.  They bond over a mutual love of romance novels and a vulnerable avocado plant.  It seems certain that the slow burn of their affection will warm them in their advancing years.  Then Frank and Sarah meet in her apartment and it becomes apparent that Frank’s idea of romance is a much more violent affair…

RED is based upon an original graphic novel by Warren Ellis and illustrator Cully Hammer.  The original Wildstorm imprint story ran only 66 pages long.  Loving the character of former CIA agent and lonely retiree Frank Moses, Gregory Noveck – Senior VP of Creative Affairs at DC Comics – saw stardust in the story and brought writers Jon and Erich Hoeber on board to expand their tale to big screen proportions.  The resulting project is a gently funny caper picture with lovely 1930s undertones.  Under Robert Schwentke’s directorship RED bridges, with ease, the genres of action and comedy and offers viewers a chance to share a fun night at the movies with a generous handful of Hollywood veterans.  The big marquee names – Willis, Freeman, Malkovich, Dreyfuss, Cox, Borgnine and Mirren – are a draw alone and the comedy pairings do not disappoint, tangling old relationships and new resentments through the gunfight peppered plot.

The premise of RED is lovely – there is great comedy mileage in reuniting a team of lethal retirees.  There too are sweet notes of pathos in Frank’s loneliness and the ‘what if’ history between Brian Cox’s Russian agent and Helen Mirren’s efficient assassin Victoria.  I was delighted to learn that Helen had chosen to channel rictus-grinning homemaker Martha Stewart in her performance, citing her combination of feminine softness and practicality and even borrowing her hairstyle!  John Malkovich literally springs out of hiding and into action when Frank and Sarah determine to solve the mystery of the newly acquired targets on their backs and his pantomime paranoia injects an energy into the film that carries it through some of its flabbier moments.  Praise is also due to Karl Urban, who proves his comedy chops as FBI agent William Cooper and provides some essential conflict of the emotional and physical kind.

There are flaws.  The script, like the pecs on its star, could have been tighter.  With such a cast onboard it was criminal not to capitalise on their verbal dexterity and whip up something a little more wisecracking.  Kick Ass, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and (the last Willis/Freeman outing) Lucky Number Slevin are each excellent examples of the alchemistic power a smart script has on an average story.  For me Mary-Louise Parker is underutilised as adventure-hungry Sarah and this is a pity as, in the rare moments her character is allowed to take centre stage, she is a delight.  The elder statesmen of the cast, though strong, seem overly reliant on their reputations preceding them and thus much of the characterisation is flimsy and superficial.  As concerns action…well far be it from me to advocate blood lust but a higher body count would have been nice given the amount of ammo flying around yet the death count was A-Team sparse.  And I for one could have handled a lot more Malkovich!

Perhaps not unlike the frustrated prospective UK retires of 2018 the cast of RED are Retired and Extremely Dangerous.  You can catch them at a cinema near you from Friday.

With the Blu-ray release of the Alien Anthology on the 25th of October HeyUGuys are taking a look at the entire Alien and Predator series. From Facehuggers to trophy hunting Predators, from the iconic and classic to the dubious crossovers – this is your ultimate retrospective.

So remember, even if you ain’t got time to bleed, in the Video Vault no-one can hear you scream…

Here’s Em Breen to take you all the way back.

The time has come for me to delve deep into the depths of the lucky dip that is the HeyUGuys Video Vault and excavate a dusty favourite to share with the world.  My choice couldn’t be more timely coming, as it does, hot upon the ornithodiran heels of the imminent Alien Anthology box set release.  It is a film with which I have enjoyed a grand love affair – a lifetime commitment I made when I fell under its spell at the age of eleven.  It gave face and form to the things that go bump in the night and serpentine shapes to the shadows at the outermost reaches of my nightmares.  That film is Alien.

Ridley Scott’s Alien was unleashed in 1979 upon an unsuspecting sci-fi audience still woozy from the afterburn of Star Wars.  With aspirations far above those of an ordinary horror film, Alien was aptly pitched as Jaws in space and proffered viewers’ deepest fears in the same white-knuckled fist as its fishy ancestor.  My first glimpse of Alien was harmless enough – a sticky-labelled VHS tape in a stack donated to us by movie-loving cousins who refused to share a house with our limited video collection.  Evidently the jewels in our crown – Police Academy, The Wizard of Oz and Bugsy Malone – were not sufficiently cool for the sophisticated teenagers of Surrey!  Though later I would fall for the subtler charms of other tapes in the pile (my unabashed affection for Pretty in Pink continues to this day) for me the summer of 1987 took place aboard the Nostromo.

The genius of Alien lies in its veracity.  Ron Cobb and Chris Foss’s ship is an extraordinary work of engineering and design and delivers viewers into the physical world of the commercial mining crew before you notice your mind has wandered from its safe sofa seat.  When Dallas, Lambert, Ripley and Kane awaken from stasis dishevelled and bewildered you take your tired place among them.  When Parker and Brett bitch that they’ve been short changed on their bonus again you are over-the-shoulder observers of their gripe.  The Nostromo looks battered and lived-in – like a giant truck that has seen better days.  It is as crumpled around the edges as the miners themselves and as solidly reassuring as their familial banter.  These guys aren’t movie stars in space – there is no kind soft-focus to flatter the complexion or fool the eye.  Some of the crew probably appear downright old to the eyes of modern cinemagoers who expect an oiled six-pack and a heaving set of twenty-something double D’s whenever they hand over their hard-earned.  There is no sleight of hand here and thus you are free to believe what you see and to lose yourself entirely in the story as it unfolds.  And what a story it is.

At the insistence of ship’s computer Mother, the Nostromo’s tug makes a clumsy landing on an unfamiliar planet in search of the source of an SOS beacon.  Captain Dallas, Navigator Lambert and Executive Officer Kane head off to identify the source of the signal while the remaining crew try to make good the damaged craft for departure.  Only Science Officer Ash, a perpetual outsider, lingers to observe the three leave.  Affectless, he watches their progress on a snowy monitor screen and eavesdrops on their nervous chatter.  John Hurt as Kane skips on ahead of the other two, an adventurer in a foreign land.  He shows none of their reticence as the search party board a vast crashed alien vessel and explore its fathom-deep innards.  And instantly we are torn from the familiarity of the Nostromo and thrust into the biomechanical world of H.R. Giger.

Nothing could have prepared me for the first time I saw the revolting reptilian curves of Giger’s Alien design.  There is nothing comparable to his surreal vision of the future.  Dan O’Bannon wrote the final version of his Star Beast script with a Giger alien firmly etched on his mind and you can see why.  His work is impossible to forget.

I lost my nerve in the yawning darkness of that spaceship and didn’t recover it until well after the sun came up on a sleepless night.  From the discovery of the eggs onwards I was in a permanent state of panic – I had seven characters to worry about and what the hell was that thing on his face?? Never had a midnight feast been more surplus to requirements.  My cousins were so worried about alerting the adults that they buried me under a pile of soft furnishings before each and every scary moment.  In my house, unlike Ridley Scott’s space, everyone could hear you scream!

Alien did things to its audience that few films had dared do before.  It turned expectation firmly on its head, killed all the good guys, refused to show us the monster and totally forgot to send a man to save the day.  The closest sensation I can describe to my first experience of watching Alien is to draw your attention to the spoof trailer Edgar Wright made for the Rodriguez/Tarantino Grindhouse sandwich.  The trailer was for a film called Don’t.  If you are thinking of going into this house…don’t.  If you are thinking of opening that door…don’t.  Don’t look behind you… Don’t go up there… Don’t.  Don’t.  Don’t. Don’t is my mind on Alien, a constant heartbeat percussion thrumming in my ears to a snare drum accompaniment of “DON’T!”

Once Kane awakens from his coma the film picks up pace to match the speed of your pulse.  The chest-burster scene is by now the stuff of scary movie legend and has been copied and parodied into meek submission.  But to see that chest-burst for the very first time on screen is to know true fear.  The shock/horror on the faces of the cast – achieved by one bloodily executed take – mirror the disbelief and terror of the viewers and, for me, the tensile timing comes pretty damn close to perfection.  Suddenly the Nostromo becomes a trap sprung upon its crew and you are imprisoned with them.  Its corridors are as alien as the creature you are hunting and their every twist and turn tighten its death grip upon you.

The first time I saw Alien was a defining moment in my movie watching life. (It also had the happy side effect of bestowing instant sleepover credibility upon me as the proud owner of the notorious tape.  That cred lasted until I was fifteen years old and we began to stay out rather than up all night!)  The sensation of delicious slithering paranoia it uncoiled at the pit of my stomach is one I have sought in scary movies ever since.  Alien demonstrates perfectly the absolute power of the imagination.  Nothing can scare you as effectively as you can scare yourself.  From the fragments of the creature we see to every corner we hide her behind, our minds work overtime to up the horrible ante.  And, though she did not truly grow into her ass-kicking boots for another seven years, let us not forget that Alien gave us Ripley…

Only Ellen Ripley survived the onslaught of an acid-blooded, double-headed, giant killing machine from outer space.  The slender brunette Warrant Officer outlived her colleagues, human and otherwise, outsmarted the monster and saved her cat!  We part company with Sigourney Weaver as she plots a course for home, and finally exhale, satisfied that she and Jones will get their happy ending.  After all isn’t that how it always works in the movies?

From May 2007 to July 2008 Battle Company of the 173^rd Airborne Brigade was stationed deep in the remote Korengal Valley of Eastern Afghanistan.  The soldiers of Second Platoon established and peopled a fifteen man outpost at this, one of the most treacherous postings of the war.  To date close to fifty American soldiers have lost their lives in the Korengal.  Second Platoon, in common with so many before them, sustained casualties among their number.  Shortly before filming officially began they lost their medic PFC Juan Restrepo.  They named the outpost in his memory.  The extraordinary record of that time, shot by journalists Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger, became the documentary Restrepo.  Restrepo is their story in their words.

Although barely acknowledged by the outside world, at the height of the Afghan conflict the Korengal Valley was recognised to be the deadliest place on Earth. By the end of 2007 nearly a fifth of the combat in Afghanistan was staged on her ridges and outcrops.  Restrepo sets its unflinching sights on one strategic outpost deep in the heart of the deadly valley.  Between them Tim and Sebastian made ten helicopter trips into the Korengal beginning in June 2007, a month after Second Platoon had arrived.  They dug in with the platoon, manning the exposed position and capturing the boredom, humour and utter hopeless terror of daily life on the rocky OP.

Eating, sleeping and surviving alongside the soldiers, Junger and Hetherington shadowed their every move, doing everything short of returning enemy fire.   Three months after the end of deployment they reunited with the unit at its base in Vicenza, Italy.  Using two Veri-Cams, a light and sound package and two cameramen, they conducted a series of interviews with their principle characters.  Initially intended as an underscore for the vérité, these interviews instead became an integral part of the project and ultimately gave Restrepo some of its most affecting footage.

My first naive reaction to Restrepo was one of shock at how incredibly young the boys on screen were.  Traces of teenaged acne still clung to clenched jaw-lines as they spoke aloud the most adult issue of all – that of their own mortality.  The survivors of this contemporary Band of Brothers have lived through a war far beyond the Imagineering of any Spielberg/Hanks collaboration and hindsight imbued their memories with a haunting honesty and level of introspection that will stay with me for some time.

Both Sebastian Junger and Tim Hetherington are experienced at combat reportage and with Restrepo they have combined their narrative and photographic skills to devastating effect.  The final result is an immersive, living, breathing, flick book of the unpalatable reality of warfare that snatches you into the action and refuses to let you exhale.  Lacking the traditional documentary trappings of narration, outside opinion or political rhetoric, the film simply and powerfully proffers the experience of war through the eyes of the men who wage it.

Despite critical parallels being drawn with The Hurt Locker, Restrepo has far more in common with the terrible intimacy of Samuel Maoz’s Lebanon than with the Yankee Doodle blandness of Kathryn Bigelow’s Oscar winner.  The poignancy of the film is a testament to the bond its makers forged with Second Platoon and to their unprecedented access.  The disbelief as a beloved member of the unit is lost and the desperate grasp for the reassurance of a quick passing is captured with the same respect and lack of judgement as a chant for sheer bloody revenge.  Some are shown praying for fallen colleagues, others chose to stand silent close by.  Could you/would you pray?  Perhaps, but you surely would not chose to worship in a place that would make a man of faith question the very existence of God.

Half these boys don’t yet need to shave every day.  All of them no longer sleep easy at night.  The American military has not seen the like of the fifteen months of fighting they lived and died through since vets returned from Vietnam.  A young Specialist, Pemble, is observed drawing the Korengal Valley over and over again.  As a child he was forbidden to own a squirt gun shaped like a turtle because of the violence it symbolised.  At OP Restrepo he bore a full arsenal every day.  He sends home the pictures of the deadly valley, “The only thing I know how to draw” by way of explanation of where he has gone and what he has seen.  A part of him will never return.

The intention of this film was to deploy its audience with Second Platoon and to submerge them in their war.  It utterly succeeds. Restrepo held my emotions and my attention in white knuckle grip and did not yield until long after the credits rolled.  Visceral, brutally honest and heartbreakingly real, Restrepo is a remarkable piece of filmmaking and an absolute must see.

Restrepo is released in the UK on 8th October

To host a regional premiere please visit Dogwoof’s Ambassador’s Programme here

The war in Afghanistan has become highly politicised, but soldiers rarely take part in that discussion.  Our intention was to capture the experience of combat, boredom and fear through the eyes of the soldiers themselves.  Their lives were our lives: we did not sit down with their families, we did not interview Afghans, we did not explore geopolitical debates.

Soldiers are living and fighting and dying at remote outposts in Afghanistan in conditions that few Americans back home can imagine.  Their experiences are important to understand, regardless of one’s political beliefs.

Beliefs are a way to avoid looking at reality.

This is reality.

-Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger

On Friday 8^th October Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger’s directorial debut Restrepo opens in the UK*.  You may view the official site for the film here.  This exceptional slice of cinéma vérité was assembled from the 160+ hours of footage the two shot while on assignment for Vanity Fair Magazine and ABC News deep in Afghanistan’s rugged Korengal Valley.  They dug in beside the soldiers of Second Platoon as they manned a strategic outpost at the tip of the spear of the American war effort and filmed at their shoulders as they lived and died to defend the precarious position.  The pair returned to the unit’s Italian base three months after the deployment and reunited with the soldiers as they came to terms with the aftermath of their time in the deadliest place on Earth. The haunting interviews they captured came to act as narration and punctuation for the film.

*For the opportunity to host your own regional premiere of Restrepo you can visit Dogwoof’s innovative Ambassador’s Programme Website

Restrepo is one of the most thought-provoking and important pieces of cinema I have seen in recent memory, HeyUGuys were privileged to sit down with one of the film’s directors – award winning photojournalist Tim Hetherington – to learn more:

HUG:  Tim can we start by talking about your first impressions of the Korengal.  At the height of the conflict it was described as the deadliest place on earth, when you were first flown in to the Korengal what was your reaction?

T.H: I didn’t really know a lot about it, I hadn’t…we arrived there in 2007, the world was very focused on the war in Iraq.  I kind of thought I was just going off to do an assignment there you know, I thought I’d be wandering around the mountains drinking cups of tea with village elders.  Occasionally being shot at – not really that exciting or interesting or compelling or whatever it is.  When you arrive first thing there, first of all it’s really mountainous, it’s not really the desert land or the flat lands, canal lands of Helmand Province.  It’s not Opium up there – it is timber that is the cash crop so the place when you arrive is very beautiful.  There are huge pine trees on the upper reaches of the mountaintops.

You first kind of realise something is not right when we were just coming in on the helicopter.  We got off the helicopter and they were using red smoke – which is because you can’t hear when you’re being shot at with the blades so they use red smoke on the landing zone if you’re being shot at.  So as soon as we arrived we were like, “Whoa, what’s happening here”.  It was a kind of trend that continued, right up to the end when I left in August 2008, they were mortaring the base when we were leaving.   So that was how it was and it was obvious to us when we arrived in Afghanistan that the war was slipping out of control.  Something people back home hadn’t really grasped.  And I think that that was one of the reasons why the access was given us, because the military in Afghanistan was feeling unloved, as it were, by the Department of Defence that was giving all the man power and money to the war in Iraq.

That kind of immersive experience – the one you guys had – is very much reflected in the film.  It’s an incredibly intense experience to watch.  As we’ve said it’s not out here in the UK until Friday but it has already been released in America.  I wonder if you can talk a little about the reactions you’ve had and if anything has taken you by surprise in the way that people have received it?

You know we wanted to make the most immersive and experiential war film we could.  We wanted to take you the viewer on a 90 minute deployment.  We designed and edited and made the film so that would be the case.  The film came out on 25^th June in the States and is still playing on 28 screens – that’s now, in October – so it’s been really well received in America.  It’s done very well at the box office and for a documentary war film that’s very unusual.  And I think people react really well to it because I think it’s a very honest film.  I don’t think it’s a cleverly crafted political thesis – it just takes you and shows you things you haven’t really seen before.  That’s at the heart of it really.  I think people are curious about – we want to be connected to events out there – we find it difficult to be connected because we don’t really trust what we receive in the media nowadays.

You know we have two to three minute network news pieces that don’t really tell us a lot about the war.  We have political op-ed opinions, opinion pieces that we’re kind of suspicious of.  What we did, we didn’t let our political judgement cloud your experience of things, we just kind of put you in there and you’re left to make what you want of it.

That leads us nicely on to our next question.  You and Sebastian were quoted as saying that “Beliefs are a way to avoid looking at reality.  This is reality.” I wonder if you can speak to how that sentiment applies to the film…

Yeah, one of the things I’ve noticed in negative critique of the film is that often it says more about the person making the critique than it does about the film!  The far left want you to make a moral condemnation of the war – they feel if you don’t do that then you’re a coward.  And the far right they feel that if you question the basis for war, if you discuss it, that you’re somehow not supporting the troops or being unpatriotic.  They feel, especially on the left, the film upsets them because they are made to feel empathy for the soldiers and it’s easier for them to dehumanise soldiers than it is to actually make them three-dimensional individuals who you can actually get on with.  And that’s a harder reality to deal with and think about the fact that they are also instruments of society for killing.

So they come out of the film and they don’t like what they see and they say it’s nothing interesting or new whereas the majority of people come out of the film and say I’ve never seen anything like that before.  That shows you that they already go in with a preformed of what they expect.

Only to be confronted by these multi-faceted people…

Yeah and it makes them angry.  It’s funny you know the things I’ve seen written about both the film and my work, my photographic work.   I have a book coming out – Infidel – and the negative opinions of that are because you challenge people and they don’t like it.

How about for you, for you guys, you made a total of ten trips to the Korengal…

Ten trips, yeah five each…

And you literally dug in…

Yeah we stayed in this tiny outpost, the outpost Restrepo was on…

So you were with Second Platoon in the outpost – I wonder if you can talk about the physical and emotional demands of filmmaking under those circumstances?

It was very tough filming in that situation, I mean when we got to Restrepo it was literally just sandbagged in placement.  There was no running water and there was no electricity, so you didn’t have the power to charge up your batteries.  They were under attack nearly every day.  I remember once I was there in September and it was like four times in a day – although the record would’ve been fourteen times when they first tried to build it.  So it was a pretty extreme situation to be in.  You went on patrols nearly every day and every time you went outside the wire you knew there was a good chance you would get attacked.   Filmmaking was difficult: you had to carry all your kit, there was no time to stop and set up a tripod, it was all hand-held and you had to be fit.  I mean the fighting was at elevations, you’re up in the mountains two and a half thousand metres or whatever it is, it was difficult.

We both sustained injuries – Sebastian tore his Achilles’ tendon, I broke my fibula.

How about the men, how you were received by Second Platoon themselves?  Obviously Restrepo is named for their medic…

Yeah, after Juan Restrepo

So they’d had a real emotional crisis, on top of the general impact of being there, then you and Sebastian had to come among them as relative strangers…

Well Sebastian first went in, in May 2007, when Doc – when Juan – was still alive.  And then he got shot a few weeks after Sebastian had been there.  And when we were there we were also in situations where those traumatic things happened and part of why they opened up to us is we were able to go and be among them in these traumatic situations.

At what point did you feel that shift, that acceptance, that they realised you were going to be literally side-by-side with them?

After Operation Rock Avalanche which happened in October 2007.  I filmed that and that’s when I broke my leg and I had to walk out of there, I walked out and down the side of a mountain on a broken leg.  They had seen that I had been around filming them when the lines were overrun, that I didn’t want to put any of them at risk that’s why I walked out on that leg, that broken leg.  That’s when they kind of realised that we were going to do everything they did.  For me that was the real…you know the events of that operation just in the film were pretty traumatic to watch, but to be in it was a pretty traumatic time.  After that we had a different relationship.

The cameras stay only with the men, there’s no respite, no cutaway to family, no talking heads…

Well we wanted to take you on a 90 minute deployment – we wanted to bring you in the valley.  And anything that would break the illusion of the valley was not in the film.  So we didn’t go into their families because then you the viewer realise hold on, I’m being told a slightly different kind of story, I’m no longer with them in the valley. So we didn’t talk to Generals, we didn’t talk to politicians – we didn’t give you any big picture.  The idea was you just feel like you’re with them and so we didn’t want you know Morgan Freeman narrating the story of the Korengal Valley.

That’s why we used their own voices.  We did the interviews in Italy where they’re based…

There is an incredible poignancy in them speaking about those experiences just a few months later…

Well we did that…first of all we’d shot about 160 hours in Afghanistan and then we tried to tie it together so we didn’t initially do the interviews in Italy as a narration.  We thought that’s how you stay in the reality of the valley – to have them talk about their experiences.  What happened is we turned up in Italy three months after they had come home and you know we weren’t the company shrink, we weren’t military authority figures, we weren’t their family we were… We were friends, we were people who had been through these experiences with them and could pinpoint certain experiences…

And had borne witness…

They opened up to us in a way that was kind of remarkable and those interviews are some of the strongest material in the film.

Absolutely, at points in the film you get really caught up in the action, it’s only when you come back to the stillness of afterwards that those things really hit home.

Yeah right, absolutely.

In closing we wanted to ask about the effect filming has had on you since?  Obviously your work has taken you behind many battle lines but, as concerns your experiences on Restrepo, how have things been since within your career and more personally…

Oh making the film has been an incredible experience, has been a great privilege.  It’s great because the film has also been part of the conversation in America and that’s an amazing thing.  It’s gratifying to the soldiers to see their experience in it – that it’s honest and true to their experiences.  The film…it’s now three years since we started filming, they’re big projects, they’re very draining to do – you’re constantly on this subject.  But it’s good – I mean I can’t complain – at the same time, it’s good that it’s being talked about, it’s better than it not being out there, it not being in theatres, it’s a great thing.

I mean the film has been draining emotionally obviously as you’d expect an experience like that does drain you.  And then to come home and to have to navigate all the film business and to have to fund it ourselves – when I was in the States I was broke basically – I put all my savings, I put everything into it.  It’s great at a time when some people suggested that it had no commercial possibilities that it has had success commercially.  Not that I’m interested, not that it’s about, or will make a lot of money – I’d make more money if I was a fashion photographer!  But it means that you’ve had a lot of people seeing it and responding to it and that’s been great.

Well let’s hope it has the success here that it saw in America…

Yeah it will be interesting to see how it plays out here.

We wish you the best of luck with the Friday opening.  We enjoyed the film very much.

Thanks.  Thank you.

Restrepo opens in the UK on Friday 8^th October

On Friday 8^th October the movie adaptation of Howard Mark’s autobiography, and drug smuggling confessional, Mr. Nice hits UK cinemas.  You may read our review of the film here.  To learn more about the evolution of this quirky British gem we sat down earlier this week with its star Rhys Ifans, director Bernard Rose and Mr Howard Marks himself!

Bernard Rose is the talented writer/director behind films as diverse as Candyman and Immortal Beloved.  We spoke to him about the appeal of the Howard Marks story, any 20^th anniversary plans for a Candyman revival, the challenges of managing a mischievous Welsh duo onset and the unique charms of David Thewlis.

Our conversation with Howard and Rhys was a little more surreal.  We discovered how to become a luvvie when you’re Welsh, why Mr Marks might soon be returning to a life of underworld crime and that the only sensible thing to do after playing Mr. Nice is to cast your eyes heavenward…

Rhys Ifans and Howard Marks were an irresistible double-act and it was plain to see that the two are great mates.  We did manage to get a word in among the banter about a certain Mr Potter and can heartily encourage you to see Mr. Nice when it opens here on Friday.

This Friday, 8^th October, Zac Efron’s brand new heartbreaker The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud hits cinemas nationwide.

Based on Ben Sherwood’s acclaimed novel, Charlie St. Cloud is the story of a young man trapped in a self-imposed limbo.  In order to honour a heartfelt promise Charlie has sacrificed a promising future sailing the wide world in favour of a lonely small town life haunted by the ghosts of his past.

HeyUGuys were intrigued to know what had lured the all-singing, all-dancing, Efron to take on such a role (and indeed what had inspired Igby Goes Down writer/director Burr Steers to helm the project) and we took the opportunity to ask.

The mainstream teen themes of Charlie St. Cloud appear an unusual choice for the man who made Igby into such a cult figure but in more recent years Steers has co-written rom-com How to Lose a Guys in 10 Days and teamed up with Zac for box-office smash 17 Again.  In fact Zac used the might of his star power to request that Burr be attached to Charlie St. Cloud. Disney’s young prodigy has come a long way indeed from motivational speeches and jazz hands!

On the day of the press conference Mr Efron was sporting a fledgling beard, starch-smart chinos and shiny new, western style, boots.  He explained the facial hair away as an exercise in curiosity.  His answers, though considered, were careful and he seemed unaccountably young for his twenty-two years.  Glimmers of personality emerged when a ringing phone interrupted proceedings and when more intrusive questions were asked but aside from flashes of cheek or irritation he was as wholesome as Walt himself could wish.

You may listen to the audio below and read our review of The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud here. More importantly you can fall for Charlie yourselves when the film opens here on Friday.

Here’s the audio,

Accomplished young sailor Charlie St. Cloud has the world at his feet.  A college scholarship to steer him far away from the limitations of life in his Pacific Northwest hometown, a little brother who idolises him and a talent that will take him around the globe.

But a sudden, tragic, wind-change throws Charlie’s life off course and a flippant promise lightly made becomes a binding vow.  When love and hope finally cross Charlie’s path he faces an impossible choice:

To live forever in the past or to take a leap of faith into the future and risk losing the only family he has left.

We should start by saying that I am probably not the target demographic for The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud.  I am old and cynical and immune to the hypnotic appeal of Mr Efron’s sad puppy/eager puppy countenance.  There is a line I have always loved in John Hughes’ The Breakfast Club: “When you grow up your heart dies.” I’m afraid Emo Queen Allison spoke the sad, sad, truth and my reaction to the angst and anguish of Charlie sadly demonstrates that mine has long expired.

Based on Ben Sherwood’s  bestselling novel, Charlie St. Cloud opens promisingly enough with a dynamic boat race that is breathtakingly executed and shot.  An emotional payoff to a spur of the moment decision is also captured well in a dramatic moonlit crash.  Kim Basinger, Donal Logue and Ray Liotta give good, if sparse, support throughout and Liotta’s presence shows due deference to the wonderful Field of Dreams – a film to which Charlie St. Cloud owes a debt of gratitude.

Charlie Tahan, as little brother Sam, displays maturity in the complex demands of his role and avoids being child-star-cute.  Unfortunately the bulk of the storytelling burden lies on Zac Efron’s burnished shoulders and here the strain begins to show.

Having cut his baby teeth on the High School Musical franchise, Zac Efron established himself as a bona fide rising star with box office smash 17 Again – his first collaboration with Charlie St. Cloud director Burr Steers.  His undeniable talent for dance and his clean cut charisma proved cinema gold when Mike O’Donnell made the Big jump back to high school and Efron was officially stamped one to watch.

Again in Charlie St. Cloud he rises to the film’s physical challenges with aplomb – demonstrating accomplishment and polish in sailing sequences and showing off his trademark twinkle toes in a cleverly choreographed waterslide scene.  He has proven himself to be more than a one trick pony but he is a show pony nonetheless and, to the film’s detriment, far less accomplished when grasping for emotional depth.

Where Charlie’s narrative demands doubt, sorrow or frustration we are offered wistful profile shots in lieu.  Though beautifully composed and artfully coloured, these postcard perfect watercolours are no substitute for the true art of performance.  The simple line drawing that is Efron’s Charlie St. Cloud does not suit such a technicoloured dreamcoat and eventually the pained fluttering of his expertly curled lashes had my toes curling in unison.  The spiritual undertone of the story was drowned under a fondue of cloying sentimentality and the bittersweet twist was facepalm-predictable.

This film wasn’t made for me and I know Zac’s legion fans will pay their pocket money over gladly for a chance to weep over his (well) hidden depths.  They will find a perfectly competent sob story about the grieving process and the redemptive power of love.  They will swoon at the selflessness of Charlie’s great sacrifice and sigh great gusting exhalations of “If it were only me!” when he finds true love at last.

The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud is a sweetly magical movie – as pretty as Mr Efron’s big baby blues.  A teenaged Ghost story, that will neatly polarise audiences by age and the depth of their cynicism, it is sure to go on to become a date night classic.  If you believe in magic then pop a pack of tissues in with your popcorn and don’t forget to wear waterproof mascara!

The Death and Life of Charlie St. Cloud opens on Friday 8^th October across the UK

Before HeyUGuys sets you free to read our rollercoaster interview with Noel Clarke we need to set the conversation below in a little context. On 21^st of May one of our team, reviewed 4.3.2.1 for its cinema release. It would be fair to say the film wasn’t his cup of tea. Incensed at some of the content of that review Noel made his displeasure extremely clear, blocked HeyUGuys from his Twitter account and crossed us off his Christmas card list. You can read the review here and Noel’s objections below.

When I was approached to conduct a telephone interview with Noel for the DVD/Blu-ray release of 4.3.2.1 I did so on the understanding that it would be a frank discussion about all that had passed. The interview was dramatic and impassioned and therefore contains occasional uses of adult language. The conversation has been transcribed from a recording of that call – the recording wasn’t of sufficient quality to reproduce here. As to the film, we’ll let you judge who was right. We’d be fascinated to hear your thoughts in the comments below.

HUG: So we’re here today to talk about 4.3.2.1. It’s about to come out in a lovely Blu-ray/DVD presentation with the option of a chronological cut – are you excited for the release?

N.C: Yeah, yeah. I mean films come out, they get released on DVD, I don’t really get too excited it’s just part & parcel of it isn’t it really?

4.3.2.1 was quite a departure from the more intimate settings of Kidulthood and Adulthood – the film has a much broader scope. Did you feel any apprehension in taking on such a broad story?

Yeah but that’s just what you gotta do – life is here to challenge you. There’s no point in just being the guy who does the same stuff all the time, that’s pointless, it’s like eating apples every day. Why would you do that when you can try something different? That’s why I wanted to do that with this film & I think it definitely was that – something different. It gave girls a chance to be at the forefront & not just be rescued by men all the time – to have their own sort of thing going on – that was the idea.

You had the opportunity to assemble an amazing cast as well as the four strong female leads there were cameos from Mandy Patinkin, Eve & Kevin Smith. You strike me as a film lover first & foremost – did you have any kid in a toyshop/reality check moments on set? Like “Silent Bob & Inigo Montoya are here working for me!”

Erm no not really, maybe Kevin Smith was a bit of a trip because obviously when I first wrote the film I wanted him to do it & that was years ago before I had any sort of access. By the time I got in a position where I could make it I did have access but not really. They’re actors & they just do their work, it wasn’t like they just got paid ridiculous amounts of money. They got the script; they liked it so they wanted to do it. That’s what it comes down to – it’s not like you go out begging with a begging bowl.

You say to them do you wanna do this film & none of them have any rhyme or reason to do this film – you know Helen McCrory as well – they had no rhyme or reason to do it unless they liked it & they did.

Is that nice reinforcement for you to know that bigger names were drawn in just by the writing?

Nah, not really. The film was financed by me so it could have been all unknowns, it didn’t matter really. I think that gave us the bravery to go to people because we didn’t need ‘em. When you’re not going to people because you need them to get your film financed you can be more ambitious. Like: this is all we’ve got to offer you – you can do it or not want to do it. People wanted to do it. It’s not really reinforcement because for me I don’t need reinforcement. That’s not what I’m here to do. I’m not here to be pandered to or for people to be sycophantic. I’m here to do my job & like your job, like everything you do, people are either gonna like it or dislike it. It’s as simple as that really.

That’s an interesting perspective, to say it gave you the bravado almost to say they can take it or leave it, that’s a nice position to be in.

Well it’s not really a position that’s just a state of mind. Like the first film, Kidulthood, was the same: this is what I wanna write, this is what I’ve written. This is what I lived. People are gonna like it or they’re not gonna like it. Actually the honest truth is that nobody liked it & nobody wanted to make it & it was made independently. That’s the real truth of it. Then when it came out it did really well & then Adulthood got made you know & then everybody did like it. Well not everybody but a lot more people & the same people who didn’t like, well had no interest in making the first one were falling over themselves to make the second one. You know & then this was something different which got made. Like everything – the way you speak, the shoes you’re wearing – people are gonna like it or they’re not & you can’t do anything about it.

How do you deal with criticism/jealousy? I get the impression you use it to fuel your creativity – a case in point being 4.3.2.1 which you wrote in a month having been told you couldn’t write women you wrote from the alternating perspectives of four!

Okay my thing about that, I use negative things to fuel what I’m writing & I’m like: don’t get angry get even. The thing about writing it in a month – & this is something you can put down – the thing about writing it in a month, what annoyed me is this is something where people say, “You’re not taking the craft seriously”. Like, “Writing this in a month, blah, blah, blah, how dare he!” – You know what I think?

Addresses someone in background: “This is alright isn’t it?” then inaudible. Returns.

I think f*ck them. I’ll tell you why, because writing a script in a month is not a difficult thing to do. If you write ten hours a day, if you’re writing ten hours a day for thirty days there’s no reason why you can’t finish a script. Absolutely no reason. You can finish it in two weeks if you’re writing ten hours a day…

So if you had that passion behind you to just write & write & write then that fires it?

Yeah! That’s why for me, when people jumped on that comment about a month writing it, I don’t find that ridiculous. If I was writing two hours a day & then going off & having a coffee & saying (adopts weary luvvies tone) “Oh my creativity is drained” I could understand but it’s like you write ten hours a day every day then that’s not impossible…

So it’s from quite an adrenalin fuelled place then? You just sat & worked & worked until you came out with this brand new script?

Script, yeah. As for the criticism, I don’t mind what people say about my films because that’s what they’re there for. What I don’t like is when dickheads get personal, like your last reviewer.

Do you want to deal with that? Is there anything you wanted to address about our review – I know you weren’t…

(Interrupts) Yeah, first of all I think he’s a dick, that’s the first thing. I think he’s an absolute dick…

Okay…

Like it’s not really about the film it’s about a few little things like do your research yeah? The thing about saying the scene with Kevin Smith was clearly aided by his recent issues with Southwest airlines? We shot that film four months before the Southwest airlines thing so if your f*cking reviewer done his job he would actually know that. Right that’s the first thing.

Secondly, talking about me – how I come across as “vacuous & childlike, constantly showing off & trying to impress…” – I’m barely in the film. So if you’re talking about the direction then yeah that’s fine, the direction is a bit visually different to the first two films…

Let me just find the line in particular that you are talking about so people understand…

I can tell you what it is (reads from our review): “There is even a line where a character comments, for no apparent reason, that Tee (Noel Clarke’s character) probably has a big penis. The line is not at all funny, totally incongruous & weird when one things…thinks…things that Noel Clarke wrote…” it says things, can’t even spell so he’s wrote things “that Noel Clarke wrote that line for a female character to say about a character he was playing.” (Sighs)

So when I wrote the script in 2004 there was no character for me to play. I wasn’t playing any character. If anything I was probably gonna play the villain because I wasn’t really a known actor & it was just a chance to be in a film. So years have gone on & I’ve got older & the film is coming out – there was no real character for me to play. The role of Dillon goes to Adam, the role of Angelo goes to Jacob, I’m too young to play the Dad so the only role left to play was Tee. So consequently that line was not written for Emma Roberts to say about Noel Clarke that line was written for Joanne to say about Tee. I ended up saying it in character but I didn’t write it for myself.

Did you have any qualms about keeping it in for you to say or did it feel natural to the character of Tee that it be said?

Tee doesn’t say it, she says it about him!

Sorry, in the context of it being about him…

It was a choice of making her be sarcastic or making her say, “Well he looked a bit arrogant, he looked a bit broody…” basically all of the boys on the film – me, Adam, Ben Drew – were taking the piss out of ourselves. So there’s a speech in the film where Adam says to Ophelia’s character, “Yeah, yeah, I’m not usually the type of guy blud d’ya get me? Do you get me” & she says, “No, I don’t understand what you’re saying.” That’s just taking the piss out of when we did Kidulthood people complained that they couldn’t understand what we were saying. That’s kind of a nod to that – it’s taking the piss.

The line where Ben Drew says to Emma Roberts in the shop, “Oh, err you been sleeping with Doug? Blah, blah, blah, is mine bigger than his?” that’s just a classic stupid man thing that girls always take the piss out off…

Yeah?

Yeah because guys are always concerned whether theirs’ is bigger than the next guys’, not about why they force their emotionally neglected women to cheat, it always comes back to them taking the piss – the line in the shop about Joanne talking about Tee was just a piss take in the end about how people are perceived. You know going after myself about being arrogant & all that stuff, it was just a piss take, a complete piss take.

So it was a bit of a tongue in cheek response to some of the stuff that had come through after the other movies?

Yeah, actually yeah completely, exactly, the character wasn’t written for me, you know that’s stuff that came in after & it was just a piss take – we all laughed about it on the day. I don’t get why it has to be personal…

All the other stuff he said about the film I don’t care, he’s a reviewer, but when you start getting personal that’s when I’m gonna find you, when I don’t like what you’ve been saying.

It’s nice then that you’ve had a chance to address that today because, ultimately, the film was your vision & you’re the only one who can tell us what your intent was behind it. It’s great that you’ve been able to do that.

Yeah, I mean he’s allowed his opinion about the film, I’m not complaining about that, but if that’s your job to review films then review the film. Don’t start talking about me like you know me because then I’ll come down to your office & then you will know me.

We’ve talked about the fact that you’re open to criticism, you’re also obviously open to fan contact & they clearly appreciate that. Are there ever any drawbacks to having that kind of openness with people?

Drawbacks…you get as many people liking you as you get disliking you. But, like I said, that’s all part of it. You can’t do a job like I do, that has people supporting you, to me it’s different right because this guy I was just talking about, this guy that I’ve just been talking about , that’s a job & your job is to do something so stick to your job. But with fans or followers or whatever they don’t have a job, so you’re gonna get people that insult you & you’re gonna get people that come large to you & they’re like “What are you doing?” But you cannot have a job like I do or go on Facebook, or have a website like I do without people wanting to air their opinions. People are gonna air their opinions. You can’t expect people to sit there & go “Oh we love you & think you’re great” & not have people think you’re rubbish. That’s just part & parcel & if you don’t like that stuff then don’t go on Twitter & don’t have a fan page & don’t have a website.

It seems very bold to have that kind of openness & that kind of dialogue with people why is it so important to you to go back & give back?

Because they’re the people that support you! Are the critics the ones who watch my films & buy my DVDs? No. If the people have the right to support you or to make you number one or whatever then they have the right to ask you questions & be in contact with you. The world has changed it’s not like the olden days where stars – I’m not saying I’m a star – where stars were revered & they were untouchable. Everyone can contact everyone – it’s tangible. You can either put yourself on a pedestal & be incontactable & be like a lege(nd) to be worshipped or – because you’re not that big & not an A-list star- you can do it a different way & build a fan base & stay in touch with the people that made you. Like the other day I just said “Who wants a call?” & I called people up. I just started calling the fans up – people like that.

And you go back & give back in terms of speaking to younger people. Motivating people trying to break through in the industry or break out of the place they’re in. Why is that something that so particularly strikes a chord with you that you make the effort to go & do it?

Why do I do that, because it’s important, young people are the future you know what I mean? Whether it’s in this industry or not I try & instil in them hard work – I’m not their Dad, I’ve got a two-year-old myself – I don’t know what’s gonna happen but he ain’t gonna know about everything. Whether I end up a road sweeper or with millions & millions in a mansion he’s gonna learn how to work & if he breaks a toy he’s not getting it replaced he’s gonna learn how to take care of stuff. If I can fix it I will but he’s gotta learn to take care of stuff it’s that simple.

Young people today they’re in such a let’s get quick-rich society because of bloody reality TV – think they can get rich & famous quickly – that if I can just be like “Hard work!” it doesn’t have to be university but “focus & you can do it with hard work & dedication” then I’ll do that. Looking at it statistically Ladbroke Grove, where I come from, before it became trendy & they started making TV shows called Seven Days there, it was where I grew up & Ladbroke Grove was a rough area. I grew up with a single parent & statistically I should be dead or in jail but I’m making films. I just think I relate to people who come from a certain environment & come from a certain class. If I can show them that there’s a way out through hard work then I will. I don’t think I’m the best at what I do in any aspect – I’ve never said I’m the best director, actor, writer – but what I do is something different. Nobody does what I do. Americans do it a dime a dozen but over here nobody does what I do.

In terms of the films that I make if I can show people that they can be original & young people can maybe decide that they’re not going to go & hang out on the corner – that they’re gonna go & study media or make music or make films – then that’s what I’ll do.

Speaking about your younger fans & your boy, we come to some work perhaps you will be able to show him in the nearer future, that would be Mickey Smith in Doctor Who. Can any of your Doctor Who fans look forward to Mickey’s return? I know he was last seen fighting Sontarans somewhere in the future…

Yes he was! As I think you know that’s not really up to me. That would be up to the people that write the stories or Steven Moffat who was in charge of everything & the producers. Even if I wanted to answer that I couldn’t.

Is it something you would be open to though?

Yeah I mean I like the show, it was a big part of my past, if they approached me it is something that would be considered.

Your deal with Icon has maybe given you more freedom to cherry pick your projects. What is a fantasy project for you? What would be the ultimate project you could take on?

I can’t tell you that because I’ve written a couple of them already & I’m waiting to see what’s gonna happen!

So they might become a reality?

It’s a possibility.

So what’s next? Obviously we’ve got the 4.3.2.1 DVD release on the 4^th of October but where can we next see Noel Clarke? I understand you made a movie with comedian Ben Miller –Huge – will that be out next?

Huge yeah, I think it’s only getting a small release but that’ll be out soon, it’s showing at Raindance on the 2^nd of October. I guess we’ll be there as it’s a sort of independent film festival. I’ve just done a film called Screwed with James D’Arcy directed by Reg Traviss who made Joy Division, that was a prison movie & should be out next year & then in January I’m going to Australia for a movie that I can’t tell you about!

So it’s one extreme to the other at the moment, you’re all over the place! Are there ever any drawbacks to that?

I miss my son, if I’m away from work, I miss the boy. I miss my missus too but for different reasons if you know what I mean (laughs).

Do you try to make the effort to find projects closer to home to try to keep that balance?

No, I fly them out. I just fly them out.

We sat down with Neil Marshall for Centurion & obviously saw your work in that. How was the Centurion experience?

Yeah great, Neil Marshall is a great director & someone I admire a lot. I’ll tell you why: because he’s someone that’s trying to do things differently as well, he didn’t just make the same old thing. He’s one of the people that I admire so much in this country because I’m so sick of people just doing the same thing. What Neil did with Dog Soldiers, The Descent & even Doomsday & now Centurion is to make movies out of the UK that are not just ‘British Films’ & that’s what I’m trying to do as well.

So that idea of taking on more epic films appeals to you?

Yes, yes!

So in the future we might be seeing a Noel Clarke take on a Gladiator-type movie?!

No it’s different to that stuff but equally ambitious!

Well, the very best of luck with all your future projects & with the DVD release of 4.3.2.1 on the 4^th of October. Noel Clarke, thank you very much!

Cheers for that! Cheers, bye.

4.3.2.1 IS RELEASED ON BLU-RAY AND DVD TODAY

I am ashamed to say that I was entirely unfamiliar with the true life story behind Made in Dagenham.  Though the 1968 strike by female machinists at the Dagenham Ford plant went on to change history it appears to have made little significant impact upon our history books.  Veteran producers Stephen Woolley and Elizabeth Karlsen intend to change that.  In conjunction with Calendar Girls director Nigel Cole and writer Billy Ivory, the pair breathed dramatic life into the extraordinary tale of the 187 women who took on their corporate paymasters and changed the future for working women worldwide.

Dagenham lies deep at the industrial heart of Essex and at one time it was our Motor City.  A bubble away from Swinging Sixties London where ‘50s values still dominated and women stood by their men not up for themselves.  The status quo altered when the machinists at Ford’s flagship UK plant objected, loudly, to their downgrade in status to “unskilled” workers.  Having cheerfully and pragmatically tolerated the leaking roof, stifling heat and high volume demands the demeaning new titles came as the final straw and the women decided to appeal to their union for support in making a change.

It was not an unreasonable expectation that the union would fight their corner.  These, after all, were the same workers who had watched male colleagues take to the picket lines time and again when their rights were challenged.  They would come to discover, however, that Ford expected their women to be seen and not heard – to produce but not protest.  And Ford would come to discover that Essex girls always get what they want!

A favourite pair of scenes for me came early in the film when Head of Industrial Relations Peter Hopkins takes reluctant spokeswoman Rita O’Grady (Sally Hawkins) and worry-worn shop steward Connie (Geraldine James) to a meeting at Head Office.  He decides to proffer a treat to the obedient little ladies by stopping off for a traditional expenses jolly at a Bernie Inn.  Overwhelmed by the heady glamour of the place (Blue Nun on the table!) Rita frets that she is underdressed for such an occasion.  Later that day it is Peter who is wrong footed when Rita, tired of the men discussing what’s right for her girls across the top of her head, wrestles her voice back at the meeting and demands that the women’s cause be heard now.  Made in Dagenham’s gentle impact is most apparent in moments like these which turn expectations smartly on their head.  It challenges stereotypes of class boundaries and simply refuses to know its place.

A stern letter of rebuke provokes the united women to declare an all-out stoppage until an equal pay settlement is reached.  They only want what is fair – surely they will be vindicated.  It swiftly becomes apparent that Ford have no intention of doing what is right by the ‘Revlon Revolutionaries’ (they fear the girls are Communists!) an inspired Rita leads the girls in their battle for recognition – a journey that takes them all the way to Westminster.  Along the way they face derision, betrayal and familial tension as they determine to be heard.  When product stocks run dry, and cut backs and redundancies hit hard, both the union and the men at the plant turn their backs on the workers’ cause.  Meanwhile Rita’s personal journey leads her far from her tea-on-the-table existence and into unfamiliar society.  An unexpected friendship inspires her to challenge her preconceptions of her own abilities and a unique battle uniform helps her take her fight to the very top!

Made in Dagenham filled in the blanks in my knowledge with such affection for its colourful characters that the history came alive for me.  I thought it was a lovely celebration of the achievement of these incredible women.  The burgeoning friendship between Rita and executive wife Lisa Hopkins (Rosamund Pike) – well told and poignant – was another high point.  However the story taken as a whole was rather too plot-by-numbers for my taste and, for me, this is ultimately where the film fell down.  It did inform but its chirpy manner, though stopping short of patronising, eventually rather grated on my nerves.  I embrace the idea that we can tell these stories without drowning an audience under a wave of statistics and po-faced political rhetoric, but a little more substance wouldn’t have gone amiss.  This is a matter of personal taste though and I must confess here that I’m not a fan of British dramedy in general – The Full Monty, Kinky Boots and Calendar Girls all left me utterly unmoved.

There was tragedy alongside the triumph but once again it trod the formulaic Calendar Girls path.  Battle-scarred, belittling and incompetent husbands do not an original drama make.  It would have been nice to see more of Secretary of State Barbara Castle at work behind the scenes of Number 10.  Miranda Richardson obviously had great affection for the fiery redhead and played her with tongue-in-cheek relish.  Bob Hoskins too was good value, imbuing union rep and rabble-rouser Albert with twinkling charm.  Sally Hawkins’ Rita O’Grady was more of an awkward fit.  The Happy-Go-Lucky star was a bit too happy-go-lucky under the trying circumstances and the twang of her Dagenham accent quickly became an irritant.

Made in Dagenham is a likeable and perfectly competent film.  It delivers exactly what its trailer promises and does justice to the comparatively untold story.  It won’t set the cinematic world aflame and is unlikely to change yours but it is worth a watch nevertheless.  I suspect this, like its semi-naked predecessor, will go on to do great things on DVD.  One to watch with your Mum on a Sunday afternoon followed by a sweet sherry and a nice piece of cake – HRT patches optional!

Made in Dagenham opens across the UK on October 1st

In 1968 a unique strike by 187 female machinists at the Ford Dagenham plant changed the course of history for working women worldwide.  The stand made by those women led to the advent of the equal pay act, an unprecedented piece of legislation that finally offered women the opportunity for some financial parity. Director Nigel Cole and producers Stephen Woolley and Elizabeth Karlsen determined to create an account of those events that captured the spirit of the women involved and introduced them to a wider audience than a documentary or newspaper article would ever achieve.  Made in Dagenham was born of that conviction.  HeyUGuys sat down with the three and with the film’s co-stars Jaime Winstone and Rosamund Pike ahead of the October 1^st release to learn more.

Stephen Woolley happened across the Made in Dagenham story by chance when he heard a BBC Radio 4 broadcast, The Reunion, in which the Dagenham strikers were brought back together to share their experiences.  He was struck by the vivacity of the voices of the women and their infectious sense of humour about the struggle they had fought.  Their wit and candour reminded him of the older women in his own family and he was inspired to take the project to  producing partner Elizabeth the co-founder of Number 9 Films.  She was sold the moment they met the women behind the strike but both had concerns that this should not be the story of one sole striker.  The duo approached television writer Billy Ivory and worked steadily with him to develop a script, creating the fictional character of Rita as an amalgam of all the women they met in order to give one cohesive voice to the machinists’ combined experiences.

Calendar Girls director Nigel Cole was astonished that the story of the Dagenham women had never been told before.  Even more astonished that he – who grew up five miles from the factory and had considered himself politically aware – had no idea of the extraordinary true life story unfolding on his very doorstep.  Nigel, like Stephen and Elizabeth, wanted to celebrate the irreverence and excitement of these women.  All three felt it was time their story was celebrated.  That tangible sense of celebration – the bright colours, fashions and optimism – is reflected in Made in Dagenham’s appearance.  We wondered how conscious a decision this was:

Nigel: That (celebration) was our intention, to take our cue from the women and the way the women told their own story when given the chance.  I remember one of them saying, “I didn’t sleep for three weeks but I was never tired”.  That sense of excitement with many of their stories about the hardship – to kind of balance those two.

One of the things I really loved was the way that Billy Ivory and Liz and Steve had come at the notion of bringing these three women together.  There are three women from entirely different backgrounds and they find each other in the film.  There is Rita, Sally Hawkins’s character of course, but there is Rosamund Pike’s character Lisa – the trophy wife of a Ford executive – with a very privileged middle class background and then there’s (MP) Barbara Castle from the very centre of power.  So there are these three very different women who connect over this one issue and kind of end up helping each other.  And I thought that was one of the very smart decisions that Bill made, it broadened it and brought out the importance of what they were doing you know?  This was something that had repercussions for all women.  All women got drawn into this.  I love the way these three women came together.

HUG: There’s a very endearing fashion connection with the three – in particular through a Biba dress – but they share a lovely C&A story too!  Where did the Biba dress story come from?

Stephen: Was that from the mind of Billy Ivory?

Elizabeth: That was from the mind of Billy Ivory but actually hats off to him and to Nigel because we were very worried about it.  As always with women’s politic -, and it’s still something women get caught debating today – is being girly somehow undermining ourselves intellectually?  Are we weakening our power base because we talk about make-up and hair and high heels?!  It’s how do you hold on to that and still allow yourself to be taken seriously.

I mean we were really worried we thought – hang on, this is a moment where Barbara Castle is coming out and talking about equal pay – do we really have to have this exchange about dresses?  I think the two of you were saying “it’s gonna work, it’s gonna work” and as producers we were just thinking okay we can just cut it out in the editing room!  (Laughter) But hats off to you guys because it works, it flows, you were absolutely right it plays brilliantly.  I think it captures so perfectly that thing, speaking now to the women at the table, which I do think is an issue for us, how are you feminine and girly while still being political and intelligent.

Stephen: The red dress got the biggest cheer when we showed in Toronto.  When people realised why she went to the house and they see her walking through the crowd in the red dress.  That’s huge.

Elizabeth: But also when you see one of the women, Jo Morris, who provided us with a lot of the research, who was very active at the time.  She took a friend from the TUC to a screening and the friend said, “That’s ridiculous, she’s a factory girl, she would never have had a Biba dress and yet they’ve got her on the poster all dressed up…” – this was on the way into the screening and then of course the moment happened and she called out “Oh god that’s so brilliant, of course!”

Stephen: All of the women when they went back to work – went back to work.  And back to their families.  None of them became political pundits or TV stars or wrote books or did anything we might think you would do today if you changed history.  I think the sense that they started as, and I hate the term ordinary women, because they clearly weren’t at all ordinary, but as workers and housewives and mothers and wives and they went back to that.  The extraordinary lack of vanity and lack of them promoting their own cause to help themselves do better.  I thought the little touches Billy put about the C&A jacket were about just that – they were women still.

Elizabeth: I think you’ve touched on another scene that really makes me cry – when Rosamund Pike’s character comes to the door and says, “Do you know who I am, do you really know who I am?  I have a first class degree.”  That really gets me because you know facade – the lies and the truth – like that term Super Woman which was often applied to people who had a nanny and a housekeeper and a really nice house and a driver.  And you think, what about those women who live on the 15^th floor of a tower block with three kids and the lift broken?  Those for me were the super women.  In fact Super Women is good…

Stephen: Hmmm Super Women…

Nigel: Super Women of Dagenham!

When Rosamund Pike was first approached to take the role of Lisa the screenplay was entitled We Love Sex (a reference to a moment later in the movie not a commentary on the women themselves!).  It is a testament to her sense of mischief that she was intrigued rather than put off – though she did add there was a very polite cover letter atop the script!  The strikingly beautiful English actress apologised to the room for her exhausted appearance – she had had suffered a sleepless night, consumed by thoughts of Darren Aronofsky’s “utterly haunting” Black Swans after falling in love with the film in Toronto.  In fact she looked alarmingly immaculate, golden tanned and poised, in black leather trousers and a black lace biker jacket.

Like Stephen, Nigel and Elizabeth, she had been in Toronto promoting Made in Dagenham however Rosamund enjoyed a more understated role in proceedings since Lisa was a smaller, supporting role.  This was a mercy for her because the huge popularity of the novel Barney’s Version in Canada – the other feature she was there promoting – meant she had been rather overwhelmed by press attention.  As the star of that film she had no one to hide behind so enjoyed the cover the ensemble cast of Made in Dagenham provided.  She was tickled to discover that the novel Barney’s Version had been a huge sensation in Italy too, a fact that had renewed her love and respect for Italians!  She co-stars with Paul Giamatti and Dustin Hoffman and was looking forward to a forthcoming promotional tour with Paul – who she proclaimed another huge foodie like herself.

Rosamund has enjoyed great success both at home and away with recent hits Surrogates and An Education attracting both box office and critical success.  The actress decided to take on the role of Lisa because she was drawn to the idea that upper class Lisa is in unfamiliar territory when you strays into Rita’s working class world.  Something she didn’t feel she had seen played out in cinema where the story is so often told in reverse.  We asked her to speak about the integral role she plays in Rita’s journey:

Rosamund: I just loved her.  I always think, “What would this film be like if Lisa wasn’t in it?” and it would be a very different film. Because I think she elevates it out of just being a working class struggle.  It is uniting of women from all different backgrounds…

It really flags up the thing about what gets you further – is it education or is it balls you know?!  She’s educated up to a point and wants to change history but in the end she has to hand over to the uneducated girl who has actually got the chutzpah to go out and do it.  Education only takes you so far because if good breeding holds you back (laughs) because you’re too frightened to speak out!

Jaime Winstone (Sandra) fell for the breezy, easy read, quality of the story – something she looks for in a good script.  The petite young star arrived in high spirits sporting Sandra’s trademark winged eyeshadow and a funky floral prom dress.  She was also amused rather than afraid of the We Want Sex title page on the script but found greater significance among the pages when she realised quite how close to home the machinist’s stories came.  Both her Grandmothers had been machinists in their younger days, one working for Burberry in the North and one in Southern factories including the Dagenham plant in which Sandra’s story takes place.  Although Jaime loved the bright ’60s fashions and glamorous period photo shoot Sandra’s story line offered, it was thoughts of these “amazingly hard women” in her own life that truly captivated her.  The idea that they had worked in such tough conditions and still run homes and raised families blew her mind.  She embraced the opportunity to honour such a past.

Another Made in Dagenham highlight for her came when Dad Ray saw the film and complimented her on her “good work”.  A comment she took as his very highest respect and praise.  Jaime’s character Sandra looks up to Rita as someone to admire and to emulate.  We wondered who in the industry Jaime, who is trying to launch her first project as producer and star, looks to for inspiration:

Jaime: In terms of film industry there’s Sam Taylor-Wood who’s directing and kind of making her own mark and The Hurt Locker’s Kathryn Bigelow – if we’re going to talk about the feminine side of the industry – she did something that was quite against the grain in making a film that was quite testosterone fuelled and yet managed to breach that.  That’s pretty inspirational yeah and Alison Owen (Tamara Drewe, The Other Boleyn Girl) who’s an amazing producer and gets things done and is a BIG inspiration to me.  People like that are just strong women and in the industry.  It’s never been like “We are women and we will make films!” they’re just good at what they do.  It’s very inspirational to me.

Inspirational woman inspired Made in Dagenham so it is perhaps fitting that everyone involved in the production took that message to their hearts.  You may seek your own inspiration in the film when it is released across the UK on October 1^st.

HeyUGuys bumped into an old friend on our journey home tonight.  We exchanged civilities and they asked the inevitable question “what have you been up to?”  “Well,” we replied “actually we’ve been watching a film in a Soho car park”.  And do you know what faithful readers – we spoke the truth.  This evening our friends at Jameson Cult Film Club screened Taxi Driver in quite the most eccentrically cool environment we have ever had the privilege to inhabit.  The Brewer Street Car Park played host to rather a unique cinema where gamblers, hustlers, hookers and film fans could experience the breakdown of Travis Bickle with a Jameson Manhattan in their hand and a big smile on their face!

Attendees rounded a sloping bend on the upper level of the parking garage to the mournful sounds of a saxophone and were greeted by a cigarette girl handing out American dollars to squander on drinks and games of dice.  A yellow cab bisected the vast room and newsstands pronounced the 8^th February 1976 to be the day ‘hero taxi driver’ Travis Bickle had been released from his long hospital stay.  The drinks were as long as the working girl’s skirts were brief and the scene was set for one hell of a party.

Jameson Cult Film Club’s curator Riz Ahmed took to the stage to introduce the movie – one of his personal favourites.  When we caught up with the Four Lions star before Taxi Driver began he told us that he loves Travis because he so utterly embodies the spirit of an anti-hero.  He spoke with a wide grin about his fondness for “weirdoes” and how the underdog story is one of the best that film can tell.  He echoed those words for the cult film club audience when he lauded such “alternative stories” for encouraging the next generation of UK film makers.  He declared that given a choice between seeing a film in 3D or a film with JCFC…he’d take the cult over the big blue smurfs every time!

Next to the stage was Travis Bickle himself to tell us about his future vision for the city: “Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.”

His intensity was hypnotic and I lost myself in his eyes.  For a moment it was just me and Mr Bickle, he looking at me, me looking at him.  There was no one else there.  When the lights went down and the credits rolled his vision was finally realised.  The falling rain he had prophesised was eclipsed by the more lurid spray of blood but Travis Bickle – taxi driver, insomniac and angry young man – rained upon them good!

The next Jameson Cult Film Club screening takes place in Liverpool on October 28th.  The club returns to the capital for its Chills in the Chapel season at Union Chapel commencing on October 29th with Quatermass and the Pit.  Visit the JCFC Box Office for further details.

On Sunday night HeyUGuys had a big night out at The Town – Ben Affleck’s Town to be precise.  London’s Odeon Leicester Square hosted a very special screening of the US box office smash followed by a Q&A with the talented director/lead and his beautiful co-star Rebecca Hall.  You may read Gary’s thoughts on the film here but first why not enjoy a few words from Mr Affleck himself?

He and Rebecca took to the stage to accept the audience’s applause before the screening began and returned to take questions after the credits had rolled.  Ms Hall was stunning and statuesque in a black lace dress teamed with skyscraper heels.  (Endearingly she later exchanged the gravity-defying stilettos for something a little more comfortable.)  Her director was a study in classic Old Hollywood style – loose tie, sharp suit.  He seemed quite at ease presenting his second roll of the directorial dice to the crowd, taking both the compliments and catcalls in his stride.  The Affleck of the latter noughties was America’s prodigal son having redeemed the unfortunate Lopez lapse with his impressive performance as George Reeves in Hollywoodland and his directorial feature debut Gone Baby Gone.  For this dramatic new success in 2010 Ben once again has Dennis Lehane to thank.  It was the Gone Baby Gone and Mystic River writer who first drew his attention to Chuck Hogan’s Prince of Thieves – the novel that was to become The Town.

Ben acknowledged that he had sought advice from peers who had, successfully, turned their hands to directing – Sean Penn and Kevin Costner among them – and joked he had chosen to disregard the man who suggested he not even try!  He was drawn to familiar qualities in the story of The Town, besides its Boston setting.  The theme of the redemptive power of love was one that particularly spoke to him.  Rebecca’s character Claire and her role in Doug’s life sharing many similarities with Minnie Driver’s Skylar in Good Will Hunting and the change she effected in Will.

The fast-paced, white-knuckle, heist picture has at its heart a very simple question – can a man change his future?  In order to answer that question Ben Affleck’s Doug MacRay has to break from the ties and loyalties of his past.  Doug’s adrenalin buoyed existence (and his less-than-legal profession) have relied upon street smarts and whip sharp instincts to keep him one step ahead of the prison life his Father leads.  By way of contrast Ben’s dual roles as director and star required that he take a somewhat longer view on the goings on in The Town.  We asked both Ben and Rebecca how they maintained the intense, immediate, connection demanded by the story while Ben flitted between on and off-screen roles:

Ben: One of the things that I tried to do, if we can talk about the notion of relaxation, I think one of the worst things that happens to me as an actor & that I see happening on sets is that you’re getting ready for something – you’re gonna do something – & everyone gets ready & it’s loaded & it gets real quiet on set & they say “rolling” and hit the slate now go!  It’s like at your most self-conscious & tense that you’re supposed to begin work.

One of the things I tried to do – because I think the stakes were such that, the story was such that, you really had to invest kind of in the people on a granular level & care about little decisions that they made otherwise we wouldn’t be as interesting, it would feel really procedural & rote – so what I tried to do was just to lose all sort of sense of artifice, sense of self-consciousness, and one of the ways to do that was to take away the idea that it mattered whether the camera was on or not.  To stop people thinking about that so much & let people come in & out & make adjustments while it was rolling & just say “go ahead” go back & do it again.  Just strip the screw of people’s self-conscious & awareness of things.

It’s not that expensive for film itself, even for film & processing, it’s still nothing compared to the time, just general time you spend doing it.  So people are going to  come in & touch up or rearrange something on the dashboard or whatever it is they’re going to do & I’d just rather keep going & not have the scene we’re doing fall apart.  Ultimately I think, personally, at first the actors felt a little bit like they sort of had to calibrate themselves to that & then I found that everybody really loosened up real well because it was about what they were doing & what was happening as opposed to making sure they had landed their performance right in the gap between when the camera started and stopped.  At least that’s what I think – maybe Rebecca has a completely different version & take on that?

Rebecca: No, no I can’t argue with that, that’s exactly what happened.  And I don’t think I can add to it really, that was very eloquent!

Ben: (Laughing) Long-winded or…

Rebecca: I was, you know, being generous!  I must say that you did encourage a certain level of positive irreverence for the script.  It wasn’t a sincere sense that: “you have to say this exactly as it is written”.  There was a sense that you can bring it alive maybe or improvise with it a little bit & not muddy the edges.  That was very freeing.                  

You may judge whether this approach worked and enjoy the adrenalin ride for yourselves when The Town opens across the UK on Friday.  In the meantime you can hear more from the pair in their own words below as they answer questions put to them by HeyUGuys and other members of the enthusiastic audience at Sundays Q&A.

In autumn 2008 the entertainment channels were abuzz with the strange story of Joaquin Phoenix’s retirement from acting.  In the tradition of all good movie plots there was a twist – this Hollywood star had set his heart on a new life as a musician and nothing was going to stand in his way.  There followed twelve surreal months of speculation, confusion and reinvention as Joaquin’s distinctive curled lip disappeared beneath a Unabomber beard and an alternate persona rose from the ashes of his career:  Joaquin ‘JP’ Phoenix – hip hop artist!  I’m Still Here tells the behind-the-scenes story of that year.

Joaquin Phoenix was born in Puerto Rico in 1974.  His parents were members of the Children of God cult and Joaquin himself was raised in the religious community until the age of six when the family became disillusioned with community life and broke away.  The name Phoenix was adopted to symbolise their new start.  I’m Still Here purports to capture Joaquin’s breakaway from the cult of celebrity as he allows brother-in-law Casey Affleck to document his fumbling attempts to begin his life anew.   Rumours stalked the production from the outset and grew in strength as the born again rapper was spotted around town with camera crew in tow.  Fuelled by quotes from within Phoenix’s own camp that the project was a spoof, to the world’s waiting press it seemed unthinkable that such a talent would choose to simply walk away.

I’m Still Here opens with a young Joaquin poised at the edge of a waterfall, waiting an interminable moment to leap.  The vulnerability of that boy in that moment echoes throughout the film as Affleck’s lens stalks every uncomfortable moment of his stumble and fall.  His companions on the journey are friend and ‘caretaker’ Larry and general assistant/fall guy Anton – Spacehog’s Antony Langdon.  Joaquin’s final booking is a role in a play put on in tribute to Paul Newman.  He arrives there simultaneously humble and comically bitter – one moment locked in a clinging and emotional embrace as he greets Sean Penn like a brother – the next bickering with Casey over who has won the better part in the all-star show: “You’re with everybody, I’m with f**king Danny DeVito!”

Much of the film depicts this duality.  At times Phoenix seems a troubled soul, struggling to find an identity, pleading with the camera for answers or reprieve.  Then in the blink of an eye he is a belligerent fool snorting a bump of coke from the arm of his Johnny Cash shades.  Slumped in those shades and a crumpled suit in the back of an immaculate car as he speeds from his Letterman humiliation, you can almost believe in the fiction.  There is something behind the facade of I’m Still Here, something beyond the clowning and mugging for attention.  Joaquin Phoenix is a troubled man.  Perhaps he is not the man portrayed here, crawling after a bemused Diddy begging scraps from the Bad Boy table.  Nor the caner smoking blunts to the point of incoherency and bowing down to the wisdom of Edward James Olmos.  But he is in there among them.

I’m Still Here does pass judgement on its content for those prepared to listen. Joaquin himself breaks the news of his career change – tossing ‘exclusives’ like compliments into the open mouths of the gossip-hungry reporters.  The roles for women in the film are carefully limited to observers and entertainers: a larger-than-life poster of Summer Phoenix overlooks the Jack Ass pranks as her brother and his hangers-on streak across her apartment, bash out tunes on the piano and mug for the camera.  A Lichtenstein girl coolly appraises the scene as Joaquin chops out another white line.  And a takeaway prostitute watches, with absolute disinterest, the falling star suckle her sagging breast with all the enthusiasm one might muster for a discount pizza – the very act of ordering her having satiated his appetite for shock.

But here too the film falls down.  The attempts to shock are puerile and dull and some serve no greater purpose than headline-seeking filler.  The revenge Anton enacts upon a sleeping Joaquin is so heavily alluded to in advance that most of its comedy value is lost.   Even the premise – that Phoenix seeks an escape from the prison of his public life – undermines the suggestion that Affleck somehow happened to capture him falling apart.  Would any friend be so callous?  Would any filmmaker get so lucky?  Phoenix has only to look to Sean Penn to see that a life beyond the Hollywood Hills is possible.  In fact there is something of The Hills about I’m Still Here, a familiar dumbed down refrain, which renders Joaquin Phoenix’s character no more convincing than a big screen Justin Bobby.  Any comment on America’s hunger for genie-instant gratification is lost in a tangle of conflicting messages.

Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix had an interesting idea but something appears to have been lost in translation.  With the distractions of sex, drugs ‘n’ hip hop, I’m Still Here is an interesting, if indulgent, exercise in filmmaking that fails to ever really engage.  The true story of a year in the life of this notoriously complex and private man would be compelling viewing indeed.  Perhaps one day someone will tell it?

I’m Still Here opens in the UK on September 17th