The September Issue (2009)

Since this is a documentary as opposed to a feature film I thought I'd try to bash this review out quickly, no need to think about the characters or cinematography or anything... somehow I still managed to waffle on and on... oh well!

Usually I don't bother with much of a synopsis but I don't know if many people would have heard of the film so... basically, the September 2007 issue of American Vogue was the biggest ever issue of a monthly magazine. Physically biggest that is, it was 840 pages and weighed in at over 5 pounds, smallish baby but a big magazine. The September Issue is a feature length documentary looking at the making of that issue. There are a variety of bit players but the focus is really on the two big wigs - Anna Wintour, Editor-in-chief, and Grace Coddington, Creative Director. If you're wondering what makes this interesting, I really should mention... Anna Wintour is widely presumed to be the inspiration for Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada (played by Meryl Streep in the film adaptation). And if you haven't read that book or seen that film then... let's just say, she wasn't very nice.

The camera crew on this film seems to have all access to Wintour so I can only assume that everything in it passed through her hands first. It's not that I particularly believe that Ms. Wintour is the monster that her former assistant implied she was in her novel; at the very least she seems to have a sense of humour, having turned up at an advance screening of the film dressed head to toe in Prada. But even if she is a monster she's still a person and there's pride at stake here. She has been at the top of the game for that last 21 years, she's obviously doing something right so she wants people to know about it. And if she can make herself appear more human in the process, all's good.

Anyway, you could speculate that ego was the driving force behind this film but personally I think that this film was more about money and keeping the Vogue story alive... She saw an opportunity to maximise the free publicity the film created and went for it. I'd never read Vogue before The Devil Wears Prada and I'd never heard of Anna Wintour. It's not that I'm not interested in fashion, I'd know models and designers, I watched Fashion Television when I was younger and I love Project Runway now but I'd never paid much attention to the business end of it and this is obviously where the magazines come into play. Essentially, after The Devil Wears Prada, Vogue was brought to a much wider audience and people like me became a potential readers. Unfortunately for Vogue I still don't like paying for magazines but cast the net wider and you've got me with this film.

I should get on with talking about the film though. It wasn't entirely what I expected. With the view I had of Ms. Wintour I had rather thought that the film would focus on her. She's been smarter than that. Her control of the magazine and her influence on fashion in general is absolutely highlighted but it's not the overiding story. It has been tempered by Grace Coddington's involvement, a woman who Anna Wintour describes as a "genius" and possibly the only person who doesn't really care if she annoys Anna. Perhaps Ms. Wintour isn't the ice queen we have been led to believe.

It all depends on how calculated you think the film is. It does some great PR work really. It makes Ms. Wintour seem more human, it shows us a variety of interesting characters in the fashion and it makes the magazine seem more accessible. It also showcases the stunning photos that go into the magazine and firmly places Vogue at the top of the pile when it comes to fashion magazines. Where Ugly Betty talks about competing with the other magazines and spying on them, trying to find out what they are up to, The September Issue does mention them at all. Vogue would have us believe that there is only one fashion magazine worth reading. Or rather looking at, we never actually see anything about the articles.

I enjoyed it as a film but part of why I enjoyed it was that you could look at it as a PR exercise, it made it more interesting. If I leave that aside I can't help but think that there were so many stories left untold. We only really saw a quick glimpse at the making of 4 editorial narratives. I would have liked to see either more detail about those shoots or just more in general. Perhaps more about André Leon Talley, he seemed like good fun. Or more about the normal staff... or the photographers. This really would have a made a great mini-series but as it is, it is merely a quick peek into what is undoubtedly a different world altogether.

7/10

Whiteout (2009)

Tuesday night and myself and a friend thought we'd go to the cinema. We had been trying to go the The September Issue but it was on too late and the only thing that looked good that we hadn't see was District 9... but I had promised a mate I would see that with them... so... Whiteout was the compromise.

I didn't know much about this film going in. In fact, up until the Monday I thought it was about vampires. Look, Kate Beckinsale is in it and it looked a lot like 30 Days of Night. Anyway it turns out the film has nothing to do with vampire at all. Once I got over that it was more interesting... I did not like 30 Days of Night

The premise is that Kate Beckinsale is a US Marshal who's based in a research station on the South Pole. A quiet job for a troubled cop. We pick up just before the station plans to pack up and head north for the winter. Just before they go, a murder takes place... I'm sure you get the idea.

To be honest, it's a pretty predictable film, they throw in a couple of extra plot details here and there but they really extraneous. More than a few ridiculous things happen along the way though and it can be fun to say things like "WHAT?" and "WHY??" when you're watching a film. The performances are bog standard, Ms. Beckinsale looks great as usual but no-one stands out really. You might spend a little while going "Who's that guy again?" - it's Tom Skerritt. I'm not sure where I know him from... I think it might have been Picket Fences

There really is no reason to watch this film other than the bask in the beauty of the landscape. That's not a bad reason though. I gather it was mostly filmed in Canada so I don't know how much is CGI and how much is real tundra but it doesn't really matter. It does look stunning.

Should you see? Probably not, but if you're in the mood for an almost half decent thriller and there's nothing else you want to see, then you may as well. It's harmless, there are a few good tense scenes and you shouldn't be too angry at the end as long as you're not expecting too much.

6.5/10

noSPicedhAM just reminded me about the completely random shower scene... I'd forgotten myself but for those who are interested then considered yourselves notified! That could be reason alone to go and see it...

The Final Destination (2009)

If you've been reading this blog for a while (or if you know me... like most people who seem to read this) you'll know that I watch a fair number of horror films. They're not like a favourite genre of mine or anything but I like a good horror film, so I watch them in the hope of finding one. Unfortunately, like many things in life, you have to go through a lot of stinkers before you find that golden nugget (Err... actually, when am I going to find a golden nugget? must go to lotto.ie again...). The Final Destination was not one of those golden nuggets.

I may as well start by saying that I’m not actually a fan of the Final Destination. I saw the first one years ago, probably about a year after it came out and I didn’t like it. In the interests of full disclosure I have to admit… I didn’t like it because I didn’t realise it was meant to be funny… I just thought it was the stupidest film I’d ever seen. Later I watched through different eyes as it were and yes, it was good fun.

But anyway, the original Final Destination came out in 2000 and there have been a 2 and 3 between this 2009 version and the first. It isn’t a remake of the first so I don’t know why they didn’t call it 4 - beyond the fact that Final Destination 4 3D might have been a bit confusing - but surely they could have come up with something else. Anyway that’s neither here nor there. The point is that it’s quite an old franchise at this stage so they really needed to do something to keep it fresh and they didn’t.

This is a lazy lazy movie which pretty much pares back anything that was good about the Final Destination films I have seen. It wasn't funny, it wasn't clever, the deaths weren't that outrageous and I didn't even hate the characters that much. (insofar as there were characters) At least if I hated them I would have been happy to see them die. As it was I just didn't care. Didn't care at all.

Ok, it wasn't the worst film I've ever seen (I save that honour only slightly unfairly for Reeker). It wasn't really offensively bad, it was just plain bad. And boring. I did actually like the opening scene though and I thought the 3D was very good, for that bit, I don't really remember much of it in most of the rest of the film.

Anyway I don't think I have anything else to say about it except that you shouldn't bother going to see it. You'd be better off watching one of the older ones, at least there are a few good deaths and a few good laughs there.

Actually, I just remembered that I saw the trailer for Pandorum before this, that looked like a bit of a laugh... kind of like Event Horizon and Aliens smooshed together. So I suppose one good thing came from watching this film.

4.5/10