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.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)