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.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
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)