Emile Hirsch, Jena Malone, Marcia Gay Harden, William Hurt, Brian Kierker, Catherine Keener, Vince Vaughn, Hal Holbrook
Dir. Sean Penn
Scr. Sean Penn (based on book of the same name by Jon Krakauer)
This review is going to be hard to write – I finished reading Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer the day before I saw this film. The book is absolutely brilliant and I was eager to see how it translated onto the screen. And I was pleasantly surprised to be presented with a film almost as good as the book itself – in large part, undoubtedly, due to Krakauer’s close involvement with the making of the film. However, unlike many who see this film, I knew everything that was going to happen. I was waiting for each revelation, each obstacle, each set-back, each triumph, and for the ending (THAT ending, which I will refrain from talking about here). So, can I truly write a review of JUST the movie? Probably not, but here goes.
Into the Wild tells the true story of Chris McCandless; a bright, talented, privileged young man who, for a variety of reasons, abandons the path which he is expected to take and instead sets off in 1990 on a two-year voyage of discovery – a discovery of place and truth and, ultimately, of himself. He becomes what one character calls a “leather tramp” – without a vehicle, often without money, without a place to stay, Chris renames himself Alexander Supertramp and hitches around America. His goal is Alaska – to truly live in the wild and leave behind the trappings of society. Without giving away too much, Into the Wild is both a tragic and beautiful tale of a man who had to leave everything behind in order to discover that “happiness is only real when shared”.
This film will bug some people – you’re not necessarily going to like Chris/Alex. But, in the end, you don’t have to – I think understanding him and perhaps sympathising with him is much more important. In the end, what he did may well have been foolhardy. And there’s no doubt he was just a little too influenced by Jack London and Thoreau. But to truly uncover who you are, well, that is something.
Penn has produced a beautiful movie – visually, Into the Wild is a treat. Whether it’s a desert landscape, the fierce rapids of a river, or snow-capped mountains, Penn has captured the vastness of America and made us understand a man’s desire to try to see and experience it all. Penn has also done an excellent job of adapting a complex story – although, in an endeavour to truly tell the whole story, the films does run to 140 minutes. Not a fatal length, as it was compelling throughout, but perhaps a little too long for most audiences. Penn also succeeds in, well, having some mighty cool friends – the original songs produced for this movie by Eddie Vedder are fantastic.
Penn also gets brilliant performances out of all of his actors – without exception, the cast is spot-on. Special mention must go to Keener (in my opinion, the best American actress working today), Hurt (as Chris’s/Alex’s father), and Holbrook who I suspect will get a few best supporting actor nominations come awards season. However, this movie really does rest on the shoulders of Hirsch (as Chris/Alex). This is one man’s story and Hirsch does an absolutely sublime job in this demanding role (so demanding, Hirsch had to shed 40 pounds to play Chris/Alex in parts of the film). Although not a complete unknown (he was in the awful teenage flick The Girl Next Door in 2004), Hirsch is enough of a fresh face to make this role his landmark one.
I really loved this film. It won’t capture everyone – I think my view might have been coloured by reading the book and knowing the story inside and out. But perhaps not. Either way, I recommend this film – it might annoy a little, but ultimately it is a fantastic story of a highly idealistic road-trip of discovery. Into the Wild is not trite or overly clichéd – it is, at its core, about a man looking for meaning. Isn’t that what we’re all looking for?
----------------------------------
Chris McCandless: Rather than love, than money, than faith, than fame, than fairness... give me truth.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
This is England
Thomas Turgoose, Stephen Graham, Joe Gilgun, Andrew Shim, Jo Hartley
Dir. Shane Meadows
Scr. Shane Meadows
This is England is a poignantly, powerfully told coming-of-age story set in 80s England. Based on the experiences of director/writer Shane Meadows, this film is as real and raw as cinema gets. And, yes, there is some violence. But above all, this is a story of finding your place and discovering your limits. Brilliant wee tale, well acted and nicely paced.
This is England is the story of Shaun (Turgoose), a boy on the verge of becoming a man, who has a lot to be miserable about. Picked on at school, raised by a single mum after losing his father in the Falklands War, friendless, a fashion victim – Shaun is in need of something in his life. In walks Woody (Gilgun), a local skinhead, who befriends Shaun (Doc Martins, Ben Sherman shirt, and shaven head – the works). Woody and his mates become Shaun’s extended family and all is rosy. Until, that is, Combo (Graham) is released from prison and has some new ideas for the group – namely, white pride and, along with it, an unwelcome dose of racism. Except, for the impressionable Shaun, Combo becomes something of a father figure and, well, bad stuff happens. As you might imagine.
This is England is told on a very small scale – there are less than ten people in Woody’s gang and Combo rallies only half that to attend the National Front meeting (which, itself, is attended by only a couple of dozen like-minded skinheads). Meadows use of historical footage from the time complements the antics of these few people in this small town nicely. There is an intimacy that makes the friendships and the eventual violence so much more real and poignant. At times the racist ramblings of Combo are comical – the scene when they rob the local convenience store (run by a Pakistani man who speaks much better English than Combo himself) is highly ridiculous. But the anger inside Combo is all too real and explodes with very real consequences. This juxtaposition is extremely powerful and catches the audience a little off-guard. Very clever film-making.
The acting in This is England is superb. I have to admit that I didn’t recognise any of the actors, which was perhaps a good thing – they weren’t actors to me, but simply the people they were portraying. Gilgun, as the extremely likeable Woody, is fantastic, with a wonderful turn-of-phrase. Turgoose, a non-actor (this being his first role), is absolutely perfect. I’m not sure how brilliant an actor is truly is – I suspect he was largely playing himself – but there is no question he pulled off this challenging and difficult role with skill and maturity. The real stand-out for me, however, was Graham as the explosive Combo. Not an easy role to play, Graham shows Combo to be not only a violent and angry individual, but also quite a sensitive and scarred one. How he chooses to deal with his pain may be repugnant to most, but you can’t help but feel for Combo – this is largely due to Graham’s skill and understanding of this flawed and complex character. Brilliant stuff.
I recommend This is England. It’s not without fault – it ends with an unsatisfying abruptness that was unnecessary. But it is a very raw film that will make you angry, while simultaneously pulling at your heart-strings. And that’s quite a feat. Very good British cinema indeed.
-----------------------------
Woody: Listen to me. He's a young lad. He's had a fucking bad week. So we bring him in wi' us to show him a bloody good time and you've just friggin back handed him roun' head. I'M DISAPPOINTED MATE!
Dir. Shane Meadows
Scr. Shane Meadows
This is England is a poignantly, powerfully told coming-of-age story set in 80s England. Based on the experiences of director/writer Shane Meadows, this film is as real and raw as cinema gets. And, yes, there is some violence. But above all, this is a story of finding your place and discovering your limits. Brilliant wee tale, well acted and nicely paced.
This is England is the story of Shaun (Turgoose), a boy on the verge of becoming a man, who has a lot to be miserable about. Picked on at school, raised by a single mum after losing his father in the Falklands War, friendless, a fashion victim – Shaun is in need of something in his life. In walks Woody (Gilgun), a local skinhead, who befriends Shaun (Doc Martins, Ben Sherman shirt, and shaven head – the works). Woody and his mates become Shaun’s extended family and all is rosy. Until, that is, Combo (Graham) is released from prison and has some new ideas for the group – namely, white pride and, along with it, an unwelcome dose of racism. Except, for the impressionable Shaun, Combo becomes something of a father figure and, well, bad stuff happens. As you might imagine.
This is England is told on a very small scale – there are less than ten people in Woody’s gang and Combo rallies only half that to attend the National Front meeting (which, itself, is attended by only a couple of dozen like-minded skinheads). Meadows use of historical footage from the time complements the antics of these few people in this small town nicely. There is an intimacy that makes the friendships and the eventual violence so much more real and poignant. At times the racist ramblings of Combo are comical – the scene when they rob the local convenience store (run by a Pakistani man who speaks much better English than Combo himself) is highly ridiculous. But the anger inside Combo is all too real and explodes with very real consequences. This juxtaposition is extremely powerful and catches the audience a little off-guard. Very clever film-making.
The acting in This is England is superb. I have to admit that I didn’t recognise any of the actors, which was perhaps a good thing – they weren’t actors to me, but simply the people they were portraying. Gilgun, as the extremely likeable Woody, is fantastic, with a wonderful turn-of-phrase. Turgoose, a non-actor (this being his first role), is absolutely perfect. I’m not sure how brilliant an actor is truly is – I suspect he was largely playing himself – but there is no question he pulled off this challenging and difficult role with skill and maturity. The real stand-out for me, however, was Graham as the explosive Combo. Not an easy role to play, Graham shows Combo to be not only a violent and angry individual, but also quite a sensitive and scarred one. How he chooses to deal with his pain may be repugnant to most, but you can’t help but feel for Combo – this is largely due to Graham’s skill and understanding of this flawed and complex character. Brilliant stuff.
I recommend This is England. It’s not without fault – it ends with an unsatisfying abruptness that was unnecessary. But it is a very raw film that will make you angry, while simultaneously pulling at your heart-strings. And that’s quite a feat. Very good British cinema indeed.
-----------------------------
Woody: Listen to me. He's a young lad. He's had a fucking bad week. So we bring him in wi' us to show him a bloody good time and you've just friggin back handed him roun' head. I'M DISAPPOINTED MATE!
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Bee Movie
Voices of: Jerry Seinfeld, Renee Zellweger, Matthew Broderick, Chris Rock, John Goodman and many, many more
Dir. Steve Hickner & Simon J Smith
Scr. Jerry Seinfeld, Spike Feresten, Barry Marder & Andy Robin
This movie is much better on paper than it is on the screen. Jerry Seinfeld is its driving force – perfect. And the cast of voices are phenomenal. And the story – a bee sues the human race for stealing honey – is priceless. But somehow all this potential amounts to an infrequently funny and largely forgettable film.
I was very excited to hear that Jerry was back and undertaking a project so different from his stand-up and his tv series. “Ah, he’s had kids”, I thought. “He’s all soft and squishy now and wants to make something he can watch with his offspring.” And, why not? Here’s a man who made one of the best tv shows ever and never has to work again – whatever he’s involved in has to be good, right? Well, not exactly.
There’s a lot that is good about this movie, most of which I knew before I went to see it. The title itself – Bee Movie – is a brilliant play on words. The story – bees sue humans – is family-fun genius and cleverly developed. A fantastic array of voices – including Oprah for goodness sake! – is testament to how many people want to work with Jerry. And, to top it all off, there is a cameo from Sting – HA!
But, you know what, I just didn’t laugh all that much. It was clever and, in places, very witty. I chuckled and I smiled wryly, but there were no belly laughs. And that’s pretty fatal for a film spawned by a comedian. I think I like the thought of Bee Movie more than Bee Movie itself.
There’s not much more to say. See it, if you want. It’s not terrible – you won’t throw your popcorn at the screen in disgust. It’s just not that good either.
-----------------------------------
Vanessa: Why don't you just fly everywhere? Isn't it faster?
Barry B. Benson: Because flying gets very tiring. Why don't you humans just run everywhere, isn't that faster?
Dir. Steve Hickner & Simon J Smith
Scr. Jerry Seinfeld, Spike Feresten, Barry Marder & Andy Robin
This movie is much better on paper than it is on the screen. Jerry Seinfeld is its driving force – perfect. And the cast of voices are phenomenal. And the story – a bee sues the human race for stealing honey – is priceless. But somehow all this potential amounts to an infrequently funny and largely forgettable film.
I was very excited to hear that Jerry was back and undertaking a project so different from his stand-up and his tv series. “Ah, he’s had kids”, I thought. “He’s all soft and squishy now and wants to make something he can watch with his offspring.” And, why not? Here’s a man who made one of the best tv shows ever and never has to work again – whatever he’s involved in has to be good, right? Well, not exactly.
There’s a lot that is good about this movie, most of which I knew before I went to see it. The title itself – Bee Movie – is a brilliant play on words. The story – bees sue humans – is family-fun genius and cleverly developed. A fantastic array of voices – including Oprah for goodness sake! – is testament to how many people want to work with Jerry. And, to top it all off, there is a cameo from Sting – HA!
But, you know what, I just didn’t laugh all that much. It was clever and, in places, very witty. I chuckled and I smiled wryly, but there were no belly laughs. And that’s pretty fatal for a film spawned by a comedian. I think I like the thought of Bee Movie more than Bee Movie itself.
There’s not much more to say. See it, if you want. It’s not terrible – you won’t throw your popcorn at the screen in disgust. It’s just not that good either.
-----------------------------------
Vanessa: Why don't you just fly everywhere? Isn't it faster?
Barry B. Benson: Because flying gets very tiring. Why don't you humans just run everywhere, isn't that faster?
Beowulf
Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Robin Wright Penn, Jonh Malkovich, Angelina Jolie, Brendan Gleeson, Crispin Glover
Dir. Robert Zemeckis
Scr. Neil Gaiman & Roger Avary (based on the poem of the same name)
When I first heard that Beowulf was being made into a movie directed by the extremely competent Robert Zemeckis, adapted by literary god Neil Gaiman, and starring grizzly and talented Ray Winstone in the lead, I nearly wet my pants in anticipation. Beowulf is a tremendous tale of bravery and monsters and greed and all that good stuff. But then, horror of horrors, I found out that it was going to be animated! WHAT!?! I mean, I have nothing against animation per se, but why waste such a director, such a writer, such a cast on animation? Why not bite the bullet and do the all-real, all-action adaptation that this tale so deserves? Well, while I still think a live action film could have been amazing, this Beowulf film exceeded my expectations and I was thoroughly entertained, grossed out, frightened and thrilled.
I have to offer a word of advice however – if at all humanly possible, see it in 3-D. I was sceptical about the poxy glasses but, my god, never have I been more wrong. Live action, 3D Beowulf – now that would have been something special.
Beowulf tells the story of a town terrorised by the monster Grendel and his mother, and the hero, Beowulf, who comes to save the day and finds himself mixed up in the whole sorry business of man’s greedy thirst for power and fame. The story of Beowulf was originally told in an Old English epic poem and set in the 5th and 6th century. It’s a ripper of a story and adapted well by Gaiman and Avary. I’m not sure how faithful it is to the poem and, to be honest, I’m never going to read it so I’m never going to know. But I do know it’s a bloody and gory telling, but it also has heart and smarts (but, thankfully, no animated sex).
My beef with this movie is not the writing, but the medium. As I said, I am not anti-animation. But I just wondered why you would slave away trying to make the characters look so life-like … why not use the actors and make a live-action film? I know, I know – it costs less and you can make a cartoon Winstone do more than a real-life Winstone. I know! And maybe, as some critics have suggested, this is the future of film-making. Well, I hope not.
I did like the way in which Beowulf didn’t look like Ray Winstone – that Winstone’s essence was captured in a character that instead looked like a heroic muscleman. So, WHY THEN, do we have Grendel’s mother looking EXACTLY like Angelina Jolie!??! The audience in my screening laughed (yes, laughed out loud) when she emerged from the water. So, for Beowulf (and pretty much all the other characters) the animators really worked hard to make the character believable … but, apparently, Grendel’s mother WAS Jolie. It bugged me, in case you can’t tell.
The 3D rendering was very, very good indeed. I was dodging ceilings and flying bodies; I yelped when an object appeared to drop from nowhere before my eyes; I even reached out to touch something that wasn’t there. It worked well and I wouldn’t even want to contemplate seeing this film in 2D or on a small screen.
So, Beowulf was pretty good. It wasn’t the live-action, cinematic masterpiece I was initially hoping it would be. And I will forever feel a little ripped off by that. But, in the end, I was entertained and the film-makers weaved a compelling tale. It’s not for everyone’s taste, that’s for sure, and it’s gorier than I thought animation could be. But if you fancy a bit of epic fantasy story-telling, then give Beowulf a go. But only in 3D.
----------------------------
Beowulf: I am Ripper... Tearer... Slasher... Gouger. I am the Teeth in the Darkness, the Talons in the Night. Mine is Strength... and Lust... and Power! I AM BEOWULF!
Dir. Robert Zemeckis
Scr. Neil Gaiman & Roger Avary (based on the poem of the same name)
When I first heard that Beowulf was being made into a movie directed by the extremely competent Robert Zemeckis, adapted by literary god Neil Gaiman, and starring grizzly and talented Ray Winstone in the lead, I nearly wet my pants in anticipation. Beowulf is a tremendous tale of bravery and monsters and greed and all that good stuff. But then, horror of horrors, I found out that it was going to be animated! WHAT!?! I mean, I have nothing against animation per se, but why waste such a director, such a writer, such a cast on animation? Why not bite the bullet and do the all-real, all-action adaptation that this tale so deserves? Well, while I still think a live action film could have been amazing, this Beowulf film exceeded my expectations and I was thoroughly entertained, grossed out, frightened and thrilled.
I have to offer a word of advice however – if at all humanly possible, see it in 3-D. I was sceptical about the poxy glasses but, my god, never have I been more wrong. Live action, 3D Beowulf – now that would have been something special.
Beowulf tells the story of a town terrorised by the monster Grendel and his mother, and the hero, Beowulf, who comes to save the day and finds himself mixed up in the whole sorry business of man’s greedy thirst for power and fame. The story of Beowulf was originally told in an Old English epic poem and set in the 5th and 6th century. It’s a ripper of a story and adapted well by Gaiman and Avary. I’m not sure how faithful it is to the poem and, to be honest, I’m never going to read it so I’m never going to know. But I do know it’s a bloody and gory telling, but it also has heart and smarts (but, thankfully, no animated sex).
My beef with this movie is not the writing, but the medium. As I said, I am not anti-animation. But I just wondered why you would slave away trying to make the characters look so life-like … why not use the actors and make a live-action film? I know, I know – it costs less and you can make a cartoon Winstone do more than a real-life Winstone. I know! And maybe, as some critics have suggested, this is the future of film-making. Well, I hope not.
I did like the way in which Beowulf didn’t look like Ray Winstone – that Winstone’s essence was captured in a character that instead looked like a heroic muscleman. So, WHY THEN, do we have Grendel’s mother looking EXACTLY like Angelina Jolie!??! The audience in my screening laughed (yes, laughed out loud) when she emerged from the water. So, for Beowulf (and pretty much all the other characters) the animators really worked hard to make the character believable … but, apparently, Grendel’s mother WAS Jolie. It bugged me, in case you can’t tell.
The 3D rendering was very, very good indeed. I was dodging ceilings and flying bodies; I yelped when an object appeared to drop from nowhere before my eyes; I even reached out to touch something that wasn’t there. It worked well and I wouldn’t even want to contemplate seeing this film in 2D or on a small screen.
So, Beowulf was pretty good. It wasn’t the live-action, cinematic masterpiece I was initially hoping it would be. And I will forever feel a little ripped off by that. But, in the end, I was entertained and the film-makers weaved a compelling tale. It’s not for everyone’s taste, that’s for sure, and it’s gorier than I thought animation could be. But if you fancy a bit of epic fantasy story-telling, then give Beowulf a go. But only in 3D.
----------------------------
Beowulf: I am Ripper... Tearer... Slasher... Gouger. I am the Teeth in the Darkness, the Talons in the Night. Mine is Strength... and Lust... and Power! I AM BEOWULF!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Clive Owen, Samantha Morton, Jordi Molla
Dir. Shekhar Kapur
Scr. William Nicholson & Michael Hirst
I have been trying to get motivated enough to write this review. My response to this film was “meh” – it’s hard to write about such indifference. But then I started to think about why the heck they even made this film and this angered me. Blanchett’s first Elizabeth outing in 1998 was fantastic cinema and was rewarded both critically and financially. This film is a clear attempt to cash in on that success. Unfortunately, folks, when you don’t have the script, you don’t have anything.
The Golden Age tries to focus on two elements of Elizabeth’s life and the history of England – the Spanish Armada and Sir Walter Raleigh. But this focus is muddied by a script that pulls the characters in several directions at once – the attempted assassination, the search for a husband, the persecution of the Catholics in England, the demise of Walsingham … and so on and so forth. Yes, perhaps these things were all going on at the same time (though historical accuracy is not this films strong point). But that’s no excuse for a script that constantly loses focus, that chooses to focus on something so uninteresting when so much of interest was occurring, that is simultaneously confusing and boring.
Okay, I’m not entirely sure about the nature or extent of Elizabeth’s relationship with Raleigh, but the love triangle that at times dominates this film is just rubbish. I can’t help but assume that the filmmakers completely sold out and thought “well, I guess we’ll need a love story because that’s how it’s done”. That’s not how it’s done at all! The love story is without motivation or credibility. It sullies the film. For goodness sake, there was an attempted invasion going on! And one that was so pivotal that it has entered our language and consciousness. But, no, instead we have to constantly watch a bronzed Raleigh try to seduce both the Queen and her lady-in-waiting (and who, by the way, I’m pretty sure was NOT the hero of the Armada as he is portrayed in this film).
The performances aren’t bad in The Golden Age. Blanchett is back – she has so made this role her own I can’t imagine another Elizabeth – and is fiery and strong and wonderful. Too bad the script doesn’t allow her many opportunities to soar. The scene in which she toys with and then soothes a young suitor is absolutely brilliant and nearly worth the price of admission. Owen, as Raleigh, is very good but his character is so clichéd and annoying that he has little to work with. Molla, as the Spanish King, is brilliantly mad. Rush (Walsingham) is perhaps the standout and his relationship with Elizabeth remains the most interesting (as it was in the first film) – sadly, his role is incredibly small and this is a great downfall of the film. I wanted more Elizabeth/Walsingham intrigue and less Elizabeth/Raleigh rubbish.
So, I wouldn’t recommend The Golden Age at all. I was bored and frustrated. I was annoyed at the obvious manipulation of history to make this movie more marketable which, in the end, was incredibly detrimental to my enjoyment of the film. I was appalled at a clichéd and wooden script. If you want to see wonderful costumes, grand halls and a multitude of wigs, watch the first Elizabeth movie (again, if you have to). But don’t waste your time and money on this one.
----------------------
Spanish Minister: There is a wind coming that will sweep away your pride.
Queen Elizabeth I: I, too, can command the wind, sir! I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!
Dir. Shekhar Kapur
Scr. William Nicholson & Michael Hirst
I have been trying to get motivated enough to write this review. My response to this film was “meh” – it’s hard to write about such indifference. But then I started to think about why the heck they even made this film and this angered me. Blanchett’s first Elizabeth outing in 1998 was fantastic cinema and was rewarded both critically and financially. This film is a clear attempt to cash in on that success. Unfortunately, folks, when you don’t have the script, you don’t have anything.
The Golden Age tries to focus on two elements of Elizabeth’s life and the history of England – the Spanish Armada and Sir Walter Raleigh. But this focus is muddied by a script that pulls the characters in several directions at once – the attempted assassination, the search for a husband, the persecution of the Catholics in England, the demise of Walsingham … and so on and so forth. Yes, perhaps these things were all going on at the same time (though historical accuracy is not this films strong point). But that’s no excuse for a script that constantly loses focus, that chooses to focus on something so uninteresting when so much of interest was occurring, that is simultaneously confusing and boring.
Okay, I’m not entirely sure about the nature or extent of Elizabeth’s relationship with Raleigh, but the love triangle that at times dominates this film is just rubbish. I can’t help but assume that the filmmakers completely sold out and thought “well, I guess we’ll need a love story because that’s how it’s done”. That’s not how it’s done at all! The love story is without motivation or credibility. It sullies the film. For goodness sake, there was an attempted invasion going on! And one that was so pivotal that it has entered our language and consciousness. But, no, instead we have to constantly watch a bronzed Raleigh try to seduce both the Queen and her lady-in-waiting (and who, by the way, I’m pretty sure was NOT the hero of the Armada as he is portrayed in this film).
The performances aren’t bad in The Golden Age. Blanchett is back – she has so made this role her own I can’t imagine another Elizabeth – and is fiery and strong and wonderful. Too bad the script doesn’t allow her many opportunities to soar. The scene in which she toys with and then soothes a young suitor is absolutely brilliant and nearly worth the price of admission. Owen, as Raleigh, is very good but his character is so clichéd and annoying that he has little to work with. Molla, as the Spanish King, is brilliantly mad. Rush (Walsingham) is perhaps the standout and his relationship with Elizabeth remains the most interesting (as it was in the first film) – sadly, his role is incredibly small and this is a great downfall of the film. I wanted more Elizabeth/Walsingham intrigue and less Elizabeth/Raleigh rubbish.
So, I wouldn’t recommend The Golden Age at all. I was bored and frustrated. I was annoyed at the obvious manipulation of history to make this movie more marketable which, in the end, was incredibly detrimental to my enjoyment of the film. I was appalled at a clichéd and wooden script. If you want to see wonderful costumes, grand halls and a multitude of wigs, watch the first Elizabeth movie (again, if you have to). But don’t waste your time and money on this one.
----------------------
Spanish Minister: There is a wind coming that will sweep away your pride.
Queen Elizabeth I: I, too, can command the wind, sir! I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!
Sunday, November 4, 2007
1408
John Cusack, Samuel L Jackson, Mary McCormack, Tony Shalhoub, Jasmine Jessica Anthony
Dir. Mikael Hafstrom
Scr. Matt Greenberg, Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski (based on a short story by Stephen King)
1408 is a movie of two halves. The first half is truly scary, quite intelligent and, above all, entertaining. The second half is not – its clichéd and overly CGI’ed and, well, downright boring. Maybe you could explain this to the ticket seller at your local cinema – they might let you in for half-price, which is all this movie is really worth.
1408 is about Mike Enslin (Cusack), a writer of trashy horror guides – Top Ten Scariest Hotels, Top Ten Scariest Graveyards, etc – who has yet to find something that has truly terrified him. Enslin is convinced that ghosts don’t exist and happy to make money off people who think they do. Jaded by his work, he is lured to the Dolphin Hotel in New York by an anonymous postcard. Specifically, lured to room 1408. Overcoming resistance from the hotel manager (Jackson), he checks in and so it begins.
Well, so it does begin but, sadly, it’s not maintained. The first hour of this film is great – good set-up; we get to know enough about Enslin to make him interesting and we get a little insight into what motivates him; fantastic scene between Enslin and the hotel manager; SCARY first twenty minutes or so in room 1408. And then, well, this film loses its way. It becomes less about scaring the audience with true creepiness and more about Enslin’s personal demons (ex-wife, dead kid, you know the drill) and lots of unnecessary special effects. In fact, that first period in the hotel room I can’t fully review – it had me so scared that I spent most of the time looking anywhere but at the screen (mostly hiding behind my boyfriend’s shoulder). Which, by the way, I take as a good sign. What’s the point of a horror film you can actually watch all the way through?!? Great suspense and truly disturbing, that section of the film is brilliant. Too bad the rest of it doesn’t deliver.
In terms of acting, this is a one-man show – it’s all about Enslin (Cusack). Cusack is extremely watchable (as always) and as he is torn from reality into the weird and evil world of room 1408, we automatically sympathise and are scared along with him – he truly has that “everyman” quality. Jackson puts in a great performance as the melodramatic hotel manager and McCormack is solid in support as Enslin’s ex-wife. But ultimately this film rests on Cusack’s shoulders – pity the writing didn’t support his very good performance.
1408 is based on a Stephen King short story and film buffs will know there have been a couple of fantastic adaptations of his back catalogue – namely The Shawshank Redemption and Apt Pupil. I am less fond of adaptations of his novels (with the notable exception of the brilliant Stand By Me), so was eager to see what the filmmakers had done with this short story. Sadly, very little of the finesse of Shawshank or Apt Pupil is present in 1408.
This film could have been so much better – if the writers could have just allowed it to be creepy throughout rather than delving into the world of fire and collapsing walls and personal demons. Sadly, I do not recommend this film. If it’s on tv, by all means catch the first hour or so – it’ll give you nightmares. But don’t make yourself sit through a disappointing and woefully unscary second half.
---------------------------
Mike Enslin: [talking into tape recorder] Hotels are a naturally creepy place... Just think, how many people have slept in that bed before you? How many of them were sick? How many... died?
Dir. Mikael Hafstrom
Scr. Matt Greenberg, Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski (based on a short story by Stephen King)
1408 is a movie of two halves. The first half is truly scary, quite intelligent and, above all, entertaining. The second half is not – its clichéd and overly CGI’ed and, well, downright boring. Maybe you could explain this to the ticket seller at your local cinema – they might let you in for half-price, which is all this movie is really worth.
1408 is about Mike Enslin (Cusack), a writer of trashy horror guides – Top Ten Scariest Hotels, Top Ten Scariest Graveyards, etc – who has yet to find something that has truly terrified him. Enslin is convinced that ghosts don’t exist and happy to make money off people who think they do. Jaded by his work, he is lured to the Dolphin Hotel in New York by an anonymous postcard. Specifically, lured to room 1408. Overcoming resistance from the hotel manager (Jackson), he checks in and so it begins.
Well, so it does begin but, sadly, it’s not maintained. The first hour of this film is great – good set-up; we get to know enough about Enslin to make him interesting and we get a little insight into what motivates him; fantastic scene between Enslin and the hotel manager; SCARY first twenty minutes or so in room 1408. And then, well, this film loses its way. It becomes less about scaring the audience with true creepiness and more about Enslin’s personal demons (ex-wife, dead kid, you know the drill) and lots of unnecessary special effects. In fact, that first period in the hotel room I can’t fully review – it had me so scared that I spent most of the time looking anywhere but at the screen (mostly hiding behind my boyfriend’s shoulder). Which, by the way, I take as a good sign. What’s the point of a horror film you can actually watch all the way through?!? Great suspense and truly disturbing, that section of the film is brilliant. Too bad the rest of it doesn’t deliver.
In terms of acting, this is a one-man show – it’s all about Enslin (Cusack). Cusack is extremely watchable (as always) and as he is torn from reality into the weird and evil world of room 1408, we automatically sympathise and are scared along with him – he truly has that “everyman” quality. Jackson puts in a great performance as the melodramatic hotel manager and McCormack is solid in support as Enslin’s ex-wife. But ultimately this film rests on Cusack’s shoulders – pity the writing didn’t support his very good performance.
1408 is based on a Stephen King short story and film buffs will know there have been a couple of fantastic adaptations of his back catalogue – namely The Shawshank Redemption and Apt Pupil. I am less fond of adaptations of his novels (with the notable exception of the brilliant Stand By Me), so was eager to see what the filmmakers had done with this short story. Sadly, very little of the finesse of Shawshank or Apt Pupil is present in 1408.
This film could have been so much better – if the writers could have just allowed it to be creepy throughout rather than delving into the world of fire and collapsing walls and personal demons. Sadly, I do not recommend this film. If it’s on tv, by all means catch the first hour or so – it’ll give you nightmares. But don’t make yourself sit through a disappointing and woefully unscary second half.
---------------------------
Mike Enslin: [talking into tape recorder] Hotels are a naturally creepy place... Just think, how many people have slept in that bed before you? How many of them were sick? How many... died?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Eastern Promises
Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassel, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Sinead Cusack
Dir. David Cronenberg
Scr. Steven Knight
David Cronenberg is widely regarded as a strange man. Look at his films – The Fly, Crash, eXistenZ, The Dead Zone. He’s used to dealing with the weird and the twisted. But, of late, Cronenberg has focussed his attention on the human condition – no mutations, no sci-fi; just people. Raw, flawed people. With A History of Violence, Cronenberg partnered with leading man Viggo Mortensen to make one of the best films of 2005. In Eastern Promises, Viggo and David get together again and explore evil and deceit and hope. For my money, Eastern Promises just might be one of the best movies of 2007.
Set in a dark and foreboding London, Eastern Promises follows the highly mysterious and extremely ruthless Nikolai (Mortensen), who works for a Russian crime family. Mortensen is the driver/henchman/hard man for the only son (Cassel) of the powerful and respected head of the family (Mueller-Stahl). Enter into the dangerous mix Anna (Watts), a midwife trying to find the family of a young Russian woman who dies while giving birth on her shift, who has evidence that could destroy this Russian crime-lord and his family.
There are some surprising and superbly scripted twists and turns thrown into the mix – I won’t go into the details, but let’s just say all is not as it seems (is it ever in the World of Cronenberg?!) What I can say is that Eastern Promises is satisfying without being too obvious – Cronenberg and writer Knight do not spoon-feed the audience but nor is this film so convoluted that one can’t keep up. I love that, in the end, we need not see all that has occurred to make the final shot a reality – we only need to know that the set-up was successful and the end goal came to fruition. This is a device film-makers should use more often. Eastern Promises could have easily been an hour longer, and immensely more boring, but Cronenberg and Knight made sure instead that everything made sense even if everything was not seen.
The performances in Eastern Promises are absolutely superb, without exception. Mortensen is brilliant playing a not-so-bad man in a very bad world. He is a wonderfully gritty and believable leading man. Apparently, in that method-actor way of his (this is the man who mended his own costume in Lord of the Rings), Mortensen was thrown out of a Russian bar in London for unsettling and intimidating the customers. He didn’t say a word – just ordered vodka and sat, looking menacing. Classic. Cassel is perfectly cast as the flawed and drunken heir to the crime organisation – in equal parts sinister and pathetic, a difficult mix to master. By far the scariest character in this film is played by Mueller-Stahl and this film is one of his best. He is absolutely excellent. Watts is very good and I was pleased to not hear her accent slip. She plays Anna with a nice blend of strength and desperation. A nice performance too from Cusack as Anna’s mother.
I have to warn those of you who aren’t fond of violence that this film has a couple of scenes I couldn’t watch – one at the beginning, which is mercifully short; the other in a bathhouse which involves a very naked Mortensen take on two Russian heavies. I can’t review this scene, sorry, because I just couldn’t watch it (being quite a wuss when it comes to knives being stabbed into people). I mainly couldn’t watch it because it’s Cronenberg – I just knew he would push the boundaries. I’ve read that it will go down as one of his most out-there scenes. But I don’t condemn the film for this scene – it is about the Russian mob, after all, and I don’t think the scene is out of place or gratuitous. Just watch out if you’re squeamish.
Eastern Promises is ultimately a tale of morality. It is chilling, utterly compelling, and completely surprising. I can’t wait for the next pairing of Cronenberg and Mortensen.
----------------------
Nikolai: Forget any of this happened. Stay away from people like me.
Dir. David Cronenberg
Scr. Steven Knight
David Cronenberg is widely regarded as a strange man. Look at his films – The Fly, Crash, eXistenZ, The Dead Zone. He’s used to dealing with the weird and the twisted. But, of late, Cronenberg has focussed his attention on the human condition – no mutations, no sci-fi; just people. Raw, flawed people. With A History of Violence, Cronenberg partnered with leading man Viggo Mortensen to make one of the best films of 2005. In Eastern Promises, Viggo and David get together again and explore evil and deceit and hope. For my money, Eastern Promises just might be one of the best movies of 2007.
Set in a dark and foreboding London, Eastern Promises follows the highly mysterious and extremely ruthless Nikolai (Mortensen), who works for a Russian crime family. Mortensen is the driver/henchman/hard man for the only son (Cassel) of the powerful and respected head of the family (Mueller-Stahl). Enter into the dangerous mix Anna (Watts), a midwife trying to find the family of a young Russian woman who dies while giving birth on her shift, who has evidence that could destroy this Russian crime-lord and his family.
There are some surprising and superbly scripted twists and turns thrown into the mix – I won’t go into the details, but let’s just say all is not as it seems (is it ever in the World of Cronenberg?!) What I can say is that Eastern Promises is satisfying without being too obvious – Cronenberg and writer Knight do not spoon-feed the audience but nor is this film so convoluted that one can’t keep up. I love that, in the end, we need not see all that has occurred to make the final shot a reality – we only need to know that the set-up was successful and the end goal came to fruition. This is a device film-makers should use more often. Eastern Promises could have easily been an hour longer, and immensely more boring, but Cronenberg and Knight made sure instead that everything made sense even if everything was not seen.
The performances in Eastern Promises are absolutely superb, without exception. Mortensen is brilliant playing a not-so-bad man in a very bad world. He is a wonderfully gritty and believable leading man. Apparently, in that method-actor way of his (this is the man who mended his own costume in Lord of the Rings), Mortensen was thrown out of a Russian bar in London for unsettling and intimidating the customers. He didn’t say a word – just ordered vodka and sat, looking menacing. Classic. Cassel is perfectly cast as the flawed and drunken heir to the crime organisation – in equal parts sinister and pathetic, a difficult mix to master. By far the scariest character in this film is played by Mueller-Stahl and this film is one of his best. He is absolutely excellent. Watts is very good and I was pleased to not hear her accent slip. She plays Anna with a nice blend of strength and desperation. A nice performance too from Cusack as Anna’s mother.
I have to warn those of you who aren’t fond of violence that this film has a couple of scenes I couldn’t watch – one at the beginning, which is mercifully short; the other in a bathhouse which involves a very naked Mortensen take on two Russian heavies. I can’t review this scene, sorry, because I just couldn’t watch it (being quite a wuss when it comes to knives being stabbed into people). I mainly couldn’t watch it because it’s Cronenberg – I just knew he would push the boundaries. I’ve read that it will go down as one of his most out-there scenes. But I don’t condemn the film for this scene – it is about the Russian mob, after all, and I don’t think the scene is out of place or gratuitous. Just watch out if you’re squeamish.
Eastern Promises is ultimately a tale of morality. It is chilling, utterly compelling, and completely surprising. I can’t wait for the next pairing of Cronenberg and Mortensen.
----------------------
Nikolai: Forget any of this happened. Stay away from people like me.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Atonement
Keira Knightley, James McAvoy, Saoirse Ronan, Romola Garai, Vanessa Redgrave, Brenda Blethyn
Dir. Joe Wright
Scr. Christopher Hampton (based on the novel by Ian McEwan)
Okay, I am slightly bewildered by all this hoopla about Atonement. Apparently, if it doesn’t win the Oscar for best picture next year it will be a travesty. Hmmm. And, apparently, it’s the best British film of the decade. Hmmmmmmmmm. I did like this film, but not as much as I was obviously supposed to. And I blame (a) Knightley, (b) some painful scenes of nothingness, and (c) the marketing machine that told me I was going to experience something truly special – a flawless film. Well, it wasn’t.
I know, I know. We can’t blame the filmmakers for over-hyping a film, can we? Well, no, I guess we can’t. But there was more that annoyed and disappointed me than just some truly over-the-top marketing. I haven’t read Atonement, though I am a fan of Ian McEwan and I especially enjoyed that adaptation of Enduring Love. I’m going to assume that this was a pretty faithful adaptation and that they didn’t butcher the book. Which makes me think that Atonement might be a brilliant book that doesn’t easily translate into a brilliant movie.
The story is very interesting and compelling and I won’t spoil it for those who have yet to see the film. There is many a twist and turn that you will want to be taken aback by – for me, it was sometimes the only thing keeping me awake. Atonement centres around the Tallis sisters – Cecilia and Briony – and a particular summer which turned their lives upside down. Hmmm. I don’t actually think I can even outline the story without giving a few things away. Let’s just say there’s jealously and betrayal and love and all that good stuff. Oh, and there’s a war thrown in for good measure. And a healthy dose of blood and guts along the way.
The acting, on the whole, is very good. McAvoy, for my money, has become a deserving leading man and has shown, again and again, his range and his ability. He is excellent here as Robbie, the poor boy made good. I can’t fault the supporting cast, including the ever-brilliant Blethyn. Who I can fault is Knightley. I am not a fan, it’s no secret. But I was assured by many reviewers that she shows her true acting ability here and finally has a role to grow into. Well, that’s rubbish. She pouts her way through this film just as she’s pouted her way through everything else. She is annoying and there is a worrying absence of chemistry between her and McAvoy, for which I blame her entirely. Contrast the horrible Knightley to the excellent performances by the three women to play her sister, Briony – Saoirse Ronan (aged about 11), Romola Garai (aged 18), and Vanessa Redgrave (old age). These three women are the reason that I did actually like this film and the reason why I will not slate it altogether. Ronan is by far the stand-out – she is so good that hairs stood up on the back of my neck when she did, well, that thing she does in the film that is so awful. A great actress in the making. Garai, unknown to me before this film, is also excellent as nurse-in-training Briony – she has a quality that ensures you can’t take your eyes off her. And Redgrave; well, not much needs to be said of this powerhouse of an actress. Her appearance on screen is short but perhaps the highlight of the film. Her emotion is truly wonderful.
The production value is good, I suppose. But then they had a lot of money to play with. There is war, which is portrayed with a complete lack of originality and didn’t really move me at all. There is a love story that lacks believability. There is a tragic ending, which was indeed incredibly sad, but I had somewhat ceased to care too much about the characters by that point in the film. By far the most interesting journey is that made by Briony, and this is portrayed very well indeed, in no small thanks to the triumvirate of actresses playing her. Overall, this is a diverting film, with enough of a story to hold your attention but not really enough heart to have you care about everyone’s fate as much as you should. And that, I must say, is the tragedy.
They are saying it’s the new English Patient. Well, that’s just plain absurd. And, don’t they know, that the English Patient gets worse and worse the more you see it? Ah well, I am resigned to the fact that Atonement will probably fulfil its own prophecy and sweep next year’s Oscars. But if Knightley wins best actress, repeating the Pathrow/Shakepeare in Love travesty, I shall be seriously displeased.
--------------------
Robbie: Why are you crying?
Cecilia: Don't you know?
Robbie: Yes, yes I know exactly.
Dir. Joe Wright
Scr. Christopher Hampton (based on the novel by Ian McEwan)
Okay, I am slightly bewildered by all this hoopla about Atonement. Apparently, if it doesn’t win the Oscar for best picture next year it will be a travesty. Hmmm. And, apparently, it’s the best British film of the decade. Hmmmmmmmmm. I did like this film, but not as much as I was obviously supposed to. And I blame (a) Knightley, (b) some painful scenes of nothingness, and (c) the marketing machine that told me I was going to experience something truly special – a flawless film. Well, it wasn’t.
I know, I know. We can’t blame the filmmakers for over-hyping a film, can we? Well, no, I guess we can’t. But there was more that annoyed and disappointed me than just some truly over-the-top marketing. I haven’t read Atonement, though I am a fan of Ian McEwan and I especially enjoyed that adaptation of Enduring Love. I’m going to assume that this was a pretty faithful adaptation and that they didn’t butcher the book. Which makes me think that Atonement might be a brilliant book that doesn’t easily translate into a brilliant movie.
The story is very interesting and compelling and I won’t spoil it for those who have yet to see the film. There is many a twist and turn that you will want to be taken aback by – for me, it was sometimes the only thing keeping me awake. Atonement centres around the Tallis sisters – Cecilia and Briony – and a particular summer which turned their lives upside down. Hmmm. I don’t actually think I can even outline the story without giving a few things away. Let’s just say there’s jealously and betrayal and love and all that good stuff. Oh, and there’s a war thrown in for good measure. And a healthy dose of blood and guts along the way.
The acting, on the whole, is very good. McAvoy, for my money, has become a deserving leading man and has shown, again and again, his range and his ability. He is excellent here as Robbie, the poor boy made good. I can’t fault the supporting cast, including the ever-brilliant Blethyn. Who I can fault is Knightley. I am not a fan, it’s no secret. But I was assured by many reviewers that she shows her true acting ability here and finally has a role to grow into. Well, that’s rubbish. She pouts her way through this film just as she’s pouted her way through everything else. She is annoying and there is a worrying absence of chemistry between her and McAvoy, for which I blame her entirely. Contrast the horrible Knightley to the excellent performances by the three women to play her sister, Briony – Saoirse Ronan (aged about 11), Romola Garai (aged 18), and Vanessa Redgrave (old age). These three women are the reason that I did actually like this film and the reason why I will not slate it altogether. Ronan is by far the stand-out – she is so good that hairs stood up on the back of my neck when she did, well, that thing she does in the film that is so awful. A great actress in the making. Garai, unknown to me before this film, is also excellent as nurse-in-training Briony – she has a quality that ensures you can’t take your eyes off her. And Redgrave; well, not much needs to be said of this powerhouse of an actress. Her appearance on screen is short but perhaps the highlight of the film. Her emotion is truly wonderful.
The production value is good, I suppose. But then they had a lot of money to play with. There is war, which is portrayed with a complete lack of originality and didn’t really move me at all. There is a love story that lacks believability. There is a tragic ending, which was indeed incredibly sad, but I had somewhat ceased to care too much about the characters by that point in the film. By far the most interesting journey is that made by Briony, and this is portrayed very well indeed, in no small thanks to the triumvirate of actresses playing her. Overall, this is a diverting film, with enough of a story to hold your attention but not really enough heart to have you care about everyone’s fate as much as you should. And that, I must say, is the tragedy.
They are saying it’s the new English Patient. Well, that’s just plain absurd. And, don’t they know, that the English Patient gets worse and worse the more you see it? Ah well, I am resigned to the fact that Atonement will probably fulfil its own prophecy and sweep next year’s Oscars. But if Knightley wins best actress, repeating the Pathrow/Shakepeare in Love travesty, I shall be seriously displeased.
--------------------
Robbie: Why are you crying?
Cecilia: Don't you know?
Robbie: Yes, yes I know exactly.
Perfect Creature
Dougray Scott, Saffron Burrows, Leo Gregory, Scott Willis, Stuart Wilson
Dir. Glenn Standring
Scr. Glenn Standring
I really enjoyed this film. It’s a vampire flick, so that will put some people off immediately. And it’s been critically slammed by some. But, bugger them; this film is unique, dark, and quite scary – essential elements in a horror. It’s not perfect, but it makes for an interesting and entertaining trip to the cinema.
Largely filmed in New Zealand, Perfect Creature is set in an alternative New Zealand, known as Nuovo Zelandia, in about the 1960s. Though, it could be earlier or later, such is the nature of alternative realities. The premise – wait for it … - is that vampires and humans live in peace and harmony. Yay! Vampires, known as the Brotherhood, are actually the next step in human evolution. They are wise and peace-loving and revered much like high priests. They heal, protect and somewhat pity humans, those lesser mortals with too many vices and too much hatred. But, alas, the harmonious balance is threatened when one Brother (Edgar) begins to do, well, what we have come to expect of vampires – kill humans by biting their necks and sucking their blood. The horror!! The police and the Brothers join forces to track him down and stop his wicked ways.
It all gets complicated, but let’s just say there is a virus and a healthy serving of evil and some nasty scenes ahead. Mixed in with some tenderness between leads Dougray Scott (who plays Brother Silus) and Saffron Burrows (who plays police captain Lilly). There’s a lot going on in Perfect Creature – questions of race, genetics, and religion. It’ll have you pondering. Interestingly, I would say that it could have done with another 30 minutes or so. Running at just over 80 minutes, a little more development of relationships and story would have not gone amiss.
The acting is a bit hammy. Scott is good, but a little like a lobotomised mental patient at times. He’s excellent in the more tender moments. Burrows is great as Lilly, who is the object of desire for both Edgar and Silus, but in very, very different ways. Gregory, who plays the twisted Edgar, is just plain frightening. He’s a little over-the-top, especially when he over-annunciates his words, but solid in a necessarily flashy role. Very good performances also from Willis (as Lilly’s colleague) and Wilson (as Silus and Edgar’s father).
The real winner in this film is the way it looks and feels. You can almost smell the stench in the streets and feel the grime under your fingernails – this is a dark, soulless place and you get sucked right into the despair. The production value is superb for what is undoubtedly quite a low budget film. The sets are amazing and the action is compelling and believable.
I would heartily recommend Perfect Creature to those who have a leaning towards the horror/vampire genre – you know who you are … I was thoroughly entertained and interested throughout. It’s reassuring that such an age-old story has something new to offer.
Dir. Glenn Standring
Scr. Glenn Standring
I really enjoyed this film. It’s a vampire flick, so that will put some people off immediately. And it’s been critically slammed by some. But, bugger them; this film is unique, dark, and quite scary – essential elements in a horror. It’s not perfect, but it makes for an interesting and entertaining trip to the cinema.
Largely filmed in New Zealand, Perfect Creature is set in an alternative New Zealand, known as Nuovo Zelandia, in about the 1960s. Though, it could be earlier or later, such is the nature of alternative realities. The premise – wait for it … - is that vampires and humans live in peace and harmony. Yay! Vampires, known as the Brotherhood, are actually the next step in human evolution. They are wise and peace-loving and revered much like high priests. They heal, protect and somewhat pity humans, those lesser mortals with too many vices and too much hatred. But, alas, the harmonious balance is threatened when one Brother (Edgar) begins to do, well, what we have come to expect of vampires – kill humans by biting their necks and sucking their blood. The horror!! The police and the Brothers join forces to track him down and stop his wicked ways.
It all gets complicated, but let’s just say there is a virus and a healthy serving of evil and some nasty scenes ahead. Mixed in with some tenderness between leads Dougray Scott (who plays Brother Silus) and Saffron Burrows (who plays police captain Lilly). There’s a lot going on in Perfect Creature – questions of race, genetics, and religion. It’ll have you pondering. Interestingly, I would say that it could have done with another 30 minutes or so. Running at just over 80 minutes, a little more development of relationships and story would have not gone amiss.
The acting is a bit hammy. Scott is good, but a little like a lobotomised mental patient at times. He’s excellent in the more tender moments. Burrows is great as Lilly, who is the object of desire for both Edgar and Silus, but in very, very different ways. Gregory, who plays the twisted Edgar, is just plain frightening. He’s a little over-the-top, especially when he over-annunciates his words, but solid in a necessarily flashy role. Very good performances also from Willis (as Lilly’s colleague) and Wilson (as Silus and Edgar’s father).
The real winner in this film is the way it looks and feels. You can almost smell the stench in the streets and feel the grime under your fingernails – this is a dark, soulless place and you get sucked right into the despair. The production value is superb for what is undoubtedly quite a low budget film. The sets are amazing and the action is compelling and believable.
I would heartily recommend Perfect Creature to those who have a leaning towards the horror/vampire genre – you know who you are … I was thoroughly entertained and interested throughout. It’s reassuring that such an age-old story has something new to offer.
Monday, October 15, 2007
La Vie En Rose
Marion Cotillard, Sylvie Testud, Gerard Depardieu, Jean-Pierre Martins
Dir. Olivier Dahan
Scr. Olivier Dahan & Isabelle Sobelman
La Vie En Rose tells the story, from childhood to stardom to death, of Edith Piaf. Piaf was one of France’s most celebrated and beloved singers. Her speciality, the tragic ballad, reflected her equally tragic life, which is the focus of this film. Her early death, at the age of 47 from liver cancer, has ensured her status as an icon in France. A perfect biopic this is not. But to get a sense of who Piaf was and what made her sing in that haunting way, see this film. See this film also for the amazing performance of Marion Cotillard, as Piaf, who completely becomes this tenacious and talented lady of the stage.
The French certainly know how to lay it on thick. From the opening scenes, this is a story of loss and tragedy and redemption and glory. With some prostitution thrown in for good measure. Piaf’s early years were anything but typical – abandoned by her mother, dumped on her grandmother who ran a brothel, taken on the circus trail by her contortionist father, suffering from poor health and a bout of blindness along the way. When fame did find her, she was a rough-as-guts young woman who had to be taken in hand to be made the star she was to become.
The story-telling in La Vie En Rose is a little jarring. Jumping from present to future to past and back again, the audience must keep their wits about them to stay on top of the storyline. But, in a way, this film is about getting a sense of who Piaf was and what made her the great singer she became. It is less about telling a linear and tidy story. In fact, the war years are overlooked completely which may annoy some moviegoers. Also, the great love (which was to become the great tragedy) of her life is introduced rather abruptly and, for a time, I was at a loss as to who he was.
The reason these flaws are not fatal to the film, however, must be accredited to Cotillard who truly puts in the performance of a lifetime. Playing Piaf from late teens through to her eventual death, Cotillard embraces this role fully and becomes the funny, little, rough-around-the-edges icon. Piaf is not always likable. In fact, in some scenes, you want to reach into the screen and give her a clip around the ears. But Cotillard always plays her with compassion. Also, her performances on stage, mimicking the style of Piaf, are a sight to behold. The final number (No Regrets, her signature song) is a heart-breaking and moving scene. If you don’t cry, you aren’t human.
Cotillard is fortunate to be surrounded by a great cast. Other standouts include Manon Chevallier and Pauline Burlet (who play Piaf at 5 years old and 10 years old respectively), Gerard Depardieu as Louis Leplee, the man who first discovered Piaf and gave her a stage to sing on, and Sylvie Testud who plays Piaf’s best friend, Momone.
This is not a perfect film by any means. But it is an emotional and compelling telling of a larger-than-life figure, whose unmistakable voice will always be remembered. I would recommend.
Dir. Olivier Dahan
Scr. Olivier Dahan & Isabelle Sobelman
La Vie En Rose tells the story, from childhood to stardom to death, of Edith Piaf. Piaf was one of France’s most celebrated and beloved singers. Her speciality, the tragic ballad, reflected her equally tragic life, which is the focus of this film. Her early death, at the age of 47 from liver cancer, has ensured her status as an icon in France. A perfect biopic this is not. But to get a sense of who Piaf was and what made her sing in that haunting way, see this film. See this film also for the amazing performance of Marion Cotillard, as Piaf, who completely becomes this tenacious and talented lady of the stage.
The French certainly know how to lay it on thick. From the opening scenes, this is a story of loss and tragedy and redemption and glory. With some prostitution thrown in for good measure. Piaf’s early years were anything but typical – abandoned by her mother, dumped on her grandmother who ran a brothel, taken on the circus trail by her contortionist father, suffering from poor health and a bout of blindness along the way. When fame did find her, she was a rough-as-guts young woman who had to be taken in hand to be made the star she was to become.
The story-telling in La Vie En Rose is a little jarring. Jumping from present to future to past and back again, the audience must keep their wits about them to stay on top of the storyline. But, in a way, this film is about getting a sense of who Piaf was and what made her the great singer she became. It is less about telling a linear and tidy story. In fact, the war years are overlooked completely which may annoy some moviegoers. Also, the great love (which was to become the great tragedy) of her life is introduced rather abruptly and, for a time, I was at a loss as to who he was.
The reason these flaws are not fatal to the film, however, must be accredited to Cotillard who truly puts in the performance of a lifetime. Playing Piaf from late teens through to her eventual death, Cotillard embraces this role fully and becomes the funny, little, rough-around-the-edges icon. Piaf is not always likable. In fact, in some scenes, you want to reach into the screen and give her a clip around the ears. But Cotillard always plays her with compassion. Also, her performances on stage, mimicking the style of Piaf, are a sight to behold. The final number (No Regrets, her signature song) is a heart-breaking and moving scene. If you don’t cry, you aren’t human.
Cotillard is fortunate to be surrounded by a great cast. Other standouts include Manon Chevallier and Pauline Burlet (who play Piaf at 5 years old and 10 years old respectively), Gerard Depardieu as Louis Leplee, the man who first discovered Piaf and gave her a stage to sing on, and Sylvie Testud who plays Piaf’s best friend, Momone.
This is not a perfect film by any means. But it is an emotional and compelling telling of a larger-than-life figure, whose unmistakable voice will always be remembered. I would recommend.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Stardust
Charlie Cox, Claire Danes, Michelle Pfeiffer, Robert De Niro, Mark Strong, Rupert Everett, Sienna Miller, Kate Magowan, Ricky Gervais, Ian McKellen (voice)
Dir. Matthew Vaughn
Scr. Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (based on novel by Neil Gaiman)
While it’s *not* the new Princess Bride (as one reviewer had the balls to claim), Stardust is a funny, magical, delightful movie. If you enjoy fantasy – if you can suspend disbelief for the length of an entire film – you won’t be disappointed by this gem of a film. There has been criticism over a lack of marketing, but often that is a good thing – lower expectations often make for a more satisfying and surprising cinematic experience.
Based on the 1998 illustrated novel by Neil Gaiman, Stardust is the story of love and magic and fallen stars and witches and kings and ghosts. I won’t rave too much about Gaiman (trust me, I could go on for several days about his genius), but let me just say that the movie has remained quite faithful to the book and retained the humour and magical fantasy that Gaiman is renowned for. Stardust begins in the small English village of Wall, so named because it is surrounded by a wall separating it from the magical realm. Tristan, half human and half not-so-much-human, declares he will retrieve a fallen star for the love of Victoria, a pretty (I suppose) but conceited young girl in the village. The fallen star turns out to be a woman and Tristan is not the only person who is after the star’s power – we have witches seeking to eat her heart to ensure eternal youth and a couple of princes seeking to be king. Let the adventure begin.
There is much fun to be enjoyed in Stardust and much wonder to wow you. Scenes on the lightening pirate ship had me nearly rolling in the aisles – let’s just say that De Niro is delightfully cast against type. The ghosts of murdered princes always amuse. The film looks lush and lovely. The special effects are competent – they are not going to necessarily amaze you, but they’re not noticeably bad. Everything and the kitchen sink is thrown into this tale – I was compelled throughout. It’s not the Princess Bride, as I noted, but it’s an entertaining diversion and will leave you smiling as you leave the cinema.
I was dubious about the casting initially. I am not a fan of Claire Danes and was worried about how she was going to pull off an English accent. I was delighted De Niro featured but suspected his performance would be clichéd. And Charlie Cox in the lead – well, who the hell is he?! In the end though, the casting was inspired. I won’t talk too much about De Niro’s performance because it might spoil the film for you. Let’s just say one word – genius. Pfeiffer, as head witch Lamia, is brilliant. I’m glad to see her back in some quality films giving quality performances. Gervais is, well, Gervais. A small role which is a little pointless. Funny, yes, but he is just himself as usual. The line-up of deceased princes (including Rupert Everett, Spaced star Mark Heap, Jason Flemyng, and David Walliams) are fantastic – great dialogue, perfect timing. Mark Strong as Prince Septimus is delightfully unlikeable. As is Sienna Miller, who plays love interest Victoria. Danes, as the fallen star Yvaine, gives a solid performance – yes, her accent does slip now and again, but she is spunky and funny and not too bad at all. I’m still not a fan, but she didn’t ruin the movie which she had the potential to do. The real find here is Cox – he is delightfully naïve, with good comic timing; not too handsome but cute enough to carry the film. Very clever casting indeed. And, just as an aside, the actress playing Una (Magowan) is absolutely and uttering the most naturally beautiful women I have seen on screen in quite some time.
This is not a perfect film and perhaps not as memorable or quotable as it could have been. But I was entertained and delighted throughout. Stardust looks great and feels magical. Not for everyone’s taste I imagine – I know many people who would rather set their head on fire than watch a fantasy movie. But if you’re partial to a bit of fairy-tale, this movie is for you.
---------------------
Narrator: A philosopher once asked, "Are we human because we gaze at the stars, or do we gaze at them because we are human?" Pointless, really... ”Do the stars gaze back?" Now *that's* a question.
Dir. Matthew Vaughn
Scr. Jane Goldman & Matthew Vaughn (based on novel by Neil Gaiman)
While it’s *not* the new Princess Bride (as one reviewer had the balls to claim), Stardust is a funny, magical, delightful movie. If you enjoy fantasy – if you can suspend disbelief for the length of an entire film – you won’t be disappointed by this gem of a film. There has been criticism over a lack of marketing, but often that is a good thing – lower expectations often make for a more satisfying and surprising cinematic experience.
Based on the 1998 illustrated novel by Neil Gaiman, Stardust is the story of love and magic and fallen stars and witches and kings and ghosts. I won’t rave too much about Gaiman (trust me, I could go on for several days about his genius), but let me just say that the movie has remained quite faithful to the book and retained the humour and magical fantasy that Gaiman is renowned for. Stardust begins in the small English village of Wall, so named because it is surrounded by a wall separating it from the magical realm. Tristan, half human and half not-so-much-human, declares he will retrieve a fallen star for the love of Victoria, a pretty (I suppose) but conceited young girl in the village. The fallen star turns out to be a woman and Tristan is not the only person who is after the star’s power – we have witches seeking to eat her heart to ensure eternal youth and a couple of princes seeking to be king. Let the adventure begin.
There is much fun to be enjoyed in Stardust and much wonder to wow you. Scenes on the lightening pirate ship had me nearly rolling in the aisles – let’s just say that De Niro is delightfully cast against type. The ghosts of murdered princes always amuse. The film looks lush and lovely. The special effects are competent – they are not going to necessarily amaze you, but they’re not noticeably bad. Everything and the kitchen sink is thrown into this tale – I was compelled throughout. It’s not the Princess Bride, as I noted, but it’s an entertaining diversion and will leave you smiling as you leave the cinema.
I was dubious about the casting initially. I am not a fan of Claire Danes and was worried about how she was going to pull off an English accent. I was delighted De Niro featured but suspected his performance would be clichéd. And Charlie Cox in the lead – well, who the hell is he?! In the end though, the casting was inspired. I won’t talk too much about De Niro’s performance because it might spoil the film for you. Let’s just say one word – genius. Pfeiffer, as head witch Lamia, is brilliant. I’m glad to see her back in some quality films giving quality performances. Gervais is, well, Gervais. A small role which is a little pointless. Funny, yes, but he is just himself as usual. The line-up of deceased princes (including Rupert Everett, Spaced star Mark Heap, Jason Flemyng, and David Walliams) are fantastic – great dialogue, perfect timing. Mark Strong as Prince Septimus is delightfully unlikeable. As is Sienna Miller, who plays love interest Victoria. Danes, as the fallen star Yvaine, gives a solid performance – yes, her accent does slip now and again, but she is spunky and funny and not too bad at all. I’m still not a fan, but she didn’t ruin the movie which she had the potential to do. The real find here is Cox – he is delightfully naïve, with good comic timing; not too handsome but cute enough to carry the film. Very clever casting indeed. And, just as an aside, the actress playing Una (Magowan) is absolutely and uttering the most naturally beautiful women I have seen on screen in quite some time.
This is not a perfect film and perhaps not as memorable or quotable as it could have been. But I was entertained and delighted throughout. Stardust looks great and feels magical. Not for everyone’s taste I imagine – I know many people who would rather set their head on fire than watch a fantasy movie. But if you’re partial to a bit of fairy-tale, this movie is for you.
---------------------
Narrator: A philosopher once asked, "Are we human because we gaze at the stars, or do we gaze at them because we are human?" Pointless, really... ”Do the stars gaze back?" Now *that's* a question.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Hairspray
John Travolta, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Walken, James Marsden, Queen Latifah, Allison Janney, Nikki Blonsky, Amanda Bynes, Zac Efron, Elijah Kelley
Dir. Adam Shankman
Scr. Leslie Dixon, John Waters (1988 screenplay)
By no means a perfect musical masterpiece, Hairspray is nonetheless a whole lot of fun. If you don’t like your actors breaking into song and dance, stay away. But if the thought of catchy songs, Travolta in drag and Walken dancing in a tux gets you going, this is the film for you.
Closely based on the 1988 movie of the same name and the recent Broadway musical, Hairspray is the story of a plumb teenage girl (Tracy Turnblad) who longs to dance and sing and be famous. Serendipity gives her a chance to join the cast of The Corny Collins Show, a fantastic American Bandstand parody – the kids are frighteningly all-American (ie. white and shiny). The show is completely segregated, with one Negro Day per month – the black kids can dance, just not *with* the white kids.
The movie is a coming of age story not just for Tracy and her friends, but for the civil rights movement and the beginning of the end for segregated entertainment. This latter aspect gives the movie more depth than one might otherwise have expected. There is much amusement to be had at stupid bigotry, as well as uplifting and poignant moments to reflect upon.
The musical numbers are superbly executed. The songs are incredibly catchy, especially the opening “Good Morning Baltimore” – your toes will be tapping and you’ll be humming the tunes long after the movie has finished. Aside from a somewhat strained Pfeiffer, Walken and Bynes, the cast tackles the singing with much gusto and talent.
While the movie tends to lose its way at about the two-thirds mark (it seems to need to take a breath or two before the full-on finale), the stellar cast keeps you glued to the screen. Newcomer Nikki Blonsky (as Tracy Turnblad) is phenomenal. She is instantly likeable, delightfully spunky and has an impressive singing voice. With so many big names surrounding and supporting her, I think it was a great decision by the powers that be to go with a fresh face. I can’t really fault any of the cast – they all delight in different ways. Pfeiffer (as TV channel owner Velma Von Tussle) is wonderfully obnoxious, bigoted and evil. Marsden (as host Corny Collins) was an unexpected surprise – perfectly corny but endearing, with wonderful singing voice. Queen Latifah (as Motormouth Maybelle – the Negro Day host) is larger than life, as usual. Funny, sassy with a great set of lungs – a perfect role for her. Zac Efron – of High School Musical fame – is great as Tracy’s love interest Link Larkin. And, yes, if I were a decade or so younger, I would have swooned. Bynes gives a fantastic performance as Tracy’s best friend, Penny Pingleton and Kelley (as her love interest Seaweed) blew me away with his vocal talent and charisma. Always spectacularly strange, Allison Janney is brilliant (if somewhat underused) as Penny’s religious-freak mother, Prudy Pingleton.
The pairing that will be talked about more than any other, of course, is the husband/wife team of John Travolta (Edna Turnblad) and Christopher Walken (Wilbur Turnblad). I was dubious – why cast Travolta? Why not get a woman (Ricki Lake, for example, who played Tracy in the original film)? And although the sight of a hugely padded Travolta in a sequinned dress is not something I thought I ever wanted to see, it worked. What didn’t work was the Dr Evil-esque voice he chose to use – does he think women speak like that?!?! It was somewhat distracting, which was a shame. But the finale, with Travolta finally busting a move, was a sight to behold and hugely entertaining. And, what can I say about the endearing, strange and brilliant Mr Walken? Well, he was endearing and strange and brilliant. And,, he danced. Wonderful.
For those who pay attention, there are many little surprises to reward you. A hilarious, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo from John Waters (watch closely in the opening number). Travolta paying homage to his career-saving role in Pulp Fiction in the final dance number. Some absolutely cracker dialogue.
Hairspray is good, old-fashioned, musical fun. Is it this generation’s Grease? Well, maybe, though I fear that the shockingly awful High School Musical has nicked that honour. For my money, Hairspray is far superior – smart, funny, socially insightful and delightfully irreverent.
------------------------
Velma Von Tussle: They're just kids, that's why we have to steer them in the white direction.
Corny Collins: [pause] RIGHT direction?
Velma Von Tussle: Isn't that what I said?
Dir. Adam Shankman
Scr. Leslie Dixon, John Waters (1988 screenplay)
By no means a perfect musical masterpiece, Hairspray is nonetheless a whole lot of fun. If you don’t like your actors breaking into song and dance, stay away. But if the thought of catchy songs, Travolta in drag and Walken dancing in a tux gets you going, this is the film for you.
Closely based on the 1988 movie of the same name and the recent Broadway musical, Hairspray is the story of a plumb teenage girl (Tracy Turnblad) who longs to dance and sing and be famous. Serendipity gives her a chance to join the cast of The Corny Collins Show, a fantastic American Bandstand parody – the kids are frighteningly all-American (ie. white and shiny). The show is completely segregated, with one Negro Day per month – the black kids can dance, just not *with* the white kids.
The movie is a coming of age story not just for Tracy and her friends, but for the civil rights movement and the beginning of the end for segregated entertainment. This latter aspect gives the movie more depth than one might otherwise have expected. There is much amusement to be had at stupid bigotry, as well as uplifting and poignant moments to reflect upon.
The musical numbers are superbly executed. The songs are incredibly catchy, especially the opening “Good Morning Baltimore” – your toes will be tapping and you’ll be humming the tunes long after the movie has finished. Aside from a somewhat strained Pfeiffer, Walken and Bynes, the cast tackles the singing with much gusto and talent.
While the movie tends to lose its way at about the two-thirds mark (it seems to need to take a breath or two before the full-on finale), the stellar cast keeps you glued to the screen. Newcomer Nikki Blonsky (as Tracy Turnblad) is phenomenal. She is instantly likeable, delightfully spunky and has an impressive singing voice. With so many big names surrounding and supporting her, I think it was a great decision by the powers that be to go with a fresh face. I can’t really fault any of the cast – they all delight in different ways. Pfeiffer (as TV channel owner Velma Von Tussle) is wonderfully obnoxious, bigoted and evil. Marsden (as host Corny Collins) was an unexpected surprise – perfectly corny but endearing, with wonderful singing voice. Queen Latifah (as Motormouth Maybelle – the Negro Day host) is larger than life, as usual. Funny, sassy with a great set of lungs – a perfect role for her. Zac Efron – of High School Musical fame – is great as Tracy’s love interest Link Larkin. And, yes, if I were a decade or so younger, I would have swooned. Bynes gives a fantastic performance as Tracy’s best friend, Penny Pingleton and Kelley (as her love interest Seaweed) blew me away with his vocal talent and charisma. Always spectacularly strange, Allison Janney is brilliant (if somewhat underused) as Penny’s religious-freak mother, Prudy Pingleton.
The pairing that will be talked about more than any other, of course, is the husband/wife team of John Travolta (Edna Turnblad) and Christopher Walken (Wilbur Turnblad). I was dubious – why cast Travolta? Why not get a woman (Ricki Lake, for example, who played Tracy in the original film)? And although the sight of a hugely padded Travolta in a sequinned dress is not something I thought I ever wanted to see, it worked. What didn’t work was the Dr Evil-esque voice he chose to use – does he think women speak like that?!?! It was somewhat distracting, which was a shame. But the finale, with Travolta finally busting a move, was a sight to behold and hugely entertaining. And, what can I say about the endearing, strange and brilliant Mr Walken? Well, he was endearing and strange and brilliant. And,
For those who pay attention, there are many little surprises to reward you. A hilarious, blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo from John Waters (watch closely in the opening number). Travolta paying homage to his career-saving role in Pulp Fiction in the final dance number. Some absolutely cracker dialogue.
Hairspray is good, old-fashioned, musical fun. Is it this generation’s Grease? Well, maybe, though I fear that the shockingly awful High School Musical has nicked that honour. For my money, Hairspray is far superior – smart, funny, socially insightful and delightfully irreverent.
------------------------
Velma Von Tussle: They're just kids, that's why we have to steer them in the white direction.
Corny Collins: [pause] RIGHT direction?
Velma Von Tussle: Isn't that what I said?
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Bourne Ultimatum
Matt Damon, Julia Stiles, David Strathairn, Joan Allen, Scott Glenn, Albert Finney
Dir. Paul Greengrass
Scr. Tony Gilroy, Scott Z Burns, George Nolfi
What do you call a trilogy that gets better with each instalment? A very, very rare thing. The Bourne Trilogy is that rare thing – Ultimatum is the most exciting, intense and entertaining of the three Bourne movies. Supremacy was better than Identity, and Ultimatum is better than the first two combined. Thanks largely to a perfectly cast lead actor and a visionary director, the Bourne Ultimatum will go down in the record books as one of the finest of its genre.
The Bourne Ultimatum picks up exactly where The Bourne Supremacy left off and, just like that, it’s full on action as Jason Bourne tries desperately to find out who he really is. While there is a going on, this is really the heart of the film (and the first two Bourne films) – a man chasing his identity, armed with skills that he can’t remember how he gained, trained by men he doesn’t remember knowing. It’s been a strong enough premise to keep the first two films compelling and it continues to engage the audience in Ultimatum.
The joy of Ultimatum is the pace. It’s an action film that’s all about action. Not CGI action, but hands-on, in your face action. Director Greengrass (who jumped on board the franchise with Supremacy) does not let the audience rest for long, as we are treated to a frenzied and compelling espionage thriller. And Bourne is at his cunning best, outsmarting everything and everyone that his wannabe captors throw at him. The scene at Waterloo Station is fantastic – “how is he going to get out of this one!?!” we cry. And, yet, he does. While this is certainly not an inconsistency-free zone, Greengrass doesn’t let you dwell on any holes the script might expose for long before Bourne is in yet another tight spot.
I never used to give Matt Damon any credit for being much of an actor. And perhaps he’s not, but he is perfectly suited to the role of the understated and guarded Bourne. I guess he thanks his lucky stars every day for getting this role – it certainly has assured him a place in cinematic history that otherwise may well have eluded him. It doesn’t hurt that he is surrounded by a cast of fine actors who give extremely solid performances in Ultimatum. Joan Allen is back as the Pamela Landy, the only person left in the CIA with any morality and who actually wants to give Bourne a chance to survive. Allen is, as usual, compelling and believable. Strathairn, playing CIA Deputy Director Vosen, is fantastic – in my opinion, one of the best character actors working today. We hate him in this film, just as we’re supposed to. Nice turns too from Scott Glenn (what a weathered face!) and Albert Finney. Julia Stiles (back in Ultimatum as CIA worker-bee Nicky Parsons) has a much larger role to play in this film (including an involved history with Bourne which is very strongly hinted at) and is solid in support.
There is, of course, the question of a fourth film. While we are not cheated of some closure in Ultimatum (there’s plenty of that), we are also left with some unanswered questions and loads of potential for another instalment. Would it be a HUGE mistake? My initial instinct was yes. But, having deviated so drastically from the Ludlam novels from which this trilogy takes its name, there is potential to return to the third book and lift a plot that might work. I dunno. Damon has said that if the script is good and Greengrass is directing, he would consider returning. And if Damon is on board, the script is good and Greengrass is directing, I have to admit I would consider returning to the cinema too.
The Bourne Ultimatum is what an action thriller should be – sharp, suspenseful, and packing a punch. Other franchises would be smart to take a few pages out of Bourne’s book – make your audience keep up, keep them guessing, don’t pander to them and, for goodness sake, keep the action coming!
------------------
Pamela Landy: Bourne is really good at staying alive, and trying to kill him and failing... just pisses him off.
Dir. Paul Greengrass
Scr. Tony Gilroy, Scott Z Burns, George Nolfi
What do you call a trilogy that gets better with each instalment? A very, very rare thing. The Bourne Trilogy is that rare thing – Ultimatum is the most exciting, intense and entertaining of the three Bourne movies. Supremacy was better than Identity, and Ultimatum is better than the first two combined. Thanks largely to a perfectly cast lead actor and a visionary director, the Bourne Ultimatum will go down in the record books as one of the finest of its genre.
The Bourne Ultimatum picks up exactly where The Bourne Supremacy left off and, just like that, it’s full on action as Jason Bourne tries desperately to find out who he really is. While there is a going on, this is really the heart of the film (and the first two Bourne films) – a man chasing his identity, armed with skills that he can’t remember how he gained, trained by men he doesn’t remember knowing. It’s been a strong enough premise to keep the first two films compelling and it continues to engage the audience in Ultimatum.
The joy of Ultimatum is the pace. It’s an action film that’s all about action. Not CGI action, but hands-on, in your face action. Director Greengrass (who jumped on board the franchise with Supremacy) does not let the audience rest for long, as we are treated to a frenzied and compelling espionage thriller. And Bourne is at his cunning best, outsmarting everything and everyone that his wannabe captors throw at him. The scene at Waterloo Station is fantastic – “how is he going to get out of this one!?!” we cry. And, yet, he does. While this is certainly not an inconsistency-free zone, Greengrass doesn’t let you dwell on any holes the script might expose for long before Bourne is in yet another tight spot.
I never used to give Matt Damon any credit for being much of an actor. And perhaps he’s not, but he is perfectly suited to the role of the understated and guarded Bourne. I guess he thanks his lucky stars every day for getting this role – it certainly has assured him a place in cinematic history that otherwise may well have eluded him. It doesn’t hurt that he is surrounded by a cast of fine actors who give extremely solid performances in Ultimatum. Joan Allen is back as the Pamela Landy, the only person left in the CIA with any morality and who actually wants to give Bourne a chance to survive. Allen is, as usual, compelling and believable. Strathairn, playing CIA Deputy Director Vosen, is fantastic – in my opinion, one of the best character actors working today. We hate him in this film, just as we’re supposed to. Nice turns too from Scott Glenn (what a weathered face!) and Albert Finney. Julia Stiles (back in Ultimatum as CIA worker-bee Nicky Parsons) has a much larger role to play in this film (including an involved history with Bourne which is very strongly hinted at) and is solid in support.
There is, of course, the question of a fourth film. While we are not cheated of some closure in Ultimatum (there’s plenty of that), we are also left with some unanswered questions and loads of potential for another instalment. Would it be a HUGE mistake? My initial instinct was yes. But, having deviated so drastically from the Ludlam novels from which this trilogy takes its name, there is potential to return to the third book and lift a plot that might work. I dunno. Damon has said that if the script is good and Greengrass is directing, he would consider returning. And if Damon is on board, the script is good and Greengrass is directing, I have to admit I would consider returning to the cinema too.
The Bourne Ultimatum is what an action thriller should be – sharp, suspenseful, and packing a punch. Other franchises would be smart to take a few pages out of Bourne’s book – make your audience keep up, keep them guessing, don’t pander to them and, for goodness sake, keep the action coming!
------------------
Pamela Landy: Bourne is really good at staying alive, and trying to kill him and failing... just pisses him off.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Breach
Chris Cooper, Ryan Phillippe, Laura Linley, Caroline Dhavernas, Kathleen Quinlan, Gary Cole
Dir. Billy Ray
Scr. Adam Mazer, William Rotko, Billy Ray
Breach is a clever movie about a clever man. It’s devoid of the usual action sequences you’d expect from a spy thriller, but is as compelling as anything from this genre, if not more. Breach isn’t interested in cheap and clichéd John Grisham-type thrills; rather, the tension is constant, the paranoia convincing and the pay-off rewarding.
Breach tells the story of the two months prior to FBI Agent Robert Hanssen’s arrest for espionage. Hanssen, finally caught in February 2001, spied for the Soviet Union and Russia against the United States for over 15 years. It is estimated that he made more than $1.5 million in cash and diamonds. His actions have been described as the worst intelligence disaster in American history. I rubbed my hands together in glee when I read about this movie – what a story!
By the way, I’m not spoiling the film by telling you what happens to Hanssen. Breach begins in a slightly unconventional way – with the announcement of Hanssen’s capture. Then “Two Months Earlier” and we watch as Eric O’Neill (rookie wannabe agent played by Phillippe) is assigned as Hanssen’s assistant, fed some line that he is a sexual deviant whose actions could reflect badly on the Bureau and asked to report on anything fishy. There’s nothing even slightly fishy – Hanssen is a God-fearing man, with a loving family, committed to making the Bureau more effective. Sure, he’s a little old-fashioned and somewhat jaded after 25 years with the FBI, but O’Neill grows to respect Hanssen. Until, of course, he is “read in” to the case against Hanssen, the Spy.
Cooper, as Hanssen, is on phenomenal form in this film. He’s a quiet actor, often speaking more with his eyes or facial expression than with words. He has such depth and character in his face that other actors would kill for. He plays Hanssen as somewhat of an enigma – we are left to puzzle at and muse over aspects of his personality to try and piece together the portrait of a man who would betray his country so completely. And, in the end, we are no closer to knowing exactly what motivates him. If you see this movie for no other reason, see it for Cooper’s performance. In start contrast to Hanssen is the character of O’Neill played by an actor who bugs me greatly, usually pouting his way through movies. But I understand the casting of Phillippe in this film – as a character who is young, cocky, and suddenly completely out of his depth – and he pulls it off for the most part. Linney, who plays the Agent who puts O’Neill on the case, is her usual brilliant self. For my money, Linney is the most versatile and competent American actress working today. Also a good turn from newbie Dhavernas as O’Neill’s wife.
Breach isn’t without flaws however. There are a couple of continuity errors that annoyed me. Also, we are left to wonder a few things about the relationship between Hanssen and O’Neill – why does Hanssen trust him so readily? That they are both religious men just didn’t convince me. Could O’Neill really outsmart Hanssen, a man who had evaded detection for over 15 years? Very doubtful.
I guess, in the end, perhaps Hanssen wanted to be caught, wanted to get the credit for doing what he did, wanted to matter. But he must have known the price he would pay – life imprisonment without chance of parole, spending 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. The fact I was left asking such questions is perhaps the point – did the filmmakers really want to serve up the answers on a silver platter or are there no answers to be had, just the story of a man who did incredibly illegal but brilliant things for so long?
This film will frustrate people who like tidy endings. It will also frustrate people who like more action and less talk – this is a film heavy on dialogue and meaningful expressions. If you are this type of movie-goer, avoid Breach. But if you want a tense, intelligent, nuanced trip to the cinema, see this film. I don’t doubt it will make it into my Top Ten for 2007.
--------------
Robert Hanssen: Can you imagine sitting in a room with a bunch of your colleagues, everybody trying to guess the identity of a mole and all the while, it's you they're after, you they're looking for? That must be very satisfying, wouldn't you think?
Dir. Billy Ray
Scr. Adam Mazer, William Rotko, Billy Ray
Breach is a clever movie about a clever man. It’s devoid of the usual action sequences you’d expect from a spy thriller, but is as compelling as anything from this genre, if not more. Breach isn’t interested in cheap and clichéd John Grisham-type thrills; rather, the tension is constant, the paranoia convincing and the pay-off rewarding.
Breach tells the story of the two months prior to FBI Agent Robert Hanssen’s arrest for espionage. Hanssen, finally caught in February 2001, spied for the Soviet Union and Russia against the United States for over 15 years. It is estimated that he made more than $1.5 million in cash and diamonds. His actions have been described as the worst intelligence disaster in American history. I rubbed my hands together in glee when I read about this movie – what a story!
By the way, I’m not spoiling the film by telling you what happens to Hanssen. Breach begins in a slightly unconventional way – with the announcement of Hanssen’s capture. Then “Two Months Earlier” and we watch as Eric O’Neill (rookie wannabe agent played by Phillippe) is assigned as Hanssen’s assistant, fed some line that he is a sexual deviant whose actions could reflect badly on the Bureau and asked to report on anything fishy. There’s nothing even slightly fishy – Hanssen is a God-fearing man, with a loving family, committed to making the Bureau more effective. Sure, he’s a little old-fashioned and somewhat jaded after 25 years with the FBI, but O’Neill grows to respect Hanssen. Until, of course, he is “read in” to the case against Hanssen, the Spy.
Cooper, as Hanssen, is on phenomenal form in this film. He’s a quiet actor, often speaking more with his eyes or facial expression than with words. He has such depth and character in his face that other actors would kill for. He plays Hanssen as somewhat of an enigma – we are left to puzzle at and muse over aspects of his personality to try and piece together the portrait of a man who would betray his country so completely. And, in the end, we are no closer to knowing exactly what motivates him. If you see this movie for no other reason, see it for Cooper’s performance. In start contrast to Hanssen is the character of O’Neill played by an actor who bugs me greatly, usually pouting his way through movies. But I understand the casting of Phillippe in this film – as a character who is young, cocky, and suddenly completely out of his depth – and he pulls it off for the most part. Linney, who plays the Agent who puts O’Neill on the case, is her usual brilliant self. For my money, Linney is the most versatile and competent American actress working today. Also a good turn from newbie Dhavernas as O’Neill’s wife.
Breach isn’t without flaws however. There are a couple of continuity errors that annoyed me. Also, we are left to wonder a few things about the relationship between Hanssen and O’Neill – why does Hanssen trust him so readily? That they are both religious men just didn’t convince me. Could O’Neill really outsmart Hanssen, a man who had evaded detection for over 15 years? Very doubtful.
I guess, in the end, perhaps Hanssen wanted to be caught, wanted to get the credit for doing what he did, wanted to matter. But he must have known the price he would pay – life imprisonment without chance of parole, spending 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. The fact I was left asking such questions is perhaps the point – did the filmmakers really want to serve up the answers on a silver platter or are there no answers to be had, just the story of a man who did incredibly illegal but brilliant things for so long?
This film will frustrate people who like tidy endings. It will also frustrate people who like more action and less talk – this is a film heavy on dialogue and meaningful expressions. If you are this type of movie-goer, avoid Breach. But if you want a tense, intelligent, nuanced trip to the cinema, see this film. I don’t doubt it will make it into my Top Ten for 2007.
--------------
Robert Hanssen: Can you imagine sitting in a room with a bunch of your colleagues, everybody trying to guess the identity of a mole and all the while, it's you they're after, you they're looking for? That must be very satisfying, wouldn't you think?
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Die Hard 4.0
Bruce Willis, Justin Long, Cliff Curtis, Timothy Olyphant, Kevin Smith
Dir. Len Wiseman
Scr. Mark Bomback
This movie could have been absolutely terrible. The fourth in the series – nearly 20 years since the first Die Hard movie graced our screens and a 12-year gap since the last one – with an aging hero, and a largely unchanged formula. A recipe for disaster? A tragic, stale farce? Well, no. Far from it, actually. Die Hard 4.0 is entertaining and funny, with some of the best action set pieces seen this year.
The plot is, as usual, rather convoluted. A bad man is bringing America to its knees by basically pressing the “reset” button – no transport system, no telecommunications, no money market … and on it goes. And all that stands between him and total world domination is John McClane. Yeah baby! Oh, and a hacker genius he rescues along the way. Throw in a little family turmoil and, hey presto, you have your humanising element (in this case, McClane’s rebellious daughter).
And then there’s the action. Die Hard is all about old-school stunts, always has been, and that’s what we’re treated to in 4.0. Much crashing, lots of explosions, many fist-fights. All the basic elements of an exhilarating action film are present and are done well. You won’t necessarily see anything that will blow your mind (although I did cheer when the car killed the helicopter), but it’s a solid action spectacle – completely unrealistic and highly improbable, but thoroughly entertaining.
There are even some noteworthy performances from a quality cast. Bruce is, well, Bruce. He has lived and breathed this role and plays it with ease. He’s funny, he’s tough, he’s endearing and (as always) he’s the hero. Justin Long (of Dodgeball fame) plays the sidekick – Matt Farrell, a computer genius who has unwittingly contributed to the disaster unfolding before them. Long plays Farrell as suitably green around the gills and in awe of McClane’s awesomeness. He’s funny and likeable, as all sidekicks should be. Solid performances from Curtis and Olyphant as a FBI deputy director and the villain, respectively. A fantastic turn from Kevin Smith as Warlock, hacker extraordinaire. This cast knows what’s expected of them and they deliver.
Not much more to say really. If you like Die Hard movies, you won’t be disappointed by the latest instalment. It’s funny, it’s entertaining, it’s ludicrous – everything a good Die Hard film should be. If you don’t like Die Hard movies, well, you’ve just wasted three minutes reading this review.
---------------------
Matt Farrell: You just killed a helicopter with a car!
John McClane: I was out of bullets.
Dir. Len Wiseman
Scr. Mark Bomback
This movie could have been absolutely terrible. The fourth in the series – nearly 20 years since the first Die Hard movie graced our screens and a 12-year gap since the last one – with an aging hero, and a largely unchanged formula. A recipe for disaster? A tragic, stale farce? Well, no. Far from it, actually. Die Hard 4.0 is entertaining and funny, with some of the best action set pieces seen this year.
The plot is, as usual, rather convoluted. A bad man is bringing America to its knees by basically pressing the “reset” button – no transport system, no telecommunications, no money market … and on it goes. And all that stands between him and total world domination is John McClane. Yeah baby! Oh, and a hacker genius he rescues along the way. Throw in a little family turmoil and, hey presto, you have your humanising element (in this case, McClane’s rebellious daughter).
And then there’s the action. Die Hard is all about old-school stunts, always has been, and that’s what we’re treated to in 4.0. Much crashing, lots of explosions, many fist-fights. All the basic elements of an exhilarating action film are present and are done well. You won’t necessarily see anything that will blow your mind (although I did cheer when the car killed the helicopter), but it’s a solid action spectacle – completely unrealistic and highly improbable, but thoroughly entertaining.
There are even some noteworthy performances from a quality cast. Bruce is, well, Bruce. He has lived and breathed this role and plays it with ease. He’s funny, he’s tough, he’s endearing and (as always) he’s the hero. Justin Long (of Dodgeball fame) plays the sidekick – Matt Farrell, a computer genius who has unwittingly contributed to the disaster unfolding before them. Long plays Farrell as suitably green around the gills and in awe of McClane’s awesomeness. He’s funny and likeable, as all sidekicks should be. Solid performances from Curtis and Olyphant as a FBI deputy director and the villain, respectively. A fantastic turn from Kevin Smith as Warlock, hacker extraordinaire. This cast knows what’s expected of them and they deliver.
Not much more to say really. If you like Die Hard movies, you won’t be disappointed by the latest instalment. It’s funny, it’s entertaining, it’s ludicrous – everything a good Die Hard film should be. If you don’t like Die Hard movies, well, you’ve just wasted three minutes reading this review.
---------------------
Matt Farrell: You just killed a helicopter with a car!
John McClane: I was out of bullets.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
The Bridge
Dir. Eric Steel
There is absolutely no doubt that The Bridge is not the easiest movie to watch. Interestingly, at the viewing I attended, the Samaritans (a volunteer group who run a 24-hour confidential hotline to listen to people in need) were present and it was announced that they would be in the lobby after the film to sit with anyone who needed to talk. I scoffed at this a little, thinking it unnecessary – everyone in the movie theatre was an adult, after all, and knew what they were about to watch. But, when the credits rolled, I could completely understand how this film could affect people so much that maybe they needed to sit down and talk to someone.
The Bridge was filmed throughout 2004, by several stationary cameras aimed at the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The filmmakers were not overly forthcoming with what their movie was really about when they sought permission to film the bridge. And for good reason – no city council in the world is going to willingly let you film people jumping to their deaths from a city icon. As you’d expect, this film and the people who made it have been highly criticised by many – critics, people in the mental health sector, the people of San Francisco. But what Eric Steel has done is make a completely non-judgmental film about suicide – America’s number one killer – which, in my opinion, is quite a feat.
This, I assure you, is not a voyeuristic snuff movie. Some critics have called it such and I very much think they miss the point entirely. Yes, we see people jump from the bridge and hit the water. Twenty-four people died this way in 2004. And, yes, this is a film about death. But, more than that, this is a film about how people cope with death, and with life for that matter. This is a film as much about the people left behind as about the people who took their lives. And, in the end, it is an immensely interesting and thought-provoking piece of cinema – how would you react if your friend/son/daughter/sister chose to end their life in this way?
The array of reactions to suicide in this film is vast – from the parents who seem to really have come to terms with their son’s death and talk about suicide in an almost objective way; to the friend who can only feel angry; to the woman who feels only guilt. And this is what makes The Bridge a powerful film – not the sight of a body falling (in the highly CGIed age we live in, it is difficult to truly connect with such a scene), but the reaction of the family member or friend or passer-by who witnesses the fall. These interviews are extremely moving and incredibly honest.
I don’t want to disregard what has made this film so controversial – the filming of the bridge itself and the scenes of people jumping from it. There were gasps from the audience. But interestingly, I don’t think people looked away. There is a fascination with what drives someone to commit suicide and that fascination glued us to the screen – perhaps we can get some glimpse into their motives; perhaps by watching them fall we can understand them better. I certainly didn’t feel repulsed, the film was extremely tastefully edited, and I didn’t think the filmmakers were glorifying their subject.
Another criticism is that this movie is slow and repetitive. It is a quiet film; it has a subdued tone – perhaps out of respect more than anything else. But it certainly didn’t drag and it was definitely compelling (how could it not be?!) There was also the story of the man who jumped and survived. And the footage of the girl who tried several times but was stopped by the police or, in one comical scene, by a passer-by. Yes, it’s all about suicide, but as we know, it is an extremely complex and varied subject.
I wouldn’t recommend The Bridge to everyone. I think you will know whether it is something you can handle watching or not. For me, it is without a doubt one of the best documentaries I have ever seen and will stay with me for a very long time indeed. This is powerful stuff.
---------------------
Witness [after witnessing a suicide]: When I talked to the highway patrolman, I asked him "Is this a rare occurrence or does this happen a lot?" And he looked at me and he sort of smiled and he said, "It happens all the time."
There is absolutely no doubt that The Bridge is not the easiest movie to watch. Interestingly, at the viewing I attended, the Samaritans (a volunteer group who run a 24-hour confidential hotline to listen to people in need) were present and it was announced that they would be in the lobby after the film to sit with anyone who needed to talk. I scoffed at this a little, thinking it unnecessary – everyone in the movie theatre was an adult, after all, and knew what they were about to watch. But, when the credits rolled, I could completely understand how this film could affect people so much that maybe they needed to sit down and talk to someone.
The Bridge was filmed throughout 2004, by several stationary cameras aimed at the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The filmmakers were not overly forthcoming with what their movie was really about when they sought permission to film the bridge. And for good reason – no city council in the world is going to willingly let you film people jumping to their deaths from a city icon. As you’d expect, this film and the people who made it have been highly criticised by many – critics, people in the mental health sector, the people of San Francisco. But what Eric Steel has done is make a completely non-judgmental film about suicide – America’s number one killer – which, in my opinion, is quite a feat.
This, I assure you, is not a voyeuristic snuff movie. Some critics have called it such and I very much think they miss the point entirely. Yes, we see people jump from the bridge and hit the water. Twenty-four people died this way in 2004. And, yes, this is a film about death. But, more than that, this is a film about how people cope with death, and with life for that matter. This is a film as much about the people left behind as about the people who took their lives. And, in the end, it is an immensely interesting and thought-provoking piece of cinema – how would you react if your friend/son/daughter/sister chose to end their life in this way?
The array of reactions to suicide in this film is vast – from the parents who seem to really have come to terms with their son’s death and talk about suicide in an almost objective way; to the friend who can only feel angry; to the woman who feels only guilt. And this is what makes The Bridge a powerful film – not the sight of a body falling (in the highly CGIed age we live in, it is difficult to truly connect with such a scene), but the reaction of the family member or friend or passer-by who witnesses the fall. These interviews are extremely moving and incredibly honest.
I don’t want to disregard what has made this film so controversial – the filming of the bridge itself and the scenes of people jumping from it. There were gasps from the audience. But interestingly, I don’t think people looked away. There is a fascination with what drives someone to commit suicide and that fascination glued us to the screen – perhaps we can get some glimpse into their motives; perhaps by watching them fall we can understand them better. I certainly didn’t feel repulsed, the film was extremely tastefully edited, and I didn’t think the filmmakers were glorifying their subject.
Another criticism is that this movie is slow and repetitive. It is a quiet film; it has a subdued tone – perhaps out of respect more than anything else. But it certainly didn’t drag and it was definitely compelling (how could it not be?!) There was also the story of the man who jumped and survived. And the footage of the girl who tried several times but was stopped by the police or, in one comical scene, by a passer-by. Yes, it’s all about suicide, but as we know, it is an extremely complex and varied subject.
I wouldn’t recommend The Bridge to everyone. I think you will know whether it is something you can handle watching or not. For me, it is without a doubt one of the best documentaries I have ever seen and will stay with me for a very long time indeed. This is powerful stuff.
---------------------
Witness [after witnessing a suicide]: When I talked to the highway patrolman, I asked him "Is this a rare occurrence or does this happen a lot?" And he looked at me and he sort of smiled and he said, "It happens all the time."
The Simpsons Movie
Voices of Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Harry Shearer, Hank Azaria, Green Day, Tom Hanks
Dir. David Silverman
Scr. James L Brooks, Matt Groening, etc
The Simpsons has been running since 1989 and is one of the most quotable, funny and endearing series ever to grace our screens. A movie was a risk and a challenge – could a 22-minute show make the transition to a 90-minute feature film? Simpsons fans had waited more than 16 years for that risk to be taken. Well, was it worth waiting for?
The plot is classic Simpsons – Homer pollutes the waterways in Springfield so badly that the Environmental Protection Agency step in and trap the city under a huge dome. No way in; no way out. Chaos and hilarity ensues. The writers have stuck with the tried and true formula – Homer is at the centre; Homer makes massive blunder; Homer risks losing Marge and the kids; Homer must make amends in spectacular style. There are a few celebrities voices thrown in for good measure and the jokes don’t let up.
I welcome Matt and his mates pushing the boundaries a little in this film also. There were certainly a few jokes that wouldn’t have been allowed to be shown in the tv show, notably a great line by Homer to his pet pig that had me nearly rolling in the aisle.
And while I was thoroughly entertained, and I would sit through this movie again and again, I couldn’t help but feel that it won’t be number one in a list of all-time top “episodes”. Did I expect it to be the best example of The Simpsons I have ever seen? Maybe I did. But how can one 90-minute movie compete with over 400 episodes? The movie certainly did outshine many of the latest seasons of The Simpsons, where the calibre we are used to has dropped a little. But it can’t compete with the Ralph Wigman classic “I Love Lisa”, or the sibling rivalry in “Lisa on Ice”, or Homer facing up to homophobia in “Homer’s Phobia”. And, my all time favourite, “You Only Move Twice” – the ultimate 007 spoof.
If you are a Simpsons fan, see this movie. You won’t be disappointed – it delivers on laughs and you’ll be humming Spiderpig all the way home. But don’t expect it to be the best example of The Simpsons – there’s just too many brilliant memories it’s competing against.
-----------------------
Homer: No! I love Alaska. I'm never going back to America!
Dir. David Silverman
Scr. James L Brooks, Matt Groening, etc
The Simpsons has been running since 1989 and is one of the most quotable, funny and endearing series ever to grace our screens. A movie was a risk and a challenge – could a 22-minute show make the transition to a 90-minute feature film? Simpsons fans had waited more than 16 years for that risk to be taken. Well, was it worth waiting for?
The plot is classic Simpsons – Homer pollutes the waterways in Springfield so badly that the Environmental Protection Agency step in and trap the city under a huge dome. No way in; no way out. Chaos and hilarity ensues. The writers have stuck with the tried and true formula – Homer is at the centre; Homer makes massive blunder; Homer risks losing Marge and the kids; Homer must make amends in spectacular style. There are a few celebrities voices thrown in for good measure and the jokes don’t let up.
I welcome Matt and his mates pushing the boundaries a little in this film also. There were certainly a few jokes that wouldn’t have been allowed to be shown in the tv show, notably a great line by Homer to his pet pig that had me nearly rolling in the aisle.
And while I was thoroughly entertained, and I would sit through this movie again and again, I couldn’t help but feel that it won’t be number one in a list of all-time top “episodes”. Did I expect it to be the best example of The Simpsons I have ever seen? Maybe I did. But how can one 90-minute movie compete with over 400 episodes? The movie certainly did outshine many of the latest seasons of The Simpsons, where the calibre we are used to has dropped a little. But it can’t compete with the Ralph Wigman classic “I Love Lisa”, or the sibling rivalry in “Lisa on Ice”, or Homer facing up to homophobia in “Homer’s Phobia”. And, my all time favourite, “You Only Move Twice” – the ultimate 007 spoof.
If you are a Simpsons fan, see this movie. You won’t be disappointed – it delivers on laughs and you’ll be humming Spiderpig all the way home. But don’t expect it to be the best example of The Simpsons – there’s just too many brilliant memories it’s competing against.
-----------------------
Homer: No! I love Alaska. I'm never going back to America!
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Manufacturing Dissent
Debbie Melnyk, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader and many others
Dirs. Debbie Melnyk & Rick Caine
Michael Moore is a bad man. His methods are somewhat questionable and his movies, although usually entertaining, should be watched with a degree of caution. This is one of the messages of Manufacturing Dissent and there is nothing particularly startling about this message – his films have been pulled and picked apart by many critics and fellow film-makers. But Manufacturing Dissent is still an interesting and enlightening film about a man who has changed the face of documentary film-making forever.
Debbie Melnyk, a softly spoken Canadian, sets out to make a film about Michael Moore, a man she admires. As production progresses, however, she has a change of heart. Why? Well, she talks to many people (film critics, Ralph Nadar supporters, Republicans) who have a few secrets to tell about Mike. And, more importantly, the man himself refuses to give her an interview and his staff are downright rude to her. There is no doubt that this film ends up being somewhat of a public vendetta against a very unhelpful man, which seems slightly ridiculous. She approaches him several times, for example, in the two months leading up to the 2004 election. During that time, he toured hundreds of universities throughout America to try and get the youth to vote. I don’t really blame him for refusing to do a sit-down interview with her at this time – no doubt he suspected her film might not paint him in the best light; but there is also no doubt he was extremely busy.
Putting aside her eventual motives however, this film is very interesting. Moore undoubtedly has had a huge effect on documentary film-making. His movies – Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 – have made millions of dollars, won him Oscars and many other awards, gained him a powerful and vocal support base. His films have also, as Melnyk notes, inspired an equally vocal opposition – there are hundreds of websites debunking his movies and she concludes that his campaign to get the vote out in the 2004 election helped mobilise Republicans to vote as much as it did Democrats. Moore has undoubtedly helped raise the volume of public political discourse and debate and this, I think, is something we should be grateful for.
I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine; thought it was a great movie, in fact. I certainly questioned his methods – the last scene where he tricks his way into Charlton Heston’s home and then abuses him was appalling. But I forgave Moore these indiscretions because I supported his message. But the more you delve into his methods, which Manufacturing Dissent has a field-day doing, the less you can truly support this man. I was unaware, for example, how much he truly manipulates time and context in his films. There are many examples cited by Melnyk that make for entertaining and enlightening viewing.
There are several questions Manufacturing Dissent will have you asking. Is Moore truly a documentary film-maker, can he really be placed in this category? Does Moore even have journalistic integrity or is fame all he was ever interested in? Is it even possible to make a political documentaries, or is bias always going to be just too strong? Do Moore’s methods undermine his credibility completely? I’m not sure of the answers. But I do appreciate seeing a film that raises such questions in an insightful way and I recommend that you see Manufacturing Dissent.
P.S. I do have to admit that I will be seeing Sicko, Moore’s upcoming film about the health system in America. But I will approach with caution and eyes wide open.
Dirs. Debbie Melnyk & Rick Caine
Michael Moore is a bad man. His methods are somewhat questionable and his movies, although usually entertaining, should be watched with a degree of caution. This is one of the messages of Manufacturing Dissent and there is nothing particularly startling about this message – his films have been pulled and picked apart by many critics and fellow film-makers. But Manufacturing Dissent is still an interesting and enlightening film about a man who has changed the face of documentary film-making forever.
Debbie Melnyk, a softly spoken Canadian, sets out to make a film about Michael Moore, a man she admires. As production progresses, however, she has a change of heart. Why? Well, she talks to many people (film critics, Ralph Nadar supporters, Republicans) who have a few secrets to tell about Mike. And, more importantly, the man himself refuses to give her an interview and his staff are downright rude to her. There is no doubt that this film ends up being somewhat of a public vendetta against a very unhelpful man, which seems slightly ridiculous. She approaches him several times, for example, in the two months leading up to the 2004 election. During that time, he toured hundreds of universities throughout America to try and get the youth to vote. I don’t really blame him for refusing to do a sit-down interview with her at this time – no doubt he suspected her film might not paint him in the best light; but there is also no doubt he was extremely busy.
Putting aside her eventual motives however, this film is very interesting. Moore undoubtedly has had a huge effect on documentary film-making. His movies – Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 – have made millions of dollars, won him Oscars and many other awards, gained him a powerful and vocal support base. His films have also, as Melnyk notes, inspired an equally vocal opposition – there are hundreds of websites debunking his movies and she concludes that his campaign to get the vote out in the 2004 election helped mobilise Republicans to vote as much as it did Democrats. Moore has undoubtedly helped raise the volume of public political discourse and debate and this, I think, is something we should be grateful for.
I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine; thought it was a great movie, in fact. I certainly questioned his methods – the last scene where he tricks his way into Charlton Heston’s home and then abuses him was appalling. But I forgave Moore these indiscretions because I supported his message. But the more you delve into his methods, which Manufacturing Dissent has a field-day doing, the less you can truly support this man. I was unaware, for example, how much he truly manipulates time and context in his films. There are many examples cited by Melnyk that make for entertaining and enlightening viewing.
There are several questions Manufacturing Dissent will have you asking. Is Moore truly a documentary film-maker, can he really be placed in this category? Does Moore even have journalistic integrity or is fame all he was ever interested in? Is it even possible to make a political documentaries, or is bias always going to be just too strong? Do Moore’s methods undermine his credibility completely? I’m not sure of the answers. But I do appreciate seeing a film that raises such questions in an insightful way and I recommend that you see Manufacturing Dissent.
P.S. I do have to admit that I will be seeing Sicko, Moore’s upcoming film about the health system in America. But I will approach with caution and eyes wide open.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Jesus Camp
Becky Fischer, Mike Papantonio, Ted Haggard
Dirs. Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady
Should I fear evangelical Christians? Well, the message of this film is you’re damn right I should. I don’t think I do (maybe I would if I lived in America), but I was certainly amused by them, and also a little saddened. This movie is by no means unbiased and is as manipulative as most documentaries you see nowadays, but if you approach it with a healthy pinch of salt it is an interesting and entertaining 90 minutes.
Jesus Camp explores the wider debate in America regarding the dominant rise of the Christian conservative right and their political and social power. It does so by giving us a glimpse into the training (brainwashing?) of some young kids at an evangelical summer camp ("Kids on Fire" at, ironically, Devil's Lake). Now, I was brought up a Catholic and fondly remember yearly retreats at primary school – we would sing some songs, prayer a little and do a lot of fun outdoor activities. Kids on Fire is NOT like that. At all. Run by Becky Fischer, charismatic camp director and children’s preacher extraordinaire, this is serious stuff. These kids cry bucket loads. They repent their sins, a lot. They speak in tongues at every opportunity. They scream and yell and beg and generally get very worked up. And, I must say, I felt very sorry for them. Some are as young as five and I doubt very much they completely understand what is going on. Fischer admits, in fact, that this is the best age to get them at; that “our enemies” are putting grenades and rifles in their children’s hands at as young as four; that indoctrinating children is the best way to save the nation.
The film follows a couple of the kids closely – particularly 12-year-old Levi and his sister, 9-year-old Rachel. You can’t help but like Levi – he wants to be a preacher and change the world. He is sweet and eager. He tells the story of how he was saved at age five because he “just wanted more out of life”. His sister, Rachel, is also worryingly eager, going up to strangers on the street or in a bowling alley and asking them whether they think they are going to heaven and whether they want to talk about Jesus. These kids are home-schooled by their mother; taught only creationism, told that science doesn’t prove anything and informed that global warming is a liberal lie. I feel truly sorry for these kids and want to slap some sense into their mother. She says with conviction that “there are two kinds of people in this world: people who love Jesus and people who don't.” Lady, life is never that black and white.
These aspects of the film sit uneasily with me and, obviously, they are meant to. We are meant to be appalled and shocked and angry. And while I am, I also think the parents and Fischer are fooling themselves if they think that the passion these kids show at camp indicates anything more than just kids being kids. Who hasn’t seen a kid become over-the-top ecstatic at the sight of a red shiny car? Or burst into tears because their sandwiches have been cut on the diagonal rather than straight? Kids wear their hearts on their sleeves. I just wonder how many of these kids will hit puberty and say “screw this, I wanna have some fun!”
There is some glorious editing afoot here. We see a stars and stripes flag atop a pole, waving in the wind. Cut to a McDonalds sign atop a similar pole. Fischer waxs lyrical about how proud she is of American culture. Cut to a multitude of signs and banners in a busy shopping centre. One of the kids at camp points out how much his fellow camp-goer resembles Harry Potter. Cut to shifty-eyed adults and frightened looking kids. It’s documentary-making at its most manipulative. And, while it’s effective, it’s not necessarily good documentary-making.
I recommend this movie to you. I’ve waffled on a bit in this review, but I must say I laughed heartily at this film and was glad to have seen it. But it’s Michael Moore-esque. It’s determined to tell a story and cuts and pastes in a heavy handed manner in order to do so.
--------------------------------
Becky Fischer: And while I'm on the subject, let me say something about Harry Potter. Warlocks are the enemies of God! And I don't care what kind of hero they are, they're an enemy of God and had it been in the Old Testament Harry Potter would have been put to death!
Dirs. Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady
Should I fear evangelical Christians? Well, the message of this film is you’re damn right I should. I don’t think I do (maybe I would if I lived in America), but I was certainly amused by them, and also a little saddened. This movie is by no means unbiased and is as manipulative as most documentaries you see nowadays, but if you approach it with a healthy pinch of salt it is an interesting and entertaining 90 minutes.
Jesus Camp explores the wider debate in America regarding the dominant rise of the Christian conservative right and their political and social power. It does so by giving us a glimpse into the training (brainwashing?) of some young kids at an evangelical summer camp ("Kids on Fire" at, ironically, Devil's Lake). Now, I was brought up a Catholic and fondly remember yearly retreats at primary school – we would sing some songs, prayer a little and do a lot of fun outdoor activities. Kids on Fire is NOT like that. At all. Run by Becky Fischer, charismatic camp director and children’s preacher extraordinaire, this is serious stuff. These kids cry bucket loads. They repent their sins, a lot. They speak in tongues at every opportunity. They scream and yell and beg and generally get very worked up. And, I must say, I felt very sorry for them. Some are as young as five and I doubt very much they completely understand what is going on. Fischer admits, in fact, that this is the best age to get them at; that “our enemies” are putting grenades and rifles in their children’s hands at as young as four; that indoctrinating children is the best way to save the nation.
The film follows a couple of the kids closely – particularly 12-year-old Levi and his sister, 9-year-old Rachel. You can’t help but like Levi – he wants to be a preacher and change the world. He is sweet and eager. He tells the story of how he was saved at age five because he “just wanted more out of life”. His sister, Rachel, is also worryingly eager, going up to strangers on the street or in a bowling alley and asking them whether they think they are going to heaven and whether they want to talk about Jesus. These kids are home-schooled by their mother; taught only creationism, told that science doesn’t prove anything and informed that global warming is a liberal lie. I feel truly sorry for these kids and want to slap some sense into their mother. She says with conviction that “there are two kinds of people in this world: people who love Jesus and people who don't.” Lady, life is never that black and white.
These aspects of the film sit uneasily with me and, obviously, they are meant to. We are meant to be appalled and shocked and angry. And while I am, I also think the parents and Fischer are fooling themselves if they think that the passion these kids show at camp indicates anything more than just kids being kids. Who hasn’t seen a kid become over-the-top ecstatic at the sight of a red shiny car? Or burst into tears because their sandwiches have been cut on the diagonal rather than straight? Kids wear their hearts on their sleeves. I just wonder how many of these kids will hit puberty and say “screw this, I wanna have some fun!”
There is some glorious editing afoot here. We see a stars and stripes flag atop a pole, waving in the wind. Cut to a McDonalds sign atop a similar pole. Fischer waxs lyrical about how proud she is of American culture. Cut to a multitude of signs and banners in a busy shopping centre. One of the kids at camp points out how much his fellow camp-goer resembles Harry Potter. Cut to shifty-eyed adults and frightened looking kids. It’s documentary-making at its most manipulative. And, while it’s effective, it’s not necessarily good documentary-making.
I recommend this movie to you. I’ve waffled on a bit in this review, but I must say I laughed heartily at this film and was glad to have seen it. But it’s Michael Moore-esque. It’s determined to tell a story and cuts and pastes in a heavy handed manner in order to do so.
--------------------------------
Becky Fischer: And while I'm on the subject, let me say something about Harry Potter. Warlocks are the enemies of God! And I don't care what kind of hero they are, they're an enemy of God and had it been in the Old Testament Harry Potter would have been put to death!
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Amazing Grace
Ioan Gruffudd, Benedict Cumberbatch, Albert Finney, Michael Gambon, Rufus Sewell, Romola Garai
Dir. Michael Apted
Scr. Steven Knight
I suspect I’m probably going to hell for this, but Amazing Grace is far from being a brilliant movie. So many have raved about it – how moral it is, how inspiring and how, well, amazing. But I think people too easily automatically equate inspirational subject matter with an inspirational film. Yes, the story of William Wilberforce is a great one, but this is not a great film.
Amazing Grace follows the parliamentary life of Wilberforce, elected in 1790 at the tender age of 21, who went on to not only be instrumental in abolishing the slave trade in the UK but also set up what we now call the RSPCA, spearhead prison and education reforms and generally make the UK a better place. He was truly an amazing man. This film focuses on his early parliamentary life, his continuing failure to bring about the abolition of slavery, his illness and hopelessness, and his eventual success in 1807 with the passing of the Slave Trade Act.
I feel confident that I haven’t given anything away. And the reason I feel confident of that is because the trailer had already spoilt so many aspects of this film. I know this is not a fault of the movie itself or those who made it, but I couldn’t help but be disappointed by the fact that I had seen a very comprehensive synopsis when I first saw the trailer. And because of this, the movie held very few surprises – I knew most of the best lines, most of the plot twists, most of the best scenes. It was FRUSTRATING, to say the least.
But putting the travesty of the trailer aside, Amazing Grace suffered from an annoyingly non-linear telling, a few dud performances, and a general lacklustre. Some scenes weren’t allowed to develop fully; there were too many jumps that made it feel like you are watching a made-for-TV special with the ads cut out. At times, it was simply tedious. And it shouldn’t be, not with the subject matter on offer. And, most importantly, I didn’t cry. And I should have.
Some of the performances are excellent. Albert Finney (as John Newton, the man who wrote the song that gives this movie its title) and Michael Gambon (as Lord Charles Fox) are predictable standouts. Gambon especially steals every scene he is in with ease. I was very impressed by Cumberbatch, who plays Pitt the Younger. He was brilliant and perhaps had the most interesting and complicated journey of all – where Wilberforce never had to compromise his position and beliefs, Pitt had to change his behaviour and curb his ideals once he became Prime Minister and had so much more pressure on him and more people to answer to. A very compelling and nuanced performance.
I was less impressed by Gruffudd, who played the lead character. Granted, it’s a hard role to play – Wilberforce was extremely single-minded and, while visionary, must have been a tedious dinner companion. I also thought Gruffudd had a harder time playing old, broken and ill Wilberforce than he did playing young, idealistic Wilberforce. Garai, as Barbara (who becomes Mrs Wilberforce), was just downright terrible.
While there are some scenes and performances in this film which are worth the price of admission, overall I was disappointed by Amazing Grace. I was disappointed that I had already seen most of it in the trailer. I was disappointed that it jumped about and couldn’t stay focussed. But mostly I was disappointed that it didn’t move me more. It had the potential to. In fact, it downright should have.
------------------------
Barbara: It seems to me, that if there is a bad taste in your mouth, you spit it out. You don't constantly swallow it back.
Dir. Michael Apted
Scr. Steven Knight
I suspect I’m probably going to hell for this, but Amazing Grace is far from being a brilliant movie. So many have raved about it – how moral it is, how inspiring and how, well, amazing. But I think people too easily automatically equate inspirational subject matter with an inspirational film. Yes, the story of William Wilberforce is a great one, but this is not a great film.
Amazing Grace follows the parliamentary life of Wilberforce, elected in 1790 at the tender age of 21, who went on to not only be instrumental in abolishing the slave trade in the UK but also set up what we now call the RSPCA, spearhead prison and education reforms and generally make the UK a better place. He was truly an amazing man. This film focuses on his early parliamentary life, his continuing failure to bring about the abolition of slavery, his illness and hopelessness, and his eventual success in 1807 with the passing of the Slave Trade Act.
I feel confident that I haven’t given anything away. And the reason I feel confident of that is because the trailer had already spoilt so many aspects of this film. I know this is not a fault of the movie itself or those who made it, but I couldn’t help but be disappointed by the fact that I had seen a very comprehensive synopsis when I first saw the trailer. And because of this, the movie held very few surprises – I knew most of the best lines, most of the plot twists, most of the best scenes. It was FRUSTRATING, to say the least.
But putting the travesty of the trailer aside, Amazing Grace suffered from an annoyingly non-linear telling, a few dud performances, and a general lacklustre. Some scenes weren’t allowed to develop fully; there were too many jumps that made it feel like you are watching a made-for-TV special with the ads cut out. At times, it was simply tedious. And it shouldn’t be, not with the subject matter on offer. And, most importantly, I didn’t cry. And I should have.
Some of the performances are excellent. Albert Finney (as John Newton, the man who wrote the song that gives this movie its title) and Michael Gambon (as Lord Charles Fox) are predictable standouts. Gambon especially steals every scene he is in with ease. I was very impressed by Cumberbatch, who plays Pitt the Younger. He was brilliant and perhaps had the most interesting and complicated journey of all – where Wilberforce never had to compromise his position and beliefs, Pitt had to change his behaviour and curb his ideals once he became Prime Minister and had so much more pressure on him and more people to answer to. A very compelling and nuanced performance.
I was less impressed by Gruffudd, who played the lead character. Granted, it’s a hard role to play – Wilberforce was extremely single-minded and, while visionary, must have been a tedious dinner companion. I also thought Gruffudd had a harder time playing old, broken and ill Wilberforce than he did playing young, idealistic Wilberforce. Garai, as Barbara (who becomes Mrs Wilberforce), was just downright terrible.
While there are some scenes and performances in this film which are worth the price of admission, overall I was disappointed by Amazing Grace. I was disappointed that I had already seen most of it in the trailer. I was disappointed that it jumped about and couldn’t stay focussed. But mostly I was disappointed that it didn’t move me more. It had the potential to. In fact, it downright should have.
------------------------
Barbara: It seems to me, that if there is a bad taste in your mouth, you spit it out. You don't constantly swallow it back.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Rescue Dawn
Christian Bale, Steve Zahn, Jeremy Davies
Dir. Werner Herzog
Scr. Werner Herzog
This is a strange film. Not because of its subject matter, but because it didn’t feel quite right. It’s not bad. It was just too funny, I think. And not harrowing enough. But am I just trying to confine a movie to what I except from its genre and not just let it be? Maybe. And if that’s the case, well, I really am ashamed of myself.
Rescue Dawn is the true story of Dieter Dengler, a German-born American fighter pilot who was shot down while bombing Laos during the Vietnam War. Dengler was captured, tortured, and then imprisoned in a POW camp with American and Thai captives. The movie centres mainly on his time in the camp and his subsequent escape and rescue. In this respect, Rescue Dawn is a rather typical example of a POW-movie. But it feels different than most I have seen – there is so much more absurdity, more humour, and although the captives clearly suffer from lack of food, it’s not an “avert your eyes” kind of movie. Does this make it a bad film? Certainly not. This film is compelling and lush and funny. But it’s just, well, odd.
This is director/writer Herzog’s first “American mainstream” film. And while he takes on some well-trodden subject matter, he does so on his own terms. Reminiscent of Malick’s The Thin Red Line, Herzog takes full advantage of the amazing landscape in which this film is set. We are told, via an instructional video for the fighter pilots about to embark on their mission, that the jungle is their friend. This is truly comical – as we see, the jungle is a dense and foreboding death-trap. Beautiful, certainly, but not somewhere you would want to be lost during the dry season. Herzog captures both the beauty and the cruelty of the environment – it is a visual treat.
This film is really about survival and this is best seen in the prison camp that Dengler spends most the film in. The camp is very small – only six prisoners, with even less guards. There is a real intimacy about this camp that you just don’t get in other POW movies. The actors really go the extra mile – Davies is shockingly thin; Zahn is almost unrecognisable; Bale, while not dropping the weight he did in The Machinist, is still a hollowed-out man by the end of the film. I’m in two minds about actors doing this to themselves and just hope that they are monitored by a team of nutritionists. I wonder about the long-term damage Bale has suffered for his art. The scenes in the camp are brilliant – these men, especially Gene and Duane (played by Davies and Zahn), are shadows of their former selves in more ways than just physically. Gene is convinced that rescue is imminent and is a sadly comical character. Duane has nearly lost all hope. Dengler brings a determination to escape to the camp and the group is revitalised – well, as revitalised as six men starving to death can be.
The acting in Rescue Dawn is mostly superb. Bale is good, but I didn’t find him 100% convincing, as I usually do. I think that Dengler’s actual character is part of the problem. It’s amusing that Dengler is German. He has such a gung-ho, America-is-always-right sort of superhero quality about him. And this superhero quality is one of the movie’s flaws – despite everything he goes through, he is never truly vulnerable, never truly compromised; we never quite believe he will die. And surely we must believe this to really cheer for him and care for him. Davies and Zahn are both brilliant in this film. Zahn especially shows he can play well outside his comfort zone of off-the-wall comedies.
The ending was another oddity and really didn’t sit comfortably with me. Such joyousness, such a reception for a returned soldier (fair enough) but again we don’t feel that Dengler has suffered any long-term damage. Which seems completely unrealistic – but perhaps what actually happened. We are told flippantly at the end that Dengler flew again and crashed four more times – as if what we had just watched was merely a plane crash.
So, yeah, there are clearly a few niggles I have about this film. As I said, it’s not a bad film – I was entertained and drawn in; it was well acted and a treat to watch. But it just isn’t right (despite the fact it may be precisely what happened) and I can’t help but want to pigeonhole this film and want it to be something it wasn’t. See it, by all means. You won’t be disappointed. You just may, like me, be slightly bemused.
------------------------------------
Dieter: When something is empty, fill it. When something is full, empty it. When you have an itch, scratch it.
Dir. Werner Herzog
Scr. Werner Herzog
This is a strange film. Not because of its subject matter, but because it didn’t feel quite right. It’s not bad. It was just too funny, I think. And not harrowing enough. But am I just trying to confine a movie to what I except from its genre and not just let it be? Maybe. And if that’s the case, well, I really am ashamed of myself.
Rescue Dawn is the true story of Dieter Dengler, a German-born American fighter pilot who was shot down while bombing Laos during the Vietnam War. Dengler was captured, tortured, and then imprisoned in a POW camp with American and Thai captives. The movie centres mainly on his time in the camp and his subsequent escape and rescue. In this respect, Rescue Dawn is a rather typical example of a POW-movie. But it feels different than most I have seen – there is so much more absurdity, more humour, and although the captives clearly suffer from lack of food, it’s not an “avert your eyes” kind of movie. Does this make it a bad film? Certainly not. This film is compelling and lush and funny. But it’s just, well, odd.
This is director/writer Herzog’s first “American mainstream” film. And while he takes on some well-trodden subject matter, he does so on his own terms. Reminiscent of Malick’s The Thin Red Line, Herzog takes full advantage of the amazing landscape in which this film is set. We are told, via an instructional video for the fighter pilots about to embark on their mission, that the jungle is their friend. This is truly comical – as we see, the jungle is a dense and foreboding death-trap. Beautiful, certainly, but not somewhere you would want to be lost during the dry season. Herzog captures both the beauty and the cruelty of the environment – it is a visual treat.
This film is really about survival and this is best seen in the prison camp that Dengler spends most the film in. The camp is very small – only six prisoners, with even less guards. There is a real intimacy about this camp that you just don’t get in other POW movies. The actors really go the extra mile – Davies is shockingly thin; Zahn is almost unrecognisable; Bale, while not dropping the weight he did in The Machinist, is still a hollowed-out man by the end of the film. I’m in two minds about actors doing this to themselves and just hope that they are monitored by a team of nutritionists. I wonder about the long-term damage Bale has suffered for his art. The scenes in the camp are brilliant – these men, especially Gene and Duane (played by Davies and Zahn), are shadows of their former selves in more ways than just physically. Gene is convinced that rescue is imminent and is a sadly comical character. Duane has nearly lost all hope. Dengler brings a determination to escape to the camp and the group is revitalised – well, as revitalised as six men starving to death can be.
The acting in Rescue Dawn is mostly superb. Bale is good, but I didn’t find him 100% convincing, as I usually do. I think that Dengler’s actual character is part of the problem. It’s amusing that Dengler is German. He has such a gung-ho, America-is-always-right sort of superhero quality about him. And this superhero quality is one of the movie’s flaws – despite everything he goes through, he is never truly vulnerable, never truly compromised; we never quite believe he will die. And surely we must believe this to really cheer for him and care for him. Davies and Zahn are both brilliant in this film. Zahn especially shows he can play well outside his comfort zone of off-the-wall comedies.
The ending was another oddity and really didn’t sit comfortably with me. Such joyousness, such a reception for a returned soldier (fair enough) but again we don’t feel that Dengler has suffered any long-term damage. Which seems completely unrealistic – but perhaps what actually happened. We are told flippantly at the end that Dengler flew again and crashed four more times – as if what we had just watched was merely a plane crash.
So, yeah, there are clearly a few niggles I have about this film. As I said, it’s not a bad film – I was entertained and drawn in; it was well acted and a treat to watch. But it just isn’t right (despite the fact it may be precisely what happened) and I can’t help but want to pigeonhole this film and want it to be something it wasn’t. See it, by all means. You won’t be disappointed. You just may, like me, be slightly bemused.
------------------------------------
Dieter: When something is empty, fill it. When something is full, empty it. When you have an itch, scratch it.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Transformers
Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel
Dir. Michael Bay
Scr. Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman
When I heard a Transformers movie was in production, I was sceptical. Are they going to piss all over my childhood, I thought. When I saw the trailer, however, I was very excited. It looked fantastic. But when I saw the finished product, I couldn’t help but be disappointed. It was overlong, repetitive, lacked character development and (a common problem with blockbusters) gave away all its best bits in the trailer.
The plot is pretty basic – a war between two robotic “tribes” from the planet Cybertron (the Autobots and the Decepticons) breaks out and mankind is caught in the middle. Yes, it really is that naff. What made Transformers a great story, though, was what they could do – transform. And this aspect is by far the best thing about this film. The effects are a sight to behold. Everything I thought they could be. From your basic robot, to the more advanced sand-swimming scorpion robot, these mighty hunks of metal are awesome. I wasn’t so fond of the little stereo/cell-phone robot – the Jar Jar Binks of the film – but even this annoying transformer was superbly realised by the CGI experts.
There was plenty in Transformers that makes for a great action film – explosions, cheesy dialogue, more explosions, car/plane chases, a few more explosions, men in black, and some explosions. But this was not a great action film. Why?
Firstly, to make an action film truly great, we must care about the people. Yes, we need the explosions, but we need to care whether the characters die in the explosions. And the thing that makes us care is some solid character development – not overlong; rather short, snappy and to the point (it’s quite a skill). With the exception of Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf) and Mikaela Banes (Fox), character development is seriously lacking. Sure, we see that Captain Lennox (Duhamel) has a kid, but so what? And what’s with the blonde Australian genius girl who cracks the code? Who is she and why should I care what happens to her? The black kid who is a computer expert – who cares? What about the Secretary of Defence (Voight)? All I know is his job title. That’s not enough. Michael Bay gives us too many characters that we know next to nothing about – more robots transforming, Michael; less people being pointless!
Secondly, I really hated it when the robots talked. I know they have to talk. I know that we need to be told what is going on by someone, but why did they have to sound so ridiculous? It just made me roll my eyes. And not in a good way.
Thirdly, man, this is a looooooooong film. And it needn’t be. It’s unnecessarily complicated. And repetitive.
As for the acting, well, you’ll be surprised to learn there is some and it’s not all bad. LaBeouf in the lead role is extremely likable and funny. A very watchable young actor. Fox is okay – she’s too model-pretty for the film, I think, but I can understand why she was cast ahead of the girl-next-doors – the target audience are 14-year-old boys after all. Voight is criminally underused – this is a film that needed a few heavy-weights to give it some credibility and he certainly does, but he’s just not on the screen enough. The numerous soldiers and the kids who get recruited by the Government are so one-dimensional that the actors don’t get a chance to sink their teeth in. Witwicky’s parents, played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White, are diverting and I enjoy their screen-time. But, without a doubt, the man who lights up the screen is an oddly cast but brilliant John Turturro (as a mysterious man-in-black character). He plays slightly unhinged and scary like no other. Like Voight though, he doesn’t get nearly enough airtime.
So, if you want some explosions and some awesome effects, by all means go see Transformers. But this is not a well-rounded, memorable action film. There isn’t enough heart and, in the end, I just didn’t care enough whether Optimus Prime beats Megatron and saves mankind. They simply weren’t interesting enough to be worth saving.
Maybe Michael Bay is a robot … It would explain a few things.
------------------------
Mikaela: So if it’s some super advanced robot, why does it turn back into a piece of crap Camaro?
Dir. Michael Bay
Scr. Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman
When I heard a Transformers movie was in production, I was sceptical. Are they going to piss all over my childhood, I thought. When I saw the trailer, however, I was very excited. It looked fantastic. But when I saw the finished product, I couldn’t help but be disappointed. It was overlong, repetitive, lacked character development and (a common problem with blockbusters) gave away all its best bits in the trailer.
The plot is pretty basic – a war between two robotic “tribes” from the planet Cybertron (the Autobots and the Decepticons) breaks out and mankind is caught in the middle. Yes, it really is that naff. What made Transformers a great story, though, was what they could do – transform. And this aspect is by far the best thing about this film. The effects are a sight to behold. Everything I thought they could be. From your basic robot, to the more advanced sand-swimming scorpion robot, these mighty hunks of metal are awesome. I wasn’t so fond of the little stereo/cell-phone robot – the Jar Jar Binks of the film – but even this annoying transformer was superbly realised by the CGI experts.
There was plenty in Transformers that makes for a great action film – explosions, cheesy dialogue, more explosions, car/plane chases, a few more explosions, men in black, and some explosions. But this was not a great action film. Why?
Firstly, to make an action film truly great, we must care about the people. Yes, we need the explosions, but we need to care whether the characters die in the explosions. And the thing that makes us care is some solid character development – not overlong; rather short, snappy and to the point (it’s quite a skill). With the exception of Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf) and Mikaela Banes (Fox), character development is seriously lacking. Sure, we see that Captain Lennox (Duhamel) has a kid, but so what? And what’s with the blonde Australian genius girl who cracks the code? Who is she and why should I care what happens to her? The black kid who is a computer expert – who cares? What about the Secretary of Defence (Voight)? All I know is his job title. That’s not enough. Michael Bay gives us too many characters that we know next to nothing about – more robots transforming, Michael; less people being pointless!
Secondly, I really hated it when the robots talked. I know they have to talk. I know that we need to be told what is going on by someone, but why did they have to sound so ridiculous? It just made me roll my eyes. And not in a good way.
Thirdly, man, this is a looooooooong film. And it needn’t be. It’s unnecessarily complicated. And repetitive.
As for the acting, well, you’ll be surprised to learn there is some and it’s not all bad. LaBeouf in the lead role is extremely likable and funny. A very watchable young actor. Fox is okay – she’s too model-pretty for the film, I think, but I can understand why she was cast ahead of the girl-next-doors – the target audience are 14-year-old boys after all. Voight is criminally underused – this is a film that needed a few heavy-weights to give it some credibility and he certainly does, but he’s just not on the screen enough. The numerous soldiers and the kids who get recruited by the Government are so one-dimensional that the actors don’t get a chance to sink their teeth in. Witwicky’s parents, played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White, are diverting and I enjoy their screen-time. But, without a doubt, the man who lights up the screen is an oddly cast but brilliant John Turturro (as a mysterious man-in-black character). He plays slightly unhinged and scary like no other. Like Voight though, he doesn’t get nearly enough airtime.
So, if you want some explosions and some awesome effects, by all means go see Transformers. But this is not a well-rounded, memorable action film. There isn’t enough heart and, in the end, I just didn’t care enough whether Optimus Prime beats Megatron and saves mankind. They simply weren’t interesting enough to be worth saving.
Maybe Michael Bay is a robot … It would explain a few things.
------------------------
Mikaela: So if it’s some super advanced robot, why does it turn back into a piece of crap Camaro?
Sunday, July 8, 2007
The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen)
Ulrich Muhe, Sebastian Koch, Martina Gedeck, Ulrich Tukur
Dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Scr. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
The Lives of Others is a damn good film. Compelling, with a heart as well as a brain, this film is both frightening and funny. We are shown a world where nothing is secret and where privacy is an illusion. I wondered what could have possibly beaten the brilliant Pan’s Labyrinth to the Best Foreign Film Oscar. And while Pan’s is still my favourite movie of the year thus far, this German gem deserves every accolade it has received.
Set in the early 80s in East Germany, this film follows the lives of playwright Georg Dreyman (Koch) and actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Gedeck) who are oblivious to the fact that the Stasi (the secret police) are watching their every move. The man watching them, Gerd Wiesler (Muhe), is a model and unwaveringly loyal Stasi employee, whose work is his life and who is brilliant at what he does. But, as he observes their day-to-day lives, he becomes less of an unseen enemy and rather the best friend they don’t know they have. What drives Wiesler to change is not clear. Perhaps he comes to care for these people. Perhaps he deludes himself into thinking he is actually part of their lives. Perhaps he realises how unjust the system actually is. I don’t know. And it doesn’t matter. In the end, although personal tragedy strikes and the fall of the Berlin Wall means Wiesler’s career is over, he is a strangely heroic figure and the last scene brings a tear to the eye.
The Lives of Others is a depressingly drab-looking movie – muted tones, shades of brown and sometimes grey; this is the décor of socialism. I felt oppressed and stifled. It is brilliantly designed movie, creating mood and emotion with ease. The movie is also perfectly paced. It takes time for us to get to know the characters, which could be tiresome. But instead it is engrossing and makes the consequences of their actions so much more harrowing. The only complaint I have is the jarring jumps in time near the end of the film (“Two Years Later” … more than once), but I see why this technique was used and the concluding scenes put the very personal story we have been following into the larger picture of what occurred in Germany post-1989.
The acting in this film is outstanding. I think I benefited from the fact that all these actors are unknown to me – it helped pull me in and make me believe (instead of thinking to myself, “Oh, look, Tom Cruise” or “Isn’t that guy from CSI?”). Koch is extremely likeable as the “loyalist” playwright. Gedeck portrays the troubled actress brilliantly – there is so much sadness behind her eyes as we watch her driven to the edge by the horrible situation she finds herself in. But the star of this film is really Muhe. I was blown away by his performance. He is so restrained in his facial expressions and movements – his face rarely betrays his thoughts. He is the ultimate nowhere man who blends into the background in order to do his job in the most effective way. And the transformation we see in him is so subtle – the smallest movement in his expression speaks volumes; it is the ultimate minimalist performance. Behind his eyes is the horror of what is occurring to these people he is watching – we watch him soften in an almost imperceptible way. Brilliant stuff.
There are some scenes that have stayed with me and I keep recalling with horror or laughter or amazement – there is a particular scene which teaches us all not to joke about the boss over lunch. But the real joy of this film is the overall wash of drab hopelessness and the underlying current of terror. You’re unlikely to see a more intelligent or satisfying film this year. Highly recommended.
Dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Scr. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
The Lives of Others is a damn good film. Compelling, with a heart as well as a brain, this film is both frightening and funny. We are shown a world where nothing is secret and where privacy is an illusion. I wondered what could have possibly beaten the brilliant Pan’s Labyrinth to the Best Foreign Film Oscar. And while Pan’s is still my favourite movie of the year thus far, this German gem deserves every accolade it has received.
Set in the early 80s in East Germany, this film follows the lives of playwright Georg Dreyman (Koch) and actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Gedeck) who are oblivious to the fact that the Stasi (the secret police) are watching their every move. The man watching them, Gerd Wiesler (Muhe), is a model and unwaveringly loyal Stasi employee, whose work is his life and who is brilliant at what he does. But, as he observes their day-to-day lives, he becomes less of an unseen enemy and rather the best friend they don’t know they have. What drives Wiesler to change is not clear. Perhaps he comes to care for these people. Perhaps he deludes himself into thinking he is actually part of their lives. Perhaps he realises how unjust the system actually is. I don’t know. And it doesn’t matter. In the end, although personal tragedy strikes and the fall of the Berlin Wall means Wiesler’s career is over, he is a strangely heroic figure and the last scene brings a tear to the eye.
The Lives of Others is a depressingly drab-looking movie – muted tones, shades of brown and sometimes grey; this is the décor of socialism. I felt oppressed and stifled. It is brilliantly designed movie, creating mood and emotion with ease. The movie is also perfectly paced. It takes time for us to get to know the characters, which could be tiresome. But instead it is engrossing and makes the consequences of their actions so much more harrowing. The only complaint I have is the jarring jumps in time near the end of the film (“Two Years Later” … more than once), but I see why this technique was used and the concluding scenes put the very personal story we have been following into the larger picture of what occurred in Germany post-1989.
The acting in this film is outstanding. I think I benefited from the fact that all these actors are unknown to me – it helped pull me in and make me believe (instead of thinking to myself, “Oh, look, Tom Cruise” or “Isn’t that guy from CSI?”). Koch is extremely likeable as the “loyalist” playwright. Gedeck portrays the troubled actress brilliantly – there is so much sadness behind her eyes as we watch her driven to the edge by the horrible situation she finds herself in. But the star of this film is really Muhe. I was blown away by his performance. He is so restrained in his facial expressions and movements – his face rarely betrays his thoughts. He is the ultimate nowhere man who blends into the background in order to do his job in the most effective way. And the transformation we see in him is so subtle – the smallest movement in his expression speaks volumes; it is the ultimate minimalist performance. Behind his eyes is the horror of what is occurring to these people he is watching – we watch him soften in an almost imperceptible way. Brilliant stuff.
There are some scenes that have stayed with me and I keep recalling with horror or laughter or amazement – there is a particular scene which teaches us all not to joke about the boss over lunch. But the real joy of this film is the overall wash of drab hopelessness and the underlying current of terror. You’re unlikely to see a more intelligent or satisfying film this year. Highly recommended.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Starter for Ten
James McAvoy, Catherine Tate, Alice Eve, Rebecca Hall, Mark Gatiss
Dir. Tom Vaughan
Scr. David Nicholls
Ever since seeing him in 2004’s Inside I’m Dancing, I’ve been a James McAvoy fan. You might think from all the hype that his first film was The Last King of Scotland, but he’s actually been around for quite some time. And he’s an extremely watch-able and gutsy actor. In Starter for Ten, playing a character ten years his junior with ease, McAvoy impresses again. I was a bit disappointed that the movie didn’t impress quite as much.
Anyone who knows me will realise that there is a second reason I went to see this film – University Challenge. I am a BIG fan. End of confession, back to review.
There is a lot to like about this movie. Set in 1985, it follows Brian (McAvoy) as he leaves his Essex home and starts Bristol University, overcoming academic challenges, romantic challenges and University Challenge. The romantic plot is very familiar – boy meets girl who is perfect for him and they become friends; boy meets another girl who is not perfect for him but is blonde and busty and they become more than friends; boy is betrayed by busty blonde; boy finally comes to senses and hooks up with the perfect girl. It’s certainly not a unique formula but its familiarity is comfortable in a film that is all about nostalgia.
From mixed tapes to Bamber Gascoigne, anyone who was a child/teen of the 80s will have a fondness for this film. Also, anyone who has been to university or has known anyone who has been to university will relate to the strange creature that is the First Year University Student – full of hope and self-belief, wearing a pretentious scarf and coat, talking with fervour about Nietzsche and postmodernism. The sight of three geeky students singing “I am the very model of a modern major general” at a party had me giggling hysterically. Accompanied by a great 80s Brit soundtrack, Starter for Ten is all warm and fuzzy.
And although that makes an enjoyable film, it doesn’t necessarily make a film I would want to watch over and over. Everything was predictable. And maybe that is great for some people, but not for me. I felt like it needed something more. And while it was funny, extremely funny in places, it should have been funnier. And, above all, there was nowhere near enough University Challenge scenes!
McAvoy, as mentioned, was a very solid and likeable lead. I look forward to his next movie. The girls – Alice (blonde one) and Rebecca (perfect one) – were portrayed well by, errrrrrr, Alice Eve and Rebecca Hall. Not brilliant, but competent. A cameo by Charles Dance, as Alice’s father, was woefully short. Catherine Tate was excellent as Brian’s mother – always a joy to watch, her comic timing was spot on. I was very disappointed by the portrayal of Bamber Gascoigne, by Gatiss (of League of Gentlemen fame) – he came across as a complete pretentious git, which is not my memory of Bamber at all. Bamber was, of course, outstandingly intelligent but quietly dignified and forgiving. Unlike the current host (Jeremy Paxman) who is a complete pretentious git, and proud of it.
So, yeah, I can’t necessarily fault this movie in any meaningful way. And I’m sure many people will enjoy it – after all, I enjoyed it. But I didn’t love it and I think it had the potential to make me love it. An opportunity missed perhaps.
---------------------------
Brian: Got an announcement to make. I'm gonna be on University Challenge.
Julie: What a relief. I thought you were gonna say you were gay.
Dir. Tom Vaughan
Scr. David Nicholls
Ever since seeing him in 2004’s Inside I’m Dancing, I’ve been a James McAvoy fan. You might think from all the hype that his first film was The Last King of Scotland, but he’s actually been around for quite some time. And he’s an extremely watch-able and gutsy actor. In Starter for Ten, playing a character ten years his junior with ease, McAvoy impresses again. I was a bit disappointed that the movie didn’t impress quite as much.
Anyone who knows me will realise that there is a second reason I went to see this film – University Challenge. I am a BIG fan. End of confession, back to review.
There is a lot to like about this movie. Set in 1985, it follows Brian (McAvoy) as he leaves his Essex home and starts Bristol University, overcoming academic challenges, romantic challenges and University Challenge. The romantic plot is very familiar – boy meets girl who is perfect for him and they become friends; boy meets another girl who is not perfect for him but is blonde and busty and they become more than friends; boy is betrayed by busty blonde; boy finally comes to senses and hooks up with the perfect girl. It’s certainly not a unique formula but its familiarity is comfortable in a film that is all about nostalgia.
From mixed tapes to Bamber Gascoigne, anyone who was a child/teen of the 80s will have a fondness for this film. Also, anyone who has been to university or has known anyone who has been to university will relate to the strange creature that is the First Year University Student – full of hope and self-belief, wearing a pretentious scarf and coat, talking with fervour about Nietzsche and postmodernism. The sight of three geeky students singing “I am the very model of a modern major general” at a party had me giggling hysterically. Accompanied by a great 80s Brit soundtrack, Starter for Ten is all warm and fuzzy.
And although that makes an enjoyable film, it doesn’t necessarily make a film I would want to watch over and over. Everything was predictable. And maybe that is great for some people, but not for me. I felt like it needed something more. And while it was funny, extremely funny in places, it should have been funnier. And, above all, there was nowhere near enough University Challenge scenes!
McAvoy, as mentioned, was a very solid and likeable lead. I look forward to his next movie. The girls – Alice (blonde one) and Rebecca (perfect one) – were portrayed well by, errrrrrr, Alice Eve and Rebecca Hall. Not brilliant, but competent. A cameo by Charles Dance, as Alice’s father, was woefully short. Catherine Tate was excellent as Brian’s mother – always a joy to watch, her comic timing was spot on. I was very disappointed by the portrayal of Bamber Gascoigne, by Gatiss (of League of Gentlemen fame) – he came across as a complete pretentious git, which is not my memory of Bamber at all. Bamber was, of course, outstandingly intelligent but quietly dignified and forgiving. Unlike the current host (Jeremy Paxman) who is a complete pretentious git, and proud of it.
So, yeah, I can’t necessarily fault this movie in any meaningful way. And I’m sure many people will enjoy it – after all, I enjoyed it. But I didn’t love it and I think it had the potential to make me love it. An opportunity missed perhaps.
---------------------------
Brian: Got an announcement to make. I'm gonna be on University Challenge.
Julie: What a relief. I thought you were gonna say you were gay.
Puppy
Nadia Townsend, Bernard Curry, Susan Ellis
Dir. Kieran Galvin
Scr. Kieran Galvin
This film is advertised as a Darkly Funny Romantic Thriller. With the tagline “He’s taking her home. Unconscious. Big Mistake.” And it’s Australian. So I don’t know quite what I was expecting – probably something quite odd and uncomfortable to watch. But what I got was a surprising little gem of a movie, certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, but strangely scary and compelling and funny and, yes, a little romantic.
Puppy really only has two characters: Liz, a troubled but canny young woman; and Aiden, an even more troubled and mildly dangerous young man. Liz, after being chucked out of her sister’s flat for stealing her jewellery, tries her hand at suicide. Aiden finds her passed out in a car, filled with exhaust fumes, and takes her back to his home which is, of course, miles from nowhere. And the fun begins. Well, actually, not so fun for Liz who is tied up by a man who is convinced she is the wife who walked out on him. Aiden is not a particularly sane man but Liz, being the canny girl that she is, finds that she might be able to get the upper hand in this bizarre and blooming relationship.
There are times when I thought the movie was really going to take a turn for the worst. I suspected that I was going to have to cover my eyes, a lot. And there are certainly some slightly dodgy and uncomfortable moments. Aiden, after all, is highly delusional and owns two large Rottweilers who succeed in making sure Liz does not leave his house. But writer/director Kieran Galvin doesn’t take the easy route of making this into an extreme and violent film. Instead, Liz sees opportunity in her situation. And, by the end, your heart is actually warmed by a tale of love found in the wrong place.
Townsend and Curry are excellent as the two leads. They are completely new faces to me (apparently famous in Australia; Curry has been on Neighbours) and I was impressed by their performances. The supporting cast is a little less strong – I was especially annoyed by Ellis who has, mercifully, a small role. The script is strong – dark, clever, laugh-out-loud funny. It feels a little like a play at times, but this may be due to the small number of characters and locations.
I was impressed by this film. I would put it into the same category as 2002’s Secretary, which I know many people found strange and disturbing. But if you have an open mind and a dark funny bone, you will probably like Puppy. It’s refreshingly different without being unwatchable. Recommended.
Dir. Kieran Galvin
Scr. Kieran Galvin
This film is advertised as a Darkly Funny Romantic Thriller. With the tagline “He’s taking her home. Unconscious. Big Mistake.” And it’s Australian. So I don’t know quite what I was expecting – probably something quite odd and uncomfortable to watch. But what I got was a surprising little gem of a movie, certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, but strangely scary and compelling and funny and, yes, a little romantic.
Puppy really only has two characters: Liz, a troubled but canny young woman; and Aiden, an even more troubled and mildly dangerous young man. Liz, after being chucked out of her sister’s flat for stealing her jewellery, tries her hand at suicide. Aiden finds her passed out in a car, filled with exhaust fumes, and takes her back to his home which is, of course, miles from nowhere. And the fun begins. Well, actually, not so fun for Liz who is tied up by a man who is convinced she is the wife who walked out on him. Aiden is not a particularly sane man but Liz, being the canny girl that she is, finds that she might be able to get the upper hand in this bizarre and blooming relationship.
There are times when I thought the movie was really going to take a turn for the worst. I suspected that I was going to have to cover my eyes, a lot. And there are certainly some slightly dodgy and uncomfortable moments. Aiden, after all, is highly delusional and owns two large Rottweilers who succeed in making sure Liz does not leave his house. But writer/director Kieran Galvin doesn’t take the easy route of making this into an extreme and violent film. Instead, Liz sees opportunity in her situation. And, by the end, your heart is actually warmed by a tale of love found in the wrong place.
Townsend and Curry are excellent as the two leads. They are completely new faces to me (apparently famous in Australia; Curry has been on Neighbours) and I was impressed by their performances. The supporting cast is a little less strong – I was especially annoyed by Ellis who has, mercifully, a small role. The script is strong – dark, clever, laugh-out-loud funny. It feels a little like a play at times, but this may be due to the small number of characters and locations.
I was impressed by this film. I would put it into the same category as 2002’s Secretary, which I know many people found strange and disturbing. But if you have an open mind and a dark funny bone, you will probably like Puppy. It’s refreshingly different without being unwatchable. Recommended.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Ocean’s Thirteen
George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Al Pacino, Matt Damon, Andy Garcia, Elliott Gould
Dir. Steven Soderbergh
Scr. Brian Koppelman & David Levien
Ocean’s Thirteen is an entertaining movie. It’s not going to change the world or extend your horizons or make you think about life, the universe and everything. But, so what? Most people go to the movies to be entertained and this film delivers in spades.
The gang’s back. In Ocean’s Eleven, they conned Andy Garcia (and we were heartedly amused). In Ocean’s Twelve, they stole some art (and lost their way in the plot department). In Thirteen they are out to avenge one of their own (Elliott Gould’s character, who is cheated and left for dead by Willie Bank, played with relish by Al Pacino). The setting is pure Rat Pack stuff – a huge (and monstrously ugly) casino and hotel in Las Vegas. There is simply too much plot to outline here, so let’s just say Bank gets his comeuppance in a litany of clever ways, utilising some cool gadgets, a lot of smarts and buckets of luck.
One thing I like about these movies, as well as the original on which they are based, is that it’s all a big in-joke. Watching George and Brad and Matt, you feel like you’re along for the ride but not always up to speed on what is exactly going on. Keep up as best you can and delight at the ending when everything becomes perfectly clear. Just as Frank, Dean and Sammy had a ball on set, you can tell that the cast of Thirteen are having the time of their lives. It’s slightly voyeuristic, in fact – the banter and jokes seem so real you sometimes feel like you’re watching George and Brad simply messing around. Which, with the help of Soderbergh and a budget of several million, they pretty much are. It’s fun. End of story. If you’re looking for anything else, you’ve come to the wrong movie.
There are some seriously funny moments in Thirteen. Rusty (Pitt) busting Ocean (Clooney) shedding a tear while watching Oprah. The two youngsters in the Thirteen gang nearly starting a worker’s revolution in Mexico. And when I wasn’t laughing the big laughs, I was chuckling away at the clever dialogue. I love the conversations between Clooney and Pitt – fragments of sentences, finishing each other’s thoughts. They both have superb timing and an intimacy of real friends.
Ocean’s Thirteen is an easy movie to like. Go expecting to escape reality for a couple of hours and have a giggle, and you won’t be disappointed.
--------------------
Willie Bank: “This town might have changed, but not me. I know people highly invested in my survival, and they are people who really know how to hurt in ways you can't even imagine.” Danny Ocean: “Well, I know all the guys that you'd hire to come after me, and they like me better than you.”
Dir. Steven Soderbergh
Scr. Brian Koppelman & David Levien
Ocean’s Thirteen is an entertaining movie. It’s not going to change the world or extend your horizons or make you think about life, the universe and everything. But, so what? Most people go to the movies to be entertained and this film delivers in spades.
The gang’s back. In Ocean’s Eleven, they conned Andy Garcia (and we were heartedly amused). In Ocean’s Twelve, they stole some art (and lost their way in the plot department). In Thirteen they are out to avenge one of their own (Elliott Gould’s character, who is cheated and left for dead by Willie Bank, played with relish by Al Pacino). The setting is pure Rat Pack stuff – a huge (and monstrously ugly) casino and hotel in Las Vegas. There is simply too much plot to outline here, so let’s just say Bank gets his comeuppance in a litany of clever ways, utilising some cool gadgets, a lot of smarts and buckets of luck.
One thing I like about these movies, as well as the original on which they are based, is that it’s all a big in-joke. Watching George and Brad and Matt, you feel like you’re along for the ride but not always up to speed on what is exactly going on. Keep up as best you can and delight at the ending when everything becomes perfectly clear. Just as Frank, Dean and Sammy had a ball on set, you can tell that the cast of Thirteen are having the time of their lives. It’s slightly voyeuristic, in fact – the banter and jokes seem so real you sometimes feel like you’re watching George and Brad simply messing around. Which, with the help of Soderbergh and a budget of several million, they pretty much are. It’s fun. End of story. If you’re looking for anything else, you’ve come to the wrong movie.
There are some seriously funny moments in Thirteen. Rusty (Pitt) busting Ocean (Clooney) shedding a tear while watching Oprah. The two youngsters in the Thirteen gang nearly starting a worker’s revolution in Mexico. And when I wasn’t laughing the big laughs, I was chuckling away at the clever dialogue. I love the conversations between Clooney and Pitt – fragments of sentences, finishing each other’s thoughts. They both have superb timing and an intimacy of real friends.
Ocean’s Thirteen is an easy movie to like. Go expecting to escape reality for a couple of hours and have a giggle, and you won’t be disappointed.
--------------------
Willie Bank: “This town might have changed, but not me. I know people highly invested in my survival, and they are people who really know how to hurt in ways you can't even imagine.” Danny Ocean: “Well, I know all the guys that you'd hire to come after me, and they like me better than you.”
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Bill Nighy, Chow Yun-Fat
Dir. Gore Verbinski
Scr. Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio
This review is going to be very, very short. There is no way I will even attempt to outline the convoluted and over-long plot, and no point in highlighting the good bits and bad bits (Johnny Depp = good bits, no Johnny Depp = bad bits, end of story). The first Pirates movie was entertaining – kudos to producer Jerry Bruckheimer and the genius of Depp for making pirates cool again. The problem is that’s where it should have stopped. The sequel was merely a placeholder for At World’s End. And At World’s End is, simply put, tiresome. Avoid.
--------------------
Captain Sao Feng: Jack Sparrow, you have paid me a great insult.
Jack Sparrow: That doesn't sound like me.
Dir. Gore Verbinski
Scr. Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio
This review is going to be very, very short. There is no way I will even attempt to outline the convoluted and over-long plot, and no point in highlighting the good bits and bad bits (Johnny Depp = good bits, no Johnny Depp = bad bits, end of story). The first Pirates movie was entertaining – kudos to producer Jerry Bruckheimer and the genius of Depp for making pirates cool again. The problem is that’s where it should have stopped. The sequel was merely a placeholder for At World’s End. And At World’s End is, simply put, tiresome. Avoid.
--------------------
Captain Sao Feng: Jack Sparrow, you have paid me a great insult.
Jack Sparrow: That doesn't sound like me.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Zodiac
Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jnr, Anthony Edwards, Chloe Sevingny, Brian Cox
Dir. David Fincher
Scr. James Vanderbilt
The latest from David Fincher – hands down, one of the most innovative film-makers of the last couple of decades – is not your typical David Fincher film. Which, I suppose, is the reason that Zodiac has received some pretty lukewarm reviews. But if you take the reputation of the director and separate it from this film, you’re left with a compelling, creepy and engaging piece of cinema that is well worth a viewing.
Zodiac is based on a true crime story by Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in the film) which was published in the 1990s. In a nutshell, the Zodiac Killer was a serial killer who did his thing in Northern California in the late 1960s. He coined his own name in a series of letters he sent to the press, taunting them with difficult ciphers (most of which remain unsolved) and requesting his letters were published or else more people would die. He was known to have killed five people, but took credit many others.
If you search for “zodiac killer” on the internet you’ll find that the story of the Zodiac killings are part of American folklore and have spawned many movies, books, tv shows and songs. The case is unsolved and remains open in several American jurisdictions – fantastic fodder for intriguing entertainment. This film, it is claimed, is the most thorough treatment of the killings and aftermath thus far – at over two and half hours long and spanning over four decades.
So, is it any good?
In my humble opinion, yes. And it would have been even better with 30 minutes or so shaved off it. It is overlong, and after a brilliant and extremely compelling first half, it loses its way somewhat. The difficulty is that we are introduced to several characters, who play very well off each other and we invest our energy in, and then a couple of them disappear from the action completely and the film becomes, in the last third, a one-man show. That one man (Gyllenhaal) does very well. But it’s a big adjustment for the audience to make. It is, perhaps, a pointless criticism to offer – this was simply what happened in real life – but it’s a factor that makes the last half less compelling than the first half nonetheless.
There are an abundance of characters to get your head around but they are played superbly by a brilliant cast. Gyllenhaal, the man obsessed, carries the movie until the end very well. Downey Jnr is on fine form playing a slightly unhinged and drug addicted investigative reporter and shows again that his comic timing is genius. Ruffalo and Edwards are both excellent as the cops assigned to the case. There is an array of fine actors with small but important roles and I cannot fault the acting in any way.
One of the main criticisms of this film is that there’s no punch to the ending. Fincher fans, for example, will expect that unforeseen twist he is so brilliant at delivering. But don’t expect it. And, instead, enjoy the punches and twists you get along the way. Enjoy the way lives are continually taken over by the obsession with this unsolved mystery. Enjoy being emotionally unsettled and intellectually stimulated. Enjoy several brilliant scenes which frighten or amuse or leave you gasping. There is one line (you’ll know it when it’s uttered) that sent a chill throughout my entire body and still makes me shiver slightly when I think about it days later.
If this movie appears incomplete, it’s because, by the very nature of the case it is following, it is. But it was, for me, somewhat refreshing for a Hollywood film not to be tied up neatly at the end. The pay off for the viewer is the attention to detail, the characters, and the creepiness. Don’t wait for the BIG ending – be patient and savour the many brilliant moments when they come along.
-------------------------
Robert: I just want to help.
Ken: What are you, some kind of boy scout?
Robert: Eagle Scout, actually... First class.
Dir. David Fincher
Scr. James Vanderbilt
The latest from David Fincher – hands down, one of the most innovative film-makers of the last couple of decades – is not your typical David Fincher film. Which, I suppose, is the reason that Zodiac has received some pretty lukewarm reviews. But if you take the reputation of the director and separate it from this film, you’re left with a compelling, creepy and engaging piece of cinema that is well worth a viewing.
Zodiac is based on a true crime story by Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in the film) which was published in the 1990s. In a nutshell, the Zodiac Killer was a serial killer who did his thing in Northern California in the late 1960s. He coined his own name in a series of letters he sent to the press, taunting them with difficult ciphers (most of which remain unsolved) and requesting his letters were published or else more people would die. He was known to have killed five people, but took credit many others.
If you search for “zodiac killer” on the internet you’ll find that the story of the Zodiac killings are part of American folklore and have spawned many movies, books, tv shows and songs. The case is unsolved and remains open in several American jurisdictions – fantastic fodder for intriguing entertainment. This film, it is claimed, is the most thorough treatment of the killings and aftermath thus far – at over two and half hours long and spanning over four decades.
So, is it any good?
In my humble opinion, yes. And it would have been even better with 30 minutes or so shaved off it. It is overlong, and after a brilliant and extremely compelling first half, it loses its way somewhat. The difficulty is that we are introduced to several characters, who play very well off each other and we invest our energy in, and then a couple of them disappear from the action completely and the film becomes, in the last third, a one-man show. That one man (Gyllenhaal) does very well. But it’s a big adjustment for the audience to make. It is, perhaps, a pointless criticism to offer – this was simply what happened in real life – but it’s a factor that makes the last half less compelling than the first half nonetheless.
There are an abundance of characters to get your head around but they are played superbly by a brilliant cast. Gyllenhaal, the man obsessed, carries the movie until the end very well. Downey Jnr is on fine form playing a slightly unhinged and drug addicted investigative reporter and shows again that his comic timing is genius. Ruffalo and Edwards are both excellent as the cops assigned to the case. There is an array of fine actors with small but important roles and I cannot fault the acting in any way.
One of the main criticisms of this film is that there’s no punch to the ending. Fincher fans, for example, will expect that unforeseen twist he is so brilliant at delivering. But don’t expect it. And, instead, enjoy the punches and twists you get along the way. Enjoy the way lives are continually taken over by the obsession with this unsolved mystery. Enjoy being emotionally unsettled and intellectually stimulated. Enjoy several brilliant scenes which frighten or amuse or leave you gasping. There is one line (you’ll know it when it’s uttered) that sent a chill throughout my entire body and still makes me shiver slightly when I think about it days later.
If this movie appears incomplete, it’s because, by the very nature of the case it is following, it is. But it was, for me, somewhat refreshing for a Hollywood film not to be tied up neatly at the end. The pay off for the viewer is the attention to detail, the characters, and the creepiness. Don’t wait for the BIG ending – be patient and savour the many brilliant moments when they come along.
-------------------------
Robert: I just want to help.
Ken: What are you, some kind of boy scout?
Robert: Eagle Scout, actually... First class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)