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!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)