Helen Hunt, Colin Firth, Bette Midler, Matthew Broderick, Ben Shenkman
Dir. Helen Hunt
Scr. Alice Arlen, Victor Levin & Helen Hunt
I have been seeing a lot of action movies of late, so welcomed the chance to catch an emotional chick-flick-ish dramedy. Well, that’s what I thought I was seeing. Then She Found Me is despairingly lacking in humour. I was a victim of a highly misleading trailer. But all is not bleak. This film has a shaky plot but some very good acting. It’s nicely shot – kudos to first time director Hunt. And, errrrrrrrrrrrrr, that’s about it. Not a great film, but not quite a train wreck either.
Then She Found Me is the story of April Epner (Hunt), a primary school teacher desperate for children of her own, who in the space of what seems like just a few minutes is left by her husband, has her adoptive mother pass away, develops a crush on the father of one of her pupils, and discovers the identity of her birth mother. There’s a lot going on. And even more to come. April finds out she is pregnant, her hopeless ex the father, and tries to juggle her new condition, her ex, her new suitor and a highly egotistical new mother. There are a variety of twists and turns in this film (none of which I will spoil), not all particularly realistic or welcomed, although we do get to see the characters in all sorts of dire straits.
What stayed with me after seeing this film was some of the highly unconvincing behaviour the writers imposed on these characters, and some just plain bad characterisation. Broderick, playing April’s ex Ben, was an unlikeable, unbelievable character. Firth, as April’s new love interest Frank, was (for the most part) completely too good to be true and at times very one-dimensional. Midler, April’s birth mother Bernice, for parts of the film was not much more than a caricature. Hunt herself had more to work with, but even the dour and depressing April was simply too much to bear at times.
I think the actors deserve a great deal of credit for drawing out of these badly written characters at least some humour, humanity and realism. Broderick simply didn’t have enough to do, but what he did do was solid. I pitied his character – so immature and emotionally stunted – and he managed this well. Midler was mostly on fine form, playing the bravado of Bernice with ease, and the more flawed side of her character with compassion. The interplay between Midler and Hunt took a while to get started but, when it did, they complemented each other quite well. Firth was in danger of slipping completely into the type-cast role he usually plays, but thanks to a couple of great scenes, really did surprise and impress. The scene in which he gives Hunt’s character a good telling off is perhaps the best I’ve ever seen from him. I’ve always suspected there was more to Firth than brooding good looks. Hunt’s performance is a mixed bag. She’s not a particularly likeable lead character, but this isn’t necessarily essential to a good film. More fatal is the fact that Hunt’s April didn’t always ring true as a person, even a highly flawed and confused one, and this annoyed me. Therefore, she annoyed me. Some slightly surreal casting resulted in Salman Rushdie playing Hunt’s gynaecologist which was, in a word, intriguing.
Then She Found Me wasn’t a terrible film, but it wasn’t great either. I don’t regret seeing it, but I don’t recommend it. If you want a real tear-jerker of a dramedy buy some tissues and rent Terms of Endearment or Beaches instead.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones, Jeffrey Tambor, Luke Goss, Anna Walton, John Hurt, Seth McFarlane (voice)
Dir & Scr. Guillermo del Toro
Well, del Toro has done it again – created a slew of visually exciting and wonderfully realised creatures in a fantasy world just on the edge of our own. Perhaps it isn’t as much of a feat in a superhero, comic book movie as it was in Pan’s Labyrinth, where we have come to expect a visual treat. Nevertheless, del Toro’s vision makes Hellboy a cut above most movies of this genre. Some clichéd dialogue and about 20 minutes too many doesn’t detract too much from this stunning, witty film.
Hellboy II picks up where the first film in the franchise left off. Hellboy, Abe Sapien and Liz Sherman are the key players at the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defence, a secret organisation doing its best to keep the human world and the mythical world separated. When the prince of a magic elfin race starts a rebellion against humanity, and tries to unleash the Golden Army (thousands of indestructible soldiers) to gain power over Earth, Hellboy and company are called in. Along the way, Hellboy and Liz have some domestic troubles, Abe falls in love, we are introduced to a new member of the team (containment suit proportioned like a man holding pure ectoplasmic energy), and (predictably but reassuringly) the world is saved.
The film clips along at a satisfying pace, perhaps a little long (the end is especially drawn out). But I don’t begrudge getting to spend time with the likeable and visually interesting characters in Hellboy. The addition of Krauss (the man-shaped ectoplasm) brings some comic relief but his character is hugely clichéd and hard to connect with, understandably so. However the host of other characters we meet along the way are a treat. Del Toro has an imagination like no other writer/director working today. His creations are frightening and enchanting, other simultaneously. The Angel of Death is particularly breathtaking. You just never quite know what you’re going to see in a del Toro film.
It would be easy for the acting to take to back seat in this film, but there are some very solid performances in Hellboy. Doug Jones is again brilliant as Abe Sapien. For me, Selma Blair (playing Liz) is always a little wooden, and the same is true in Hellboy. Luke Goss (of Bros fame) gives an outstanding performance as Prince Nuada, and Walton’s performance (playing the Prince’s sister, Nuala) is equally compelling. But the star of the show is Hellboy himself, and Ron Perlman looks to be having the time of his life in this role.
Many will enjoy Hellboy, not just your usual set of graphic novel junkies. This film is truly a visual treat. It will help if you’ve seen the first Hellboy movie, but it’s not fatal if you haven’t. I happily recommend this film.
-------------------------------------------
Hellboy: You're in love. Have a beer.
Abe Sapien: Oh, my body's a temple.
Hellboy: Now it's an amusement park.
Dir & Scr. Guillermo del Toro
Well, del Toro has done it again – created a slew of visually exciting and wonderfully realised creatures in a fantasy world just on the edge of our own. Perhaps it isn’t as much of a feat in a superhero, comic book movie as it was in Pan’s Labyrinth, where we have come to expect a visual treat. Nevertheless, del Toro’s vision makes Hellboy a cut above most movies of this genre. Some clichéd dialogue and about 20 minutes too many doesn’t detract too much from this stunning, witty film.
Hellboy II picks up where the first film in the franchise left off. Hellboy, Abe Sapien and Liz Sherman are the key players at the Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defence, a secret organisation doing its best to keep the human world and the mythical world separated. When the prince of a magic elfin race starts a rebellion against humanity, and tries to unleash the Golden Army (thousands of indestructible soldiers) to gain power over Earth, Hellboy and company are called in. Along the way, Hellboy and Liz have some domestic troubles, Abe falls in love, we are introduced to a new member of the team (containment suit proportioned like a man holding pure ectoplasmic energy), and (predictably but reassuringly) the world is saved.
The film clips along at a satisfying pace, perhaps a little long (the end is especially drawn out). But I don’t begrudge getting to spend time with the likeable and visually interesting characters in Hellboy. The addition of Krauss (the man-shaped ectoplasm) brings some comic relief but his character is hugely clichéd and hard to connect with, understandably so. However the host of other characters we meet along the way are a treat. Del Toro has an imagination like no other writer/director working today. His creations are frightening and enchanting, other simultaneously. The Angel of Death is particularly breathtaking. You just never quite know what you’re going to see in a del Toro film.
It would be easy for the acting to take to back seat in this film, but there are some very solid performances in Hellboy. Doug Jones is again brilliant as Abe Sapien. For me, Selma Blair (playing Liz) is always a little wooden, and the same is true in Hellboy. Luke Goss (of Bros fame) gives an outstanding performance as Prince Nuada, and Walton’s performance (playing the Prince’s sister, Nuala) is equally compelling. But the star of the show is Hellboy himself, and Ron Perlman looks to be having the time of his life in this role.
Many will enjoy Hellboy, not just your usual set of graphic novel junkies. This film is truly a visual treat. It will help if you’ve seen the first Hellboy movie, but it’s not fatal if you haven’t. I happily recommend this film.
-------------------------------------------
Hellboy: You're in love. Have a beer.
Abe Sapien: Oh, my body's a temple.
Hellboy: Now it's an amusement park.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Wanted
James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Angelina Jolie, Terence Stamp, Thomas Kretschmann
Dir. Timur Bekmambetov
Scr. Michael Brandt, Derek Haas & Chris Morgan (based on the graphic novel series of the same name)
I was very excited by the Wanted trailer – it made me go “whoa” in Keanu Reeves fashion. Stellar cast (well, mostly; I would have put up with Jolie), great special effects, morally dubious premise – fantastic! And while I was thoroughly entertained by Wanted, to be so requires you to check all common sense, ethics and reality at the door. This is great when you’re in the mood for a Friday night action outing; not so good if you want something of substance. But substance can be highly overrated in my opinion – this movie is a ball to watch and I recommend it.
Wanted tells the story of Wesley Gibson (McAvoy), a man completely sleep-walking through his life. His girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend. His boss is a bully. His job is a bore. He has no money and isn’t special. Or so he assumes, until the day The Fraternity show up in his life and convince him he is. The Fraternity is a 1000-year old organisation of assassins, who have tasked themselves with keeping world order by taking out bad guys. Who decides, you might be asking? Well, I won’t spoil the utter ridiculousness of how victims are chosen, so let’s just say fate decides. The Fraternity convince Wesley to join to avenge the death of his recently murdered father, a Fraternity member, and much action ensues. And, boy, it’s some top-notch action.
Although the script is full of holes and unintentional hilarity, it fires along at a satisfyingly brisk pace and has some cracker dialogue, mostly courtesy of Wesley. The film looks great too, surely due to the influence of Russian director Bekmambetov. Wanted is Bekmambetov’s first American film – he is best known for the highly successful Russian vampire franchise Night Watch. Wanted is dark and dirty and brooding, not afraid to visually surprise the viewer. The effects, reminiscent at times of The Matrix, are a pleasure to watch, despite how ridiculous they might be. NO ONE would survive that train wreck – sheesh! And everyone is undeniably cool, even Wesley by the end. And how could you not be with names like Sloan, Fox, Cross, The Repairman, The Butcher and The Exterminator.
McAvoy is fantastic in this film, again showing his versatility. He is arguably the most watchable actor working today. His timing is wonderful, and you equally buy him as a nerdy no-hoper and a world-class assassin. Jolie, as assassin Fox, is not as objectionable as I thought she might be. In fact, her character is likable and has a warped integrity that I admired. Nice job. Freeman happily hams it up as Sloan, head of The Fraternity. It’s refreshing to see Freeman play a morally reprehensible character.
It’s not the best action movie ever, but I liked Wanted. You will know straight away whether you are part of this film’s target audience or not, and I certainly was. It’s like watching a normal action movie that’s consumed three too many energy drinks – great stuff. Yes, there are certainly some niggling ethical questions that you might ponder over on the way home, but don’t let that stop you enjoying the Wanted ride.
-------------------------------------
Sloan: Welcome... to the Fraternity. This gun you're holding belonged to your father; he could conduct a symphony orchestra with it.
Dir. Timur Bekmambetov
Scr. Michael Brandt, Derek Haas & Chris Morgan (based on the graphic novel series of the same name)
I was very excited by the Wanted trailer – it made me go “whoa” in Keanu Reeves fashion. Stellar cast (well, mostly; I would have put up with Jolie), great special effects, morally dubious premise – fantastic! And while I was thoroughly entertained by Wanted, to be so requires you to check all common sense, ethics and reality at the door. This is great when you’re in the mood for a Friday night action outing; not so good if you want something of substance. But substance can be highly overrated in my opinion – this movie is a ball to watch and I recommend it.
Wanted tells the story of Wesley Gibson (McAvoy), a man completely sleep-walking through his life. His girlfriend is cheating on him with his best friend. His boss is a bully. His job is a bore. He has no money and isn’t special. Or so he assumes, until the day The Fraternity show up in his life and convince him he is. The Fraternity is a 1000-year old organisation of assassins, who have tasked themselves with keeping world order by taking out bad guys. Who decides, you might be asking? Well, I won’t spoil the utter ridiculousness of how victims are chosen, so let’s just say fate decides. The Fraternity convince Wesley to join to avenge the death of his recently murdered father, a Fraternity member, and much action ensues. And, boy, it’s some top-notch action.
Although the script is full of holes and unintentional hilarity, it fires along at a satisfyingly brisk pace and has some cracker dialogue, mostly courtesy of Wesley. The film looks great too, surely due to the influence of Russian director Bekmambetov. Wanted is Bekmambetov’s first American film – he is best known for the highly successful Russian vampire franchise Night Watch. Wanted is dark and dirty and brooding, not afraid to visually surprise the viewer. The effects, reminiscent at times of The Matrix, are a pleasure to watch, despite how ridiculous they might be. NO ONE would survive that train wreck – sheesh! And everyone is undeniably cool, even Wesley by the end. And how could you not be with names like Sloan, Fox, Cross, The Repairman, The Butcher and The Exterminator.
McAvoy is fantastic in this film, again showing his versatility. He is arguably the most watchable actor working today. His timing is wonderful, and you equally buy him as a nerdy no-hoper and a world-class assassin. Jolie, as assassin Fox, is not as objectionable as I thought she might be. In fact, her character is likable and has a warped integrity that I admired. Nice job. Freeman happily hams it up as Sloan, head of The Fraternity. It’s refreshing to see Freeman play a morally reprehensible character.
It’s not the best action movie ever, but I liked Wanted. You will know straight away whether you are part of this film’s target audience or not, and I certainly was. It’s like watching a normal action movie that’s consumed three too many energy drinks – great stuff. Yes, there are certainly some niggling ethical questions that you might ponder over on the way home, but don’t let that stop you enjoying the Wanted ride.
-------------------------------------
Sloan: Welcome... to the Fraternity. This gun you're holding belonged to your father; he could conduct a symphony orchestra with it.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Tropic Thunder
Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr, Jack Black, Nick Nolte, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Cruise, Steve Coogan, Jay Baruchel, Brandon T Jackson
Dir. Ben Stiller
Scr. Ben Stiller, Justin Theroux & Etan Cohen
This movie is funny, gross, uncomfortable, tasteless, politically incorrect, self indulgent, satirical in spades … the list just goes on and on. And while it doesn’t hit the mark 100% of the time, it does so enough to keep you amused and glued to the screen. The acting is top notch – nothing is more wonderful to see than a bunch of actors refusing to take themselves seriously. I’m not the world’s biggest Ben Stiller fan by a long shot, but he does a solid job with Tropic Thunder. Mostly, one suspects, because he has enough movie star friends who want to lark about as much as he does.
Tropic Thunder is about a trio of hugely successfully actors trying to make the best war movie ever – Tugg Speedman (Stiller), the action hero who has done one too many sequels and is searching for credibility; Jeff Portnoy (Black), the bad boy, bad taste comic who is the king of the fart joke; and Kirk Lazarus (Downey Jr), the multiple-Oscar award winning Aussie actor who takes method acting a little too far. Unable to handle his all-star cast and an out-of-control budget, director Damien Cockburn (Coogan) decides to drop this bunch of overpaid, spoilt actors in the deepest, darkest jungle and truly make a great movie. Convinced their every move is being filmed, the actors are oblivious to the real dangers lying in the jungle. And, well, hilarity ensues. Sometimes.
Tropic Thunder does suffer from some truly unfunny, broad humour. But, in this cinema-goers opinion, there are two things that truly save this film from becoming unbearable. The first is the spot-on piss-take of the film industry. The comic star who plays every character in a film. An actor taking “the method” to extremes by becoming black. The aging, failing action star who dumbs himself down in an attempt to win an Oscar. The omnipotent producer. The “he’s-so-hot-right-now” rapper trying his hand at acting. The war movie to top all war movies. These caricatures are so funny because they are so very true. And who better to play them than the likes of Stiller, Black, Downey Jr, McConaughey, Cruise and so on.
Which brings me nicely to reason number two that Tropic Thunder didn’t suck: that miraculous cast list. Stiller sure has friends in high places and friends that don’t mind being the butt of the joke. The stand-outs, by far, are Downey Jr and Cruise. Downey Jr has the most difficult acting job of the movie – playing a dude “playing a dude pretending to be another dude.” And it’s damn funny, especially the scenes between Lazarus and Alpa Chino (the black rapper played wonderfully by Brandon T Jackson), and the memorable sage words of an extreme method actor (“I don't read the script. The script reads me.”) And Cruise, well, what a wonderfully disgusting, disturbing performance he gives as the aptly named producer Les Grossman. He looks to be truly having a ball.
Tropic Thunder will definitely not be everyone’s idea of a good night out. I truly disliked parts of it. But there was certainly enough to keep me giggling and I applaud Stiller’s satirical skills and the whole cast’s willingness to truly ridicule themselves and their industry.
---------------------------------------
Tyra Banks: You're not married, you're on the wrong side of 40, and child-less. Somebody close to you said: One more flop, and it's over.
Tugg Speedman: [pause] Somebody said they were close to me?
Dir. Ben Stiller
Scr. Ben Stiller, Justin Theroux & Etan Cohen
This movie is funny, gross, uncomfortable, tasteless, politically incorrect, self indulgent, satirical in spades … the list just goes on and on. And while it doesn’t hit the mark 100% of the time, it does so enough to keep you amused and glued to the screen. The acting is top notch – nothing is more wonderful to see than a bunch of actors refusing to take themselves seriously. I’m not the world’s biggest Ben Stiller fan by a long shot, but he does a solid job with Tropic Thunder. Mostly, one suspects, because he has enough movie star friends who want to lark about as much as he does.
Tropic Thunder is about a trio of hugely successfully actors trying to make the best war movie ever – Tugg Speedman (Stiller), the action hero who has done one too many sequels and is searching for credibility; Jeff Portnoy (Black), the bad boy, bad taste comic who is the king of the fart joke; and Kirk Lazarus (Downey Jr), the multiple-Oscar award winning Aussie actor who takes method acting a little too far. Unable to handle his all-star cast and an out-of-control budget, director Damien Cockburn (Coogan) decides to drop this bunch of overpaid, spoilt actors in the deepest, darkest jungle and truly make a great movie. Convinced their every move is being filmed, the actors are oblivious to the real dangers lying in the jungle. And, well, hilarity ensues. Sometimes.
Tropic Thunder does suffer from some truly unfunny, broad humour. But, in this cinema-goers opinion, there are two things that truly save this film from becoming unbearable. The first is the spot-on piss-take of the film industry. The comic star who plays every character in a film. An actor taking “the method” to extremes by becoming black. The aging, failing action star who dumbs himself down in an attempt to win an Oscar. The omnipotent producer. The “he’s-so-hot-right-now” rapper trying his hand at acting. The war movie to top all war movies. These caricatures are so funny because they are so very true. And who better to play them than the likes of Stiller, Black, Downey Jr, McConaughey, Cruise and so on.
Which brings me nicely to reason number two that Tropic Thunder didn’t suck: that miraculous cast list. Stiller sure has friends in high places and friends that don’t mind being the butt of the joke. The stand-outs, by far, are Downey Jr and Cruise. Downey Jr has the most difficult acting job of the movie – playing a dude “playing a dude pretending to be another dude.” And it’s damn funny, especially the scenes between Lazarus and Alpa Chino (the black rapper played wonderfully by Brandon T Jackson), and the memorable sage words of an extreme method actor (“I don't read the script. The script reads me.”) And Cruise, well, what a wonderfully disgusting, disturbing performance he gives as the aptly named producer Les Grossman. He looks to be truly having a ball.
Tropic Thunder will definitely not be everyone’s idea of a good night out. I truly disliked parts of it. But there was certainly enough to keep me giggling and I applaud Stiller’s satirical skills and the whole cast’s willingness to truly ridicule themselves and their industry.
---------------------------------------
Tyra Banks: You're not married, you're on the wrong side of 40, and child-less. Somebody close to you said: One more flop, and it's over.
Tugg Speedman: [pause] Somebody said they were close to me?
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Married Life
Chris Cooper, Pierce Brosnan, Patricia Clarkson, Rachel McAdams, David Richmond-Peck
Dir. Ira Sachs
Scr. Ira Sachs & Oren Moverman (based on the novel “Five Roundabouts to Heaven” by John Bingham)
Married Life is a smart, funny, well acted drama. The major moral dilemma we are asked to buy into might well be mildly far-fetched, if not fully-flung absurd. And while this movie is mostly compelling, its pace is sometimes lost. I guess it’s what you could call a slow-burner. In the end, the resolution is neat, believable and even heart-warming. But I couldn’t help feeling slightly ripped off at not being treated to a more chilling and thrilling conclusion. It had potential in spades.
Set in the 1940s, Married Life tells the story of married couple Harry and Pat, Harry’s best friend Rich, and Harry’s mistress Kay. Harry is a dependable sort of bloke who, despite falling in love with another woman, is hesitant to leave his wife because of the hurt and humiliation it will cause. Pat, a frank and cheery woman, has no idea Harry is cheating but, as you will discover, has secrets of her own. Rich is a player, as they say, and on meeting his best friend’s bit-on-the-side, is immediately infatuated with the lovely Kay. What unfolds could almost be a comedy, if it wasn’t so tragic. Harry, intent on both being with Kay and not breaking his wife’s heart, decides the most humane thing to do would be to kill Pat. Painlessly, of course.
The gist of the movie, as summarised in its tagline, is ‘do you know what really goes on in the mind of the person with whom you sleep?’ From the goings-on in this story, the answer is clearly no. It’s a disturbing thought. While no one is completely evil in this film (not even murderous Harry), each and every character would shock their lover with their thoughts and motivations. Wouldn’t we all?
I can’t fault the acting in Married Life. The cast is a director’s dream. Brosnan (as Rich) is on fine form and well suited to both the period and the character. McAdams (as Kay) does surprisingly well – I am not the biggest fan, but she plays this more-complex-than-meets-the-eye character well. Clarkson (as Pat) is a treat to watch – she truly is one the best actresses working today. But, as always, Cooper (as Harry) steals the show. Cooper is an amazing actor, possessed of a wonderfully lived-in face, whose emotional journey in this film is at times chilling, at times heart-breaking. In the end, it is the performances of these actors that keep you hooked on Married Life.
Visually, Married Life is fantastic. The tone is set with a wonderful opening title sequence. From there we are treated to authentic costumes and great sets. Married Life also treats us to a proper and formal way of speaking that harks back to a more restrictive time. But even within this formality, sex was still sex, and the frankness of the circumstances ensures the audience doesn’t feel too distant from characters of a bygone era.
Married Life might bore some. It’s not a thrill-a-minute, although at times it feels like it’s winding itself up to try to be. It’s certainly funny, and at times you will be laughing nervously. Ultimately, I thought the ending could have been stronger – less neat, more bloody! And while you don’t know what is going to happen to these characters in the long-run, you suspect it’ll all be okay. Married Life didn’t deliver 100% for me. But this is a well acted, mostly compelling, slightly odd film that I’m glad I saw.
Dir. Ira Sachs
Scr. Ira Sachs & Oren Moverman (based on the novel “Five Roundabouts to Heaven” by John Bingham)
Married Life is a smart, funny, well acted drama. The major moral dilemma we are asked to buy into might well be mildly far-fetched, if not fully-flung absurd. And while this movie is mostly compelling, its pace is sometimes lost. I guess it’s what you could call a slow-burner. In the end, the resolution is neat, believable and even heart-warming. But I couldn’t help feeling slightly ripped off at not being treated to a more chilling and thrilling conclusion. It had potential in spades.
Set in the 1940s, Married Life tells the story of married couple Harry and Pat, Harry’s best friend Rich, and Harry’s mistress Kay. Harry is a dependable sort of bloke who, despite falling in love with another woman, is hesitant to leave his wife because of the hurt and humiliation it will cause. Pat, a frank and cheery woman, has no idea Harry is cheating but, as you will discover, has secrets of her own. Rich is a player, as they say, and on meeting his best friend’s bit-on-the-side, is immediately infatuated with the lovely Kay. What unfolds could almost be a comedy, if it wasn’t so tragic. Harry, intent on both being with Kay and not breaking his wife’s heart, decides the most humane thing to do would be to kill Pat. Painlessly, of course.
The gist of the movie, as summarised in its tagline, is ‘do you know what really goes on in the mind of the person with whom you sleep?’ From the goings-on in this story, the answer is clearly no. It’s a disturbing thought. While no one is completely evil in this film (not even murderous Harry), each and every character would shock their lover with their thoughts and motivations. Wouldn’t we all?
I can’t fault the acting in Married Life. The cast is a director’s dream. Brosnan (as Rich) is on fine form and well suited to both the period and the character. McAdams (as Kay) does surprisingly well – I am not the biggest fan, but she plays this more-complex-than-meets-the-eye character well. Clarkson (as Pat) is a treat to watch – she truly is one the best actresses working today. But, as always, Cooper (as Harry) steals the show. Cooper is an amazing actor, possessed of a wonderfully lived-in face, whose emotional journey in this film is at times chilling, at times heart-breaking. In the end, it is the performances of these actors that keep you hooked on Married Life.
Visually, Married Life is fantastic. The tone is set with a wonderful opening title sequence. From there we are treated to authentic costumes and great sets. Married Life also treats us to a proper and formal way of speaking that harks back to a more restrictive time. But even within this formality, sex was still sex, and the frankness of the circumstances ensures the audience doesn’t feel too distant from characters of a bygone era.
Married Life might bore some. It’s not a thrill-a-minute, although at times it feels like it’s winding itself up to try to be. It’s certainly funny, and at times you will be laughing nervously. Ultimately, I thought the ending could have been stronger – less neat, more bloody! And while you don’t know what is going to happen to these characters in the long-run, you suspect it’ll all be okay. Married Life didn’t deliver 100% for me. But this is a well acted, mostly compelling, slightly odd film that I’m glad I saw.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Mamma Mia!
Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard, Julie Walters, Christine Baranski, Amanda Seyfried, Dominic Cooper
Dir. Phyllida Lloyd
Scr. Catherine Johnson
What fun! Mammia Mia is a movie for musical-lovers – for people who don’t cringe when characters burst into song, for people not concerned too much with realism, for cinema-goers who like to leave the theatre with a grin on their faces. Someone like me, in other words. And while I’m not the hugest ABBA fan, it’s always a comfort and a treat to know the songs being belted out on screen. This film isn’t perfect by any means, but it might just be the most fun you’ll have on a rainy Saturday afternoon.
Mamma Mia is based on the hugely popular stage musical of the same name, which uses the songs of ABBA to tell the story of soon-to-be-wed Sophie, who lives with her mother, Donna, on a small Greek island. After finding her mother’s diary from the year before she was born, Sophie figures out that her father is one of three men. So, desperate to know who her father is, Sophie invites all three to the wedding, sure that she will know “him” when she sees him. When all three possible fathers actually turn up – Sam the architect, Harry the banker, Bill the adventure writer – chaos and hilarity ensues.
This film is a visual treat. Some of the filming was done on the Greek Islands of Skopelos and Skiathos. But, I was surprised to find out that most of the movie was filmed on the 007 stage at Pinewood Studios. You certainly can’t tell – this film will make you want to move to a Greek island, or at least plan your next vacation there. And while the plot is more than a little ludicrous, you’ll easily forgive an outrageous story because this film looks simply gorgeous. And, least we forget, it’s a musical – the most surreal and ridiculous genre to have ever been conceived. And often the most pleasurable.
The youngsters in Mamma Mia are great. Seyfried (who plays fatherless Sophie) possesses a wonderful, pure voice and has a lovely chemistry with her onscreen mother (Streep) – it’s no stretch of the imagination that they are mother and daughter. Cooper (Sky, the fiancé), is likeable and cute and has a strong voice. It’s clear the young half of the ensemble were cast at least partly for their musical talent. The older set, well, they are more of a mixed bag. But I have to give them all an ‘A’ for effort. Brosnan (as Sam, possible father #1) looks slightly terrified when he is singing. His voice isn’t strong, but it is sweet and he’s a good enough actor to inject emotion into the tune and make it moving. And he’s absolutely dishy, which helps. Firth (as Harry, possible father #2) and Skarsgard (as Bill, possible father #3) have weaker voices and, wisely, aren’t given a lot of solo singing to do. But, again, these men are experienced, fine actors and they admirably manage to fake it. Firth is, as usual, gorgeous and very funny indeed. Skarsgard has a wonderful twinkle in his eye which lets you know he is having a ball. Even Benny and Bjorn make cameo appearances, alongside their Executive Producer and Composer credits.
The older women in the cast more than make up for any lack of musical talent from Brosnan, Firth and Skarsgard. Walters and Baranski (as Donna’s best friends Rosie and Tanya) are simply wonderful. Their characters are like chalk and cheese, and this plays out with much humour. And, man, that Baranski can belt out a tune. Walters is not as strong, but she makes up for any weakness in her voice with her great comic ability. Much, much, much credit, however, must go to Meryl Streep (as Donna) in this film. Her acting is spot on. And her singing, well, it blew me away. When she sings “The Winner Takes It All” to Brosnan, I swear I had goose-bumps. Casting her in this film was inspired.
Mamma Mia is an energetic and fun frolic on an island paradise with some quality actors and a whole lot of instantly recognisable songs – in other words, a jolly good film. Some of the singing might be shaky and the plot might be silly, but everyone is clearly having the time of their lives. As was I. Highly recommend if you’re a fan of the musical genre.
----------------------------------
Rosie: Typical, you wait 20 years for a father and then three show up at once.
Dir. Phyllida Lloyd
Scr. Catherine Johnson
What fun! Mammia Mia is a movie for musical-lovers – for people who don’t cringe when characters burst into song, for people not concerned too much with realism, for cinema-goers who like to leave the theatre with a grin on their faces. Someone like me, in other words. And while I’m not the hugest ABBA fan, it’s always a comfort and a treat to know the songs being belted out on screen. This film isn’t perfect by any means, but it might just be the most fun you’ll have on a rainy Saturday afternoon.
Mamma Mia is based on the hugely popular stage musical of the same name, which uses the songs of ABBA to tell the story of soon-to-be-wed Sophie, who lives with her mother, Donna, on a small Greek island. After finding her mother’s diary from the year before she was born, Sophie figures out that her father is one of three men. So, desperate to know who her father is, Sophie invites all three to the wedding, sure that she will know “him” when she sees him. When all three possible fathers actually turn up – Sam the architect, Harry the banker, Bill the adventure writer – chaos and hilarity ensues.
This film is a visual treat. Some of the filming was done on the Greek Islands of Skopelos and Skiathos. But, I was surprised to find out that most of the movie was filmed on the 007 stage at Pinewood Studios. You certainly can’t tell – this film will make you want to move to a Greek island, or at least plan your next vacation there. And while the plot is more than a little ludicrous, you’ll easily forgive an outrageous story because this film looks simply gorgeous. And, least we forget, it’s a musical – the most surreal and ridiculous genre to have ever been conceived. And often the most pleasurable.
The youngsters in Mamma Mia are great. Seyfried (who plays fatherless Sophie) possesses a wonderful, pure voice and has a lovely chemistry with her onscreen mother (Streep) – it’s no stretch of the imagination that they are mother and daughter. Cooper (Sky, the fiancé), is likeable and cute and has a strong voice. It’s clear the young half of the ensemble were cast at least partly for their musical talent. The older set, well, they are more of a mixed bag. But I have to give them all an ‘A’ for effort. Brosnan (as Sam, possible father #1) looks slightly terrified when he is singing. His voice isn’t strong, but it is sweet and he’s a good enough actor to inject emotion into the tune and make it moving. And he’s absolutely dishy, which helps. Firth (as Harry, possible father #2) and Skarsgard (as Bill, possible father #3) have weaker voices and, wisely, aren’t given a lot of solo singing to do. But, again, these men are experienced, fine actors and they admirably manage to fake it. Firth is, as usual, gorgeous and very funny indeed. Skarsgard has a wonderful twinkle in his eye which lets you know he is having a ball. Even Benny and Bjorn make cameo appearances, alongside their Executive Producer and Composer credits.
The older women in the cast more than make up for any lack of musical talent from Brosnan, Firth and Skarsgard. Walters and Baranski (as Donna’s best friends Rosie and Tanya) are simply wonderful. Their characters are like chalk and cheese, and this plays out with much humour. And, man, that Baranski can belt out a tune. Walters is not as strong, but she makes up for any weakness in her voice with her great comic ability. Much, much, much credit, however, must go to Meryl Streep (as Donna) in this film. Her acting is spot on. And her singing, well, it blew me away. When she sings “The Winner Takes It All” to Brosnan, I swear I had goose-bumps. Casting her in this film was inspired.
Mamma Mia is an energetic and fun frolic on an island paradise with some quality actors and a whole lot of instantly recognisable songs – in other words, a jolly good film. Some of the singing might be shaky and the plot might be silly, but everyone is clearly having the time of their lives. As was I. Highly recommend if you’re a fan of the musical genre.
----------------------------------
Rosie: Typical, you wait 20 years for a father and then three show up at once.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Albert Finney, Marisa Tomei
Dir. Sidney Lumet
Scr. Kelly Masterson
This certainly isn’t a cheery film. And not one to take your grandma to see. But it’s a bloody good film – well crafted and paced, well acted, compelling. Sidney Lumet, obviously still going strong in his 80s, has assembled a stellar cast who deliver in spades. You might not “enjoy” this movie, but you’ll appreciate a fine director and cast at work.
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (the title taken from an old Irish saying – “May you be in heaven a full half hour before the devil knows you're dead”) tells the story of brothers Andy and Hank Hanson, who embark on a seemingly fool-proof plan to rob a jewelry store and solve their financial woes. Hank, a divorced, deadbeat dad, is way behind on child support payments; Andy is in a pickle at work and has a wife who likes to spend his money. The robbery goes terribly wrong – don’t they all? – and events and repercussions spiral out of the control. The tagline of this film – “No one was supposed to get hurt” – hints at the fact that everyone does. Big time.
Before the Devil is non-linear – we jump from character to character, from days before the robbery, to days after. This certainly isn’t a new cinematic device, especially in this genre, and can often be both annoying and confusing. But it is handled deftly in this film and the tension builds wonderfully.
This film is an insight into several disturbing facets of personality. You won’t necessarily like the characters in this film – they are hugely flawed and sometimes downright horrid – but they are very believable. Hank is weak. Andy is unforgiving. Gina (Andy’s wife) is never satisfied. Charles (Hank and Andy’s father) is cruel. These characters don’t redeem themselves, they don’t suddenly come good. It’s a bleak picture of modern life. Some may find it hard to watch, but it is tragedy as its best.
The cast of this film is very good indeed. Hoffman, as Andy, is the stand-out. He is an actor that simply doesn’t disappoint. And he is especially good as the flawed and unlikeable man. The scene in the car after his mother’s funeral is quite gut-wrenching. Hawke – on the face of it, an unexpected casting choice – is wonderful as the weak, hopeless younger brother Hank. Talked into anything, you simply want to slap him and tell him to get a backbone. Finney, as their father Charles, is on fine form. Having ignored his older son and smothered his younger son, Charles could in fact be held responsible for all that transpires in this story. And, in the end, he makes a choice that will have you questioning the assumption that parental love overcomes all. Tomei, as Andy’s wife Gina, is pretty good. I found her character hugely unlikeable and so found it hard to like Tomei in this film. So, I have to concede, well done on her part.
I recommend this film. It’s not an easy watch. And the very graphic opening scene might put some off. But this is a finely crafted, compelling, superbly acted film about the worst in all of us.
-----------------------------------------
Andy Hanson: The thing about real estate accounting is that you can add down the page or across the page and everything works out. Everyday, everything adds up. The total is always the sum of its parts. It's, uh, clean. It's clear. Neat, absolute. But my life, it, uh, it doesn't add up. It, uh... Nothing connects to anything else. It's, uh... I'm not, I'm not the sum of my parts. All my parts don't add up to one... to one me, I guess.
Dir. Sidney Lumet
Scr. Kelly Masterson
This certainly isn’t a cheery film. And not one to take your grandma to see. But it’s a bloody good film – well crafted and paced, well acted, compelling. Sidney Lumet, obviously still going strong in his 80s, has assembled a stellar cast who deliver in spades. You might not “enjoy” this movie, but you’ll appreciate a fine director and cast at work.
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (the title taken from an old Irish saying – “May you be in heaven a full half hour before the devil knows you're dead”) tells the story of brothers Andy and Hank Hanson, who embark on a seemingly fool-proof plan to rob a jewelry store and solve their financial woes. Hank, a divorced, deadbeat dad, is way behind on child support payments; Andy is in a pickle at work and has a wife who likes to spend his money. The robbery goes terribly wrong – don’t they all? – and events and repercussions spiral out of the control. The tagline of this film – “No one was supposed to get hurt” – hints at the fact that everyone does. Big time.
Before the Devil is non-linear – we jump from character to character, from days before the robbery, to days after. This certainly isn’t a new cinematic device, especially in this genre, and can often be both annoying and confusing. But it is handled deftly in this film and the tension builds wonderfully.
This film is an insight into several disturbing facets of personality. You won’t necessarily like the characters in this film – they are hugely flawed and sometimes downright horrid – but they are very believable. Hank is weak. Andy is unforgiving. Gina (Andy’s wife) is never satisfied. Charles (Hank and Andy’s father) is cruel. These characters don’t redeem themselves, they don’t suddenly come good. It’s a bleak picture of modern life. Some may find it hard to watch, but it is tragedy as its best.
The cast of this film is very good indeed. Hoffman, as Andy, is the stand-out. He is an actor that simply doesn’t disappoint. And he is especially good as the flawed and unlikeable man. The scene in the car after his mother’s funeral is quite gut-wrenching. Hawke – on the face of it, an unexpected casting choice – is wonderful as the weak, hopeless younger brother Hank. Talked into anything, you simply want to slap him and tell him to get a backbone. Finney, as their father Charles, is on fine form. Having ignored his older son and smothered his younger son, Charles could in fact be held responsible for all that transpires in this story. And, in the end, he makes a choice that will have you questioning the assumption that parental love overcomes all. Tomei, as Andy’s wife Gina, is pretty good. I found her character hugely unlikeable and so found it hard to like Tomei in this film. So, I have to concede, well done on her part.
I recommend this film. It’s not an easy watch. And the very graphic opening scene might put some off. But this is a finely crafted, compelling, superbly acted film about the worst in all of us.
-----------------------------------------
Andy Hanson: The thing about real estate accounting is that you can add down the page or across the page and everything works out. Everyday, everything adds up. The total is always the sum of its parts. It's, uh, clean. It's clear. Neat, absolute. But my life, it, uh, it doesn't add up. It, uh... Nothing connects to anything else. It's, uh... I'm not, I'm not the sum of my parts. All my parts don't add up to one... to one me, I guess.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
The Happening
Mark Walhberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo, Ashlyn Sanchez, Betty Buckley
Dir. M. Night Shyamalan
Scr. M. Night Shyamalan
I’m a big M. Night Shyamalan fan. Sure, not all his movies have been winners. But he brings a unique vision to the cinema and I commend him for it. Having said that, he’s not been able to translate that vision into a truly solid film since Unbreakable. I really did hope that The Happening would see a return to form. Alas, this is not the case. I would even venture to say that The Happening is Shyamalan’s worst film. Aside from a few truly chilling and disturbing scenes, The Happening is largely terrible.
The Happening tells the story of nature fighting back. In Central Park, on a lovely spring day, suddenly people start to talk nonsense, become motionless and, finally, take their own lives in a variety of ways. Why, you might ask. Terrorism, surely. Well, yeah, but not of the kind George Bush is warring against. As the phenomenon spreads to other surrounding big centres, many flee the cities, including our protagonist Elliot Moore, a high school science teacher, his troubled wife, Alma, Moore’s colleague Julian and his daughter Jess. It soon becomes clear that where there are few people is where they want to be and the group venture into very, very small town America. They end up lodging for the night with the incredibly mad and scary Mrs Jones and, well, by this point the movie has long since ceased to be credible, interesting or compelling. It ends well for some, not so well for others, and we are fed a not-so-subtle and downright laboured environmental message.
This film suffers from some very bad writing and some even worse acting, but it is slightly redeemed by some truly unforgettable scenes. Shyamalan is undoubtedly a visionary director – he gives us shots and scenes that will make you gasp out loud. Reminiscent of Hitchcock, Shyamalan makes us see in different ways, at different angles. The scene early on in the film, at the building site in New York City, is incredibly chilling and truly memorable. There are several scenes that fall into that same category. Unfortunately, a few great moments do not add up to a great film.
Almost without exception, the acting on offer here is poor. At times, more than poor – truly terrible. The main culprit is Walhberg who, as the lead, is meant to carry the film. Shyamalan has had some great leads to work with – Bruce Willis in both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, Mel Gibson in Signs, Joaquin Phoenix in both Signs and The Village – but Walhberg is simply not in the same class. And without a believable, approachable lead that the audience can hang their hopes on, the film crumbles. Deschanel, as Alma Moore, is equally rubbish. She does wide-eyed horror quite well, but that’s about it. Leguizamo is woefully underused as fellow high-school teacher, Julian. By the time we get to Buckley, as creepy Mrs Jones, the film has become something else entirely – a cheesy horror flick – and she’s nothing more than a cliché. I hate to say it, but the best acting comes from little Ashlyn Sanchez, as 8-year-old Jess. Shyamalan does have a knack of getting good performances out of kids.
Signs and Unbreakable received more than their fare share of criticism, but I gladly stick up for two films I believe are misunderstood by many critics and cinema-goers. I will not, however, be going into bat for The Happening. If you’re a Shyamalan fan, I guess you will see it despite what I write. I would have. But, if you’re not, I recommend you stay at home and re-watch Signs – it really is his best work.
Dir. M. Night Shyamalan
Scr. M. Night Shyamalan
I’m a big M. Night Shyamalan fan. Sure, not all his movies have been winners. But he brings a unique vision to the cinema and I commend him for it. Having said that, he’s not been able to translate that vision into a truly solid film since Unbreakable. I really did hope that The Happening would see a return to form. Alas, this is not the case. I would even venture to say that The Happening is Shyamalan’s worst film. Aside from a few truly chilling and disturbing scenes, The Happening is largely terrible.
The Happening tells the story of nature fighting back. In Central Park, on a lovely spring day, suddenly people start to talk nonsense, become motionless and, finally, take their own lives in a variety of ways. Why, you might ask. Terrorism, surely. Well, yeah, but not of the kind George Bush is warring against. As the phenomenon spreads to other surrounding big centres, many flee the cities, including our protagonist Elliot Moore, a high school science teacher, his troubled wife, Alma, Moore’s colleague Julian and his daughter Jess. It soon becomes clear that where there are few people is where they want to be and the group venture into very, very small town America. They end up lodging for the night with the incredibly mad and scary Mrs Jones and, well, by this point the movie has long since ceased to be credible, interesting or compelling. It ends well for some, not so well for others, and we are fed a not-so-subtle and downright laboured environmental message.
This film suffers from some very bad writing and some even worse acting, but it is slightly redeemed by some truly unforgettable scenes. Shyamalan is undoubtedly a visionary director – he gives us shots and scenes that will make you gasp out loud. Reminiscent of Hitchcock, Shyamalan makes us see in different ways, at different angles. The scene early on in the film, at the building site in New York City, is incredibly chilling and truly memorable. There are several scenes that fall into that same category. Unfortunately, a few great moments do not add up to a great film.
Almost without exception, the acting on offer here is poor. At times, more than poor – truly terrible. The main culprit is Walhberg who, as the lead, is meant to carry the film. Shyamalan has had some great leads to work with – Bruce Willis in both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, Mel Gibson in Signs, Joaquin Phoenix in both Signs and The Village – but Walhberg is simply not in the same class. And without a believable, approachable lead that the audience can hang their hopes on, the film crumbles. Deschanel, as Alma Moore, is equally rubbish. She does wide-eyed horror quite well, but that’s about it. Leguizamo is woefully underused as fellow high-school teacher, Julian. By the time we get to Buckley, as creepy Mrs Jones, the film has become something else entirely – a cheesy horror flick – and she’s nothing more than a cliché. I hate to say it, but the best acting comes from little Ashlyn Sanchez, as 8-year-old Jess. Shyamalan does have a knack of getting good performances out of kids.
Signs and Unbreakable received more than their fare share of criticism, but I gladly stick up for two films I believe are misunderstood by many critics and cinema-goers. I will not, however, be going into bat for The Happening. If you’re a Shyamalan fan, I guess you will see it despite what I write. I would have. But, if you’re not, I recommend you stay at home and re-watch Signs – it really is his best work.
The Incredible Hulk
Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, William Hurt, Tim Roth, Tim Blake Nelson, Lou Ferrigno
Dir. Louis Leterrier
Scr. Zak Penn
After the truly off-the-mark Ang Lee Hulk movie of 2003, it seemed inevitable Hollywood would try again. And although the result is ten times better than Lee’s version, this outing is by no means perfect. But they are working with perhaps the most boring superhero of all time – the film, for instance, is completely humourless, but how do you make a big, stupid green monster funny? He gets angry and roars and creates mayhem – not a lot of nuance to be had. What is interesting about The Hulk are all the bits when he’s not The Hulk and this version certainly keeps the audience engaged on that front. A largely enjoyable film, The Incredible Hulk will ensure the survival of this newly revived franchise.
The Incredible Hulk picks up with fugitive Dr Bruce Banner hiding out in Brazil, desperately trying to find a cure for his “hulk-like” tendencies, having fled the US, leaving his lady love – fellow scientist Betty Ross – and all those chasing him, behind. We see Banner working on his anger issues – deep breathing and so on – and communicating with “Dr Blue” in an effort to get rid of what’s inside him. It doesn’t take long for an accident at work to betray his whereabouts to General Thaddeus Ross and his team of top-class soldiers, including enigmatic and brilliant Emil Blonsky, and Banner decides enough is enough. He returns to the US in an effort to find that cure and live happily ever after. And, well, it nearly turns out that way.
This film looks pretty good and is paced just about perfectly. The scenes in Brazil are an interesting insight into Banner and once he returns to the US, it’s just a rollercoaster until the end. While Ang Lee wanted us to understand the Hulk and make him more humane, director Leterrier and writer Penn understand that this is not a winning formula – understanding Banner and his attempts to stop the Hulk getting out is much more interesting. The Hulk is a big lug and that’s about it. And while he recognises and protects Betty, that’s really just a plot device to make sure she doesn’t die (although I think the film might have been vastly improved if she did). When the Hulk is unleashed, we want to see the Hulk – end of story.
The acting is mostly pretty solid in The Incredible Hulk. Edward Norton does a good job as Banner – he’s believable as a scientist and as a strongman. It helps, as is the case in Batman and Ironman, to have a skilled actor in an exaggerated and clichéd role – a less capable actor is prone to hamming it up and the result can be terrible. The only kink in Norton’s armour is the lack of chemistry between himself and Liv Tyler, who plays love interest Betty Ross. Tyler is not believable as a scientist. Or even an actress, for that matter. That look in Norton’s eyes is not love; it’s disbelief at her attempts at acting. She is bad and that’s all there is to say. Fine performances are delivered by both Hurt (as General Ross) and Roth (as Blonsky) – gutsy, strong, horribly evil. Watch out for a nicely played cameo from the TV hulk, Lou Ferrigno, who also provides the voice for the Hulk for such inspired lines as “HULK … SMASH!”
An inspired, cryptic final scene guarantees The Incredible Hulk II (or will it be Ironman II?) an eager audience. This Hulk is entertaining and a good night out. It’s not going to ever be in the same league as Batman Begins or Ironman, but then the big green guy is not exactly known for his charm or wit. If you’re a fan of action, Marvel or big lugs, go see it.
---------------------------------
General Ross: As far as I'm concerned that man's whole body is property of the US Army.
Dir. Louis Leterrier
Scr. Zak Penn
After the truly off-the-mark Ang Lee Hulk movie of 2003, it seemed inevitable Hollywood would try again. And although the result is ten times better than Lee’s version, this outing is by no means perfect. But they are working with perhaps the most boring superhero of all time – the film, for instance, is completely humourless, but how do you make a big, stupid green monster funny? He gets angry and roars and creates mayhem – not a lot of nuance to be had. What is interesting about The Hulk are all the bits when he’s not The Hulk and this version certainly keeps the audience engaged on that front. A largely enjoyable film, The Incredible Hulk will ensure the survival of this newly revived franchise.
The Incredible Hulk picks up with fugitive Dr Bruce Banner hiding out in Brazil, desperately trying to find a cure for his “hulk-like” tendencies, having fled the US, leaving his lady love – fellow scientist Betty Ross – and all those chasing him, behind. We see Banner working on his anger issues – deep breathing and so on – and communicating with “Dr Blue” in an effort to get rid of what’s inside him. It doesn’t take long for an accident at work to betray his whereabouts to General Thaddeus Ross and his team of top-class soldiers, including enigmatic and brilliant Emil Blonsky, and Banner decides enough is enough. He returns to the US in an effort to find that cure and live happily ever after. And, well, it nearly turns out that way.
This film looks pretty good and is paced just about perfectly. The scenes in Brazil are an interesting insight into Banner and once he returns to the US, it’s just a rollercoaster until the end. While Ang Lee wanted us to understand the Hulk and make him more humane, director Leterrier and writer Penn understand that this is not a winning formula – understanding Banner and his attempts to stop the Hulk getting out is much more interesting. The Hulk is a big lug and that’s about it. And while he recognises and protects Betty, that’s really just a plot device to make sure she doesn’t die (although I think the film might have been vastly improved if she did). When the Hulk is unleashed, we want to see the Hulk – end of story.
The acting is mostly pretty solid in The Incredible Hulk. Edward Norton does a good job as Banner – he’s believable as a scientist and as a strongman. It helps, as is the case in Batman and Ironman, to have a skilled actor in an exaggerated and clichéd role – a less capable actor is prone to hamming it up and the result can be terrible. The only kink in Norton’s armour is the lack of chemistry between himself and Liv Tyler, who plays love interest Betty Ross. Tyler is not believable as a scientist. Or even an actress, for that matter. That look in Norton’s eyes is not love; it’s disbelief at her attempts at acting. She is bad and that’s all there is to say. Fine performances are delivered by both Hurt (as General Ross) and Roth (as Blonsky) – gutsy, strong, horribly evil. Watch out for a nicely played cameo from the TV hulk, Lou Ferrigno, who also provides the voice for the Hulk for such inspired lines as “HULK … SMASH!”
An inspired, cryptic final scene guarantees The Incredible Hulk II (or will it be Ironman II?) an eager audience. This Hulk is entertaining and a good night out. It’s not going to ever be in the same league as Batman Begins or Ironman, but then the big green guy is not exactly known for his charm or wit. If you’re a fan of action, Marvel or big lugs, go see it.
---------------------------------
General Ross: As far as I'm concerned that man's whole body is property of the US Army.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Sex and the City: The Movie
Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis, Chris Noth, Jennifer Hudson, Candice Bergen, David Eigenberg
Dir. & Scr. Michael Patrick King
SPOILERS AHEAD – do not read if you don’t want to know!
I, for one, am a Sex and the City fan. Loved the series, though it did get tired towards the end (as so many long-running TV shows do). Loved the characters, even when they annoyed the hell out of me. Loved the humour and the friendships. I was, therefore, both incredibly excited and extremely nervous about this movie. It was unlikely to satisfy everyone – you can split most fans into pro-Big and anti-Big for a start – and it had to appeal to those who were unfamiliar with the series. So I knew that there would be bits I liked, bits I less-than-liked and probably bits I hated. And, well, that was about right – I was amused, shocked, frustrated, appalled and shed a tear or two. In the end though, I’m glad I saw it and I’m glad they made it – it was great to spend time with the girls again.
We pick up the lives of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte three years after the last episode of the series. Miranda is still in Brooklyn with Steve and their son; Charlotte is blissfully happy with Harry and their adopted Chinese daughter; Samantha has moved to LA with her lover/client Smith; Carrie and Big are still together (shock horror!!!) and about to combine lives in the most unbelievably gorgeous New York apartment. A clumsy, unromantic conversation results in Carrie and Big deciding to get married and wedding madness ensues. And, anyone who has seen the show knows what’s coming next, things don’t exactly go to plan – in short, Big gets cold feet, Carrie smacks him around the head with her bouquet, and the girls end up in Mexico on Carrie’s intended honeymoon. On her return to New York, Carrie hires herself a personal assistant (Louise) to help retain her senses and return all the wedding gifts, and life goes on. Meanwhile, Charlotte falls pregnant, Miranda leaves Steve after an indiscretion, and Samantha has second thoughts about LA and about her relationship. The usual stuff really.
There are multiple happy endings ahead however. Miranda and Steve work things out. Charlotte has her miracle baby. Samantha moves back to New York. And Carrie and Big, well, they end up as Mr and Mrs Big. I don’t usually completely give away the ending of a film, but I really wanted to talk about these endings. So, tough cheese.
Charlotte is Charlotte and, well, hers is the most uninteresting story to be told. Personally, I’ve always found the character to be the most annoying and this doesn’t change in the film. Samantha, on the other hand, is a great character and, although it’s sad that things don’t work out with Smith, it was nice to see her character remain true – she isn’t a relationship type of gal and she certainly isn’t LA material. Nice work on this Mr King. What happens between Miranda and Steve really has me in two minds. Miranda did what many a strong woman would do when they found out about a cheating spouse – no ifs, no buts, no second chances, she was out the door – and this was very true to her character. The fact they got back together, well, I don’t know about that. True, things are nearly never as black and white as they first appear. And, true, Miranda wouldn’t be the easiest person to be married to. But, still, the Miranda/Steve plot of this film troubles me and will probably keep troubling me for some time. That leaves us with Carrie and Big. I’m a fan of Mr Big. Obviously he’s been a cad in the past, but I always had a soft spot. And, to be honest, I think Michael Patrick King was really spot on with this storyline. It was so obviously a case of two hugely flawed people, who were both to blame for a wedding fiasco, and who finally found their way back to what brought them together in the first place.
There are some really, really annoying and frustrating moments in this movie. The extent to which Carrie is devastated after being jilted by Big is hugely extreme, especially when you consider that Miranda has just been cheated on by her husband (surely a bigger and more shocking betrayal of trust). Charlotte is given little to do but be a plot device. Miranda gets unfairly treated in a major way by Carrie – theirs was always the closest and most interesting friendship, and perhaps that’s why such an argument and fall-out was staged, but I still thought it was completely unreasonable. I didn’t quite understand the point of the character of Louise (Carrie’s assistant) except to showcase Jennifer Hudson – yeah, sure, she’s young and looking for love (like Carrie once was) but it felt like a distraction more than a compelling sub-plot. These things grated on my nerves but didn’t ruin what was a mostly enjoyable film.
The acting on offer in Sex and the City was flawless. The actors are so used to these characters; there was no need for warming up or finding the right mix. There’s a chemistry between Carrie and Big, between Miranda and Steve, between the four friends, that is tried and true. A special mention has to go to Sarah Jessica Parker – she really gives her all in this film and it is the best acting I have ever seen from her, in anything. The scene where she confronts Big after he, then she, flees from the wedding venue, is brilliant – shocking and real and ever so slightly amusing. Carrie has always been the most multi-dimensional of the characters and the movie is no exception.
If you would rather stick a blunt spoon in your eye than watch a Sex and the City episode (I’m guessing that is most straight men out there), you should definitely avoid this film. If you’re a fan, you’ll see it, of course you will. Expect to be thrilled and shocked and saddened and amused and annoyed. You will be. But in the end, you will not regret spending another 148 minutes with these flawed, frustrating, wonderful characters.
------------------------------------------
Miranda: Is it just me or is Valentine's Day on steroids this year?
Carrie: No, it's the same, we just played for the other team.
Dir. & Scr. Michael Patrick King
SPOILERS AHEAD – do not read if you don’t want to know!
I, for one, am a Sex and the City fan. Loved the series, though it did get tired towards the end (as so many long-running TV shows do). Loved the characters, even when they annoyed the hell out of me. Loved the humour and the friendships. I was, therefore, both incredibly excited and extremely nervous about this movie. It was unlikely to satisfy everyone – you can split most fans into pro-Big and anti-Big for a start – and it had to appeal to those who were unfamiliar with the series. So I knew that there would be bits I liked, bits I less-than-liked and probably bits I hated. And, well, that was about right – I was amused, shocked, frustrated, appalled and shed a tear or two. In the end though, I’m glad I saw it and I’m glad they made it – it was great to spend time with the girls again.
We pick up the lives of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte three years after the last episode of the series. Miranda is still in Brooklyn with Steve and their son; Charlotte is blissfully happy with Harry and their adopted Chinese daughter; Samantha has moved to LA with her lover/client Smith; Carrie and Big are still together (shock horror!!!) and about to combine lives in the most unbelievably gorgeous New York apartment. A clumsy, unromantic conversation results in Carrie and Big deciding to get married and wedding madness ensues. And, anyone who has seen the show knows what’s coming next, things don’t exactly go to plan – in short, Big gets cold feet, Carrie smacks him around the head with her bouquet, and the girls end up in Mexico on Carrie’s intended honeymoon. On her return to New York, Carrie hires herself a personal assistant (Louise) to help retain her senses and return all the wedding gifts, and life goes on. Meanwhile, Charlotte falls pregnant, Miranda leaves Steve after an indiscretion, and Samantha has second thoughts about LA and about her relationship. The usual stuff really.
There are multiple happy endings ahead however. Miranda and Steve work things out. Charlotte has her miracle baby. Samantha moves back to New York. And Carrie and Big, well, they end up as Mr and Mrs Big. I don’t usually completely give away the ending of a film, but I really wanted to talk about these endings. So, tough cheese.
Charlotte is Charlotte and, well, hers is the most uninteresting story to be told. Personally, I’ve always found the character to be the most annoying and this doesn’t change in the film. Samantha, on the other hand, is a great character and, although it’s sad that things don’t work out with Smith, it was nice to see her character remain true – she isn’t a relationship type of gal and she certainly isn’t LA material. Nice work on this Mr King. What happens between Miranda and Steve really has me in two minds. Miranda did what many a strong woman would do when they found out about a cheating spouse – no ifs, no buts, no second chances, she was out the door – and this was very true to her character. The fact they got back together, well, I don’t know about that. True, things are nearly never as black and white as they first appear. And, true, Miranda wouldn’t be the easiest person to be married to. But, still, the Miranda/Steve plot of this film troubles me and will probably keep troubling me for some time. That leaves us with Carrie and Big. I’m a fan of Mr Big. Obviously he’s been a cad in the past, but I always had a soft spot. And, to be honest, I think Michael Patrick King was really spot on with this storyline. It was so obviously a case of two hugely flawed people, who were both to blame for a wedding fiasco, and who finally found their way back to what brought them together in the first place.
There are some really, really annoying and frustrating moments in this movie. The extent to which Carrie is devastated after being jilted by Big is hugely extreme, especially when you consider that Miranda has just been cheated on by her husband (surely a bigger and more shocking betrayal of trust). Charlotte is given little to do but be a plot device. Miranda gets unfairly treated in a major way by Carrie – theirs was always the closest and most interesting friendship, and perhaps that’s why such an argument and fall-out was staged, but I still thought it was completely unreasonable. I didn’t quite understand the point of the character of Louise (Carrie’s assistant) except to showcase Jennifer Hudson – yeah, sure, she’s young and looking for love (like Carrie once was) but it felt like a distraction more than a compelling sub-plot. These things grated on my nerves but didn’t ruin what was a mostly enjoyable film.
The acting on offer in Sex and the City was flawless. The actors are so used to these characters; there was no need for warming up or finding the right mix. There’s a chemistry between Carrie and Big, between Miranda and Steve, between the four friends, that is tried and true. A special mention has to go to Sarah Jessica Parker – she really gives her all in this film and it is the best acting I have ever seen from her, in anything. The scene where she confronts Big after he, then she, flees from the wedding venue, is brilliant – shocking and real and ever so slightly amusing. Carrie has always been the most multi-dimensional of the characters and the movie is no exception.
If you would rather stick a blunt spoon in your eye than watch a Sex and the City episode (I’m guessing that is most straight men out there), you should definitely avoid this film. If you’re a fan, you’ll see it, of course you will. Expect to be thrilled and shocked and saddened and amused and annoyed. You will be. But in the end, you will not regret spending another 148 minutes with these flawed, frustrating, wonderful characters.
------------------------------------------
Miranda: Is it just me or is Valentine's Day on steroids this year?
Carrie: No, it's the same, we just played for the other team.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Shine a Light
Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood, Charlie Watts, Martin Scorsese, Jack White, Buddy Guy, Christina Aguilera, Bill Clinton (all appearing as themselves)
Dir. Martin Scorsese
This weekend, my better half and I went to a Rolling Stones concert. This is not entirely true – we went to see the movie Shine a Light. But, to be honest, it was probably better than a live concert. Now, I’m not a huge Rolling Stones fan, but even I was swept along by the music, the atmosphere, the dancing. Shine a Light was a fantastically filmed, insightful, entertaining movie about some truly talented and energetic musicians.
Shine a Light was filmed during the Stones’ “A Bigger Bang” tour, specifically the night of a benefit concert hosted by Bill Clinton and his Mrs in New York. Enter, stage right, Marty Scorsese, the original anal, control freak director. Enter, stage left, The Rolling Stones, a laid back bunch, who don’t finalise their set list until the lights go up. The juxtaposition will have you chuckling, and the result is simply great – it’s wonderfully intimate, flawlessly edited, consistently engaging. Along the way we are treated to footage of interviews with the Stones, from their very very very early beginnings, to their thoughts on being aged rockers.
Particular highlights include the guest appearances by Jack White, Buddy Guy and Christina Aguilera, who are obviously thrilled to be part of the gig. In fact my favourite number was White’s duet with Mick on “Loving Cup” – two gritty, wonderful voices. Keith Richards’ solo effort on “You Got the Silver” was also a treat to watch.
Obviously I recommend this film for fans of the Stones. But even if you’re not particularly enamoured, I’d recommend giving it a go. You won’t see a better concert on film.
----------------------------
Martin Scorsese: We cannot set Mick Jagger on fire.
Dir. Martin Scorsese
This weekend, my better half and I went to a Rolling Stones concert. This is not entirely true – we went to see the movie Shine a Light. But, to be honest, it was probably better than a live concert. Now, I’m not a huge Rolling Stones fan, but even I was swept along by the music, the atmosphere, the dancing. Shine a Light was a fantastically filmed, insightful, entertaining movie about some truly talented and energetic musicians.
Shine a Light was filmed during the Stones’ “A Bigger Bang” tour, specifically the night of a benefit concert hosted by Bill Clinton and his Mrs in New York. Enter, stage right, Marty Scorsese, the original anal, control freak director. Enter, stage left, The Rolling Stones, a laid back bunch, who don’t finalise their set list until the lights go up. The juxtaposition will have you chuckling, and the result is simply great – it’s wonderfully intimate, flawlessly edited, consistently engaging. Along the way we are treated to footage of interviews with the Stones, from their very very very early beginnings, to their thoughts on being aged rockers.
Particular highlights include the guest appearances by Jack White, Buddy Guy and Christina Aguilera, who are obviously thrilled to be part of the gig. In fact my favourite number was White’s duet with Mick on “Loving Cup” – two gritty, wonderful voices. Keith Richards’ solo effort on “You Got the Silver” was also a treat to watch.
Obviously I recommend this film for fans of the Stones. But even if you’re not particularly enamoured, I’d recommend giving it a go. You won’t see a better concert on film.
----------------------------
Martin Scorsese: We cannot set Mick Jagger on fire.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, Shia LaBeouf, Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Jim Broadbent
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Scr. David Koepp
There was no need to make this film. No need. It wasn’t awful; at times it was entertaining. And it’s always a pleasure to hear that wonderful John Williams score. But this will go down as worst Indy movie – it lacked that signature gentle wit; it was self-indulgent; it was forgettable (so much so I can’t even muster the energy to write a full-length review). And for goodness sake, please don’t make any more Steven!
----------------------------
Mutt Williams: You know for an old man you ain't bad in a fight. What are you, like 80?
Dir. Steven Spielberg
Scr. David Koepp
There was no need to make this film. No need. It wasn’t awful; at times it was entertaining. And it’s always a pleasure to hear that wonderful John Williams score. But this will go down as worst Indy movie – it lacked that signature gentle wit; it was self-indulgent; it was forgettable (so much so I can’t even muster the energy to write a full-length review). And for goodness sake, please don’t make any more Steven!
----------------------------
Mutt Williams: You know for an old man you ain't bad in a fight. What are you, like 80?
Sunday, May 18, 2008
I'm Not There
Cate Blanchett, Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, Ben Whishaw, Richard Gere, Marcus Carl Franklin, Bruce Greenwood, Charlotte Gainsbourg
Dir. Todd Haynes
Scr. Todd Haynes & Oren Moverman
I was desperate to see this film. It fascinated me – six actors (including a woman and a child) playing Bob Dylan, but none of them actually playing Bob Dylan. Critically acclaimed, I’m Not There is an interesting and highly quotable film. It is also frustrating, extremely self-aware and, at times, yawn-inducing. The problem with this ambitious movie is that director/writer Haynes is under the mistaken assumption that everyone knows as much about Dylan has he does. I don’t. I think you’d struggle to find one in twenty people who do. This doesn’t necessarily make I’m Not There a failure, but it certainly makes it an unusual trip to the cinema.
I’m not going to try and summarise the plot of this film. It’s probably the least linear American film I have ever seen. Basically, we follow six different characters and the people surrounding them, in different eras and cities, who all represent an aspect of Bob Dylan’s life. Some of the characters are made up – an actor, a couple of singers. Some of the characters have existed in real life – Arthur Rimbaud, for example, was a French poet in the late 19th century; Billy the Kid was a famous American outlaw. All help tell the story of Dylan’s life – his many personalities and incarnations. Does it work? Well, kind of. Some were spot-on and easily recognisable. Some were a bit of a stretch. And some just didn’t make sense – for example, unless you know that (a) Dylan wrote the music for a movie about Billy the Kid and (b) Dylan vanished from the public eye for a number of years, how on earth does an elderly, in-hiding Billy the Kid represent Dylan? It’s problematic.
What saved I’m Not There for me was a number of fantastic performances. The six “Dylans” were all great. Gere, as Billy the Kid, was nicely weathered and noble. Ledger, as an actor who played one of the other “Dylans” (a singer) in a film – confusing, sorry! – was both unlikeable and immensely human. (Special mention also to Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays Ledger’s wife – beautiful and haunting). Marcus Carl Franklin, a young black kid who christened himself Woody Guthrie (one of Dylan’s heroes), was heart-breaking and a great singer. For me, however, the stand outs were the three actors who played the most recognisable incarnations of Dylan – Whishaw as Rimbaud (think Dylan, the poet), Bale as singer Jack Rollins (think early Dylan), and Blanchett as singer Jude Quinn (think post-acoustic Dylan). Whishaw and Bale were outstanding and, sadly, underutilised. Both tortured and profound, this is the Dylan most know. The show really does belong to Blanchett however, who’s “Dylan” we get to know the most. Just like Dylan lost many, many fans when he “abandoned” folk music and plugged in his guitar, Blanchett’s Jude Quinn is suffering from the heavy weight of public expectation and stereotyping. As Whishaw’s Rimbaud warns “never create anything …it will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life”. Blanchett is phenomenal in this role – she really becomes “Dylan”.
I’m not going to completely dismiss I’m Not There. If you’re a huge Dylan fan, definitely see it - I am certain I missed half the point of the film because of my lack of Dylan knowledge. If you’re not, well, maybe not. But once it hits DVD, I may in fact watch it again. This movie would benefit greatly from the fast-forward button. If I could just watch the bits I really, really liked (and there were several), I would be a very happy camper.
------------------------------------------
Arthur Rimbaud: Seven simple rules of going into hiding: one, never trust a cop in a raincoat. Two, beware of enthusiasm and of love, both are temporary and quick to sway. Three, if asked if you care about the world's problems, look deep into the eyes of he who asks, he will never ask you again. Four, never give your real name. Five, if ever asked to look at yourself, don’t. Six, never do anything the person standing in front of you cannot understand. And finally seven, never create anything, it will be misinterpreted, it will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life.
Dir. Todd Haynes
Scr. Todd Haynes & Oren Moverman
I was desperate to see this film. It fascinated me – six actors (including a woman and a child) playing Bob Dylan, but none of them actually playing Bob Dylan. Critically acclaimed, I’m Not There is an interesting and highly quotable film. It is also frustrating, extremely self-aware and, at times, yawn-inducing. The problem with this ambitious movie is that director/writer Haynes is under the mistaken assumption that everyone knows as much about Dylan has he does. I don’t. I think you’d struggle to find one in twenty people who do. This doesn’t necessarily make I’m Not There a failure, but it certainly makes it an unusual trip to the cinema.
I’m not going to try and summarise the plot of this film. It’s probably the least linear American film I have ever seen. Basically, we follow six different characters and the people surrounding them, in different eras and cities, who all represent an aspect of Bob Dylan’s life. Some of the characters are made up – an actor, a couple of singers. Some of the characters have existed in real life – Arthur Rimbaud, for example, was a French poet in the late 19th century; Billy the Kid was a famous American outlaw. All help tell the story of Dylan’s life – his many personalities and incarnations. Does it work? Well, kind of. Some were spot-on and easily recognisable. Some were a bit of a stretch. And some just didn’t make sense – for example, unless you know that (a) Dylan wrote the music for a movie about Billy the Kid and (b) Dylan vanished from the public eye for a number of years, how on earth does an elderly, in-hiding Billy the Kid represent Dylan? It’s problematic.
What saved I’m Not There for me was a number of fantastic performances. The six “Dylans” were all great. Gere, as Billy the Kid, was nicely weathered and noble. Ledger, as an actor who played one of the other “Dylans” (a singer) in a film – confusing, sorry! – was both unlikeable and immensely human. (Special mention also to Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays Ledger’s wife – beautiful and haunting). Marcus Carl Franklin, a young black kid who christened himself Woody Guthrie (one of Dylan’s heroes), was heart-breaking and a great singer. For me, however, the stand outs were the three actors who played the most recognisable incarnations of Dylan – Whishaw as Rimbaud (think Dylan, the poet), Bale as singer Jack Rollins (think early Dylan), and Blanchett as singer Jude Quinn (think post-acoustic Dylan). Whishaw and Bale were outstanding and, sadly, underutilised. Both tortured and profound, this is the Dylan most know. The show really does belong to Blanchett however, who’s “Dylan” we get to know the most. Just like Dylan lost many, many fans when he “abandoned” folk music and plugged in his guitar, Blanchett’s Jude Quinn is suffering from the heavy weight of public expectation and stereotyping. As Whishaw’s Rimbaud warns “never create anything …it will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life”. Blanchett is phenomenal in this role – she really becomes “Dylan”.
I’m not going to completely dismiss I’m Not There. If you’re a huge Dylan fan, definitely see it - I am certain I missed half the point of the film because of my lack of Dylan knowledge. If you’re not, well, maybe not. But once it hits DVD, I may in fact watch it again. This movie would benefit greatly from the fast-forward button. If I could just watch the bits I really, really liked (and there were several), I would be a very happy camper.
------------------------------------------
Arthur Rimbaud: Seven simple rules of going into hiding: one, never trust a cop in a raincoat. Two, beware of enthusiasm and of love, both are temporary and quick to sway. Three, if asked if you care about the world's problems, look deep into the eyes of he who asks, he will never ask you again. Four, never give your real name. Five, if ever asked to look at yourself, don’t. Six, never do anything the person standing in front of you cannot understand. And finally seven, never create anything, it will be misinterpreted, it will chain you and follow you for the rest of your life.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Iron Man
Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, Shaun Toub, Faran Tahir
Dir. Jon Favreau
Scr. Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (based on
Marvel characters)
As soon as AC/DC’s Back in Black assaulted my ears in the opening scene and Robert Downey Jr. eased into the snappy dialogue, I knew I was going to enjoy Iron Man. Sure, it requires you to suspend disbelief in a huge way. And, sure, it’s pretty darn violent. And, yeah okay, it’s not the most thought-provoking movie out there. But if you’re looking for laughs and sheer crash-bang-explosive entertainment, Iron Man is the film for you. As long as Downey Jr. is on board, I cannot wait for Iron Man 2.
Iron Man tells the story of Tony Stark, the head of multi-million dollar weapons producer Stark Industries. Stark is an engineering genius, with a weakness for women and scotch. The ultimate playboy, Stark is comfortable in the knowledge his weapons kill bad guys. When Stark is kidnapped in Afghanistan, he realises his weapons have fallen into some seriously dodgy hands and he is forced to build his newest, most destructive weapon for the enemy. Instead, Stark creates what will become his alter-ago – Iron Man.
Iron Man, both the superhero and the movie, looks astonishingly cool. This film is a gadget paradise and Stark’s home is packed with all the useful and unlikely technology I assume fills Bill Gates’s house. There are enough explosions to keep the most highly attention-deficit 12-year-old boy engaged. The special effects come pretty thick and fast, but in the high-tech world of Tony Stark and his creations, they don’t appear out of place or beyond belief.
By far the most engaging aspect of Iron Man is the dialogue and acting. And, specifically, Robert Downey Jr. Downey Jr. is, in my opinion, one of the finest actors of his generation and I’m extremely pleased to see him back in the saddle. 2005’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a treat. And in Iron Man, Downey Jr. doesn’t disappoint. He is immensely likeable (in a “loveable rogue” sort of way), extremely sharp and looking every inch the superhero. Downey Jr. had a large part to play in the writing process and it shows – earlier drafts of the script were reportedly lacking in the humour that Downey Jr. brought to the project. And thank goodness! A major problem with superhero movies is the holier-than-thou attitude – I’m sorry, I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than spend a day with Superman. Boring! Stark is not Mr Do-Right. In fact, quite the opposite. He is spurred into action only when faced with the very real and close up repercussions of his life’s work. And, even then, he kills when necessary and likes to blow things up. Downey Jr.’s Iron Man is much like Batman, but with a sense of humour. And this humour, much of it ad-libbed by Downey Jr., is what sets Iron Man apart.
Downey Jr. is supported by some really great acting. It’s refreshing to see Jeff Bridges (who plays Stark’s business partner Obadiah Stane) be a true bad guy. We’re so used to seeing Bridges play the “everyman” role. He’s clearly having fun in Iron Man and he’s a hoot. Terrence Howard (as Stark’s long time friend and top military contact Jim Rhodes) is excellent. And Gwyneth (as Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts) is, well, not objectionable. And that’s all I really ask of Gwyneth.
I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man. It won’t be everyone’s cup of tea – you know who you are, you snobby action-film haters … But its well worth the price of admission – you’ll be entertained, I promise.
-------------------------------------
Tony Stark: Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?
Dir. Jon Favreau
Scr. Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway (based on
Marvel characters)
As soon as AC/DC’s Back in Black assaulted my ears in the opening scene and Robert Downey Jr. eased into the snappy dialogue, I knew I was going to enjoy Iron Man. Sure, it requires you to suspend disbelief in a huge way. And, sure, it’s pretty darn violent. And, yeah okay, it’s not the most thought-provoking movie out there. But if you’re looking for laughs and sheer crash-bang-explosive entertainment, Iron Man is the film for you. As long as Downey Jr. is on board, I cannot wait for Iron Man 2.
Iron Man tells the story of Tony Stark, the head of multi-million dollar weapons producer Stark Industries. Stark is an engineering genius, with a weakness for women and scotch. The ultimate playboy, Stark is comfortable in the knowledge his weapons kill bad guys. When Stark is kidnapped in Afghanistan, he realises his weapons have fallen into some seriously dodgy hands and he is forced to build his newest, most destructive weapon for the enemy. Instead, Stark creates what will become his alter-ago – Iron Man.
Iron Man, both the superhero and the movie, looks astonishingly cool. This film is a gadget paradise and Stark’s home is packed with all the useful and unlikely technology I assume fills Bill Gates’s house. There are enough explosions to keep the most highly attention-deficit 12-year-old boy engaged. The special effects come pretty thick and fast, but in the high-tech world of Tony Stark and his creations, they don’t appear out of place or beyond belief.
By far the most engaging aspect of Iron Man is the dialogue and acting. And, specifically, Robert Downey Jr. Downey Jr. is, in my opinion, one of the finest actors of his generation and I’m extremely pleased to see him back in the saddle. 2005’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a treat. And in Iron Man, Downey Jr. doesn’t disappoint. He is immensely likeable (in a “loveable rogue” sort of way), extremely sharp and looking every inch the superhero. Downey Jr. had a large part to play in the writing process and it shows – earlier drafts of the script were reportedly lacking in the humour that Downey Jr. brought to the project. And thank goodness! A major problem with superhero movies is the holier-than-thou attitude – I’m sorry, I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than spend a day with Superman. Boring! Stark is not Mr Do-Right. In fact, quite the opposite. He is spurred into action only when faced with the very real and close up repercussions of his life’s work. And, even then, he kills when necessary and likes to blow things up. Downey Jr.’s Iron Man is much like Batman, but with a sense of humour. And this humour, much of it ad-libbed by Downey Jr., is what sets Iron Man apart.
Downey Jr. is supported by some really great acting. It’s refreshing to see Jeff Bridges (who plays Stark’s business partner Obadiah Stane) be a true bad guy. We’re so used to seeing Bridges play the “everyman” role. He’s clearly having fun in Iron Man and he’s a hoot. Terrence Howard (as Stark’s long time friend and top military contact Jim Rhodes) is excellent. And Gwyneth (as Stark’s assistant Pepper Potts) is, well, not objectionable. And that’s all I really ask of Gwyneth.
I thoroughly enjoyed Iron Man. It won’t be everyone’s cup of tea – you know who you are, you snobby action-film haters … But its well worth the price of admission – you’ll be entertained, I promise.
-------------------------------------
Tony Stark: Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?
27 Dresses
Katherine Heigl, James Marsden, Edward Burns, Malin Akerman
Dir. Anne Fletcher
Scr. Aline Brosh McKenna
If there was a Movie God, who righted movie wrongs, I would get these 107 minutes of my life back. Alas, no such deity exists.
‘Nuff said.
----------------------------------
Jane's Aunt: Must be so hard to watch your younger sister get married before you.
Jane: Yes. Then I remember that I still get to have hot hate sex with random strangers and I feel SO much better!
Dir. Anne Fletcher
Scr. Aline Brosh McKenna
If there was a Movie God, who righted movie wrongs, I would get these 107 minutes of my life back. Alas, no such deity exists.
‘Nuff said.
----------------------------------
Jane's Aunt: Must be so hard to watch your younger sister get married before you.
Jane: Yes. Then I remember that I still get to have hot hate sex with random strangers and I feel SO much better!
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Lars and the Real Girl
Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider, Kelli Garner, Patricia Clarkson
Dir. Craig Gillespie
Scr. Nancy Oliver
Lars and the Real Girl is an odd, endearing film. The subject matter could have easily led to a crass movie, filled with off-colour jokes and gutter appeal. Instead, the film is a touching story of loneliness, growth and, ultimately, love. Top-notch acting abounds in Lars and the Real Girl, with excellent performances from an impressive cast. It’ll make you giggle, that’s for damn sure, but this film may also see you unexpectedly shed a tear.
Lars and the Real Girl tells the story of Lars Lindstrom, a 30-year-old introvert living in his brother’s garage, who, despite working every day, is trying his best to avoid all human contact. Oblivious to the girl at work with a crush on him, blind to how much people care about him, Lars is an odd boy – human physical contact actually causes him physical pain, and he clearly has issues with intimacy of any kind. So, when Lars tells his brother and his wife that a girl he met on the internet is coming to stay and could she sleep in their guest room, they are both stunned and ecstatic. When the girl turns out to be Bianca – a real doll – they are just plain stunned. What comes next is testament to the fact there is still goodness in the world, though you have to be prepared to suspend much disbelief to actually buy that an entire town would play along with Lars’s delusion (even if they are Canadian).
This film succeeds because it doesn’t go where most would expect it to go – Lars doesn’t want to have sex with his real doll (although she is anatomically correct). He wants a companion who won’t leave him or die. He wants to be normal, or at least live the delusion of being normal. He doesn’t want to be alone. We’ve all been there. So, we have a story with heart. Sure, there’s a few laughs along the way – how could there not be! Maybe it’s a bit precious – cynics might have a hard time sitting through this film. But if you’re looking for something to warm the cockles of your heart, this is the one.
The acting in Lars and the Real Girl is, without exception, brilliant. Ryan Gosling is a revelation in the lead role. A perfect performance as one of the most insular characters you will ever see. The scenes between him and Doctor Dagmar (who, under the guise of “treating” Bianca, plays counsellor to Lars) are outstanding. Dagmar is played by the fantastic Patricia Clarkson and she is simply sublime. When she delivers the line “sometimes I get so lonely I forget what day it is and how to spell my name” I had to stop myself from bursting into tears. Lars’s brother, Gus, and his wife, Karin, are played by Paul Schneider (a near unknown to me) and Emily Mortimer (an extremely prolific and lovely Brit), and they are both wonderful. Mortimer especially gives a heartfelt and gutsy performance. A great turn also from Kelli Garner as Lars’s colleague Margo.
Lars and the Real Girl won’t be to everyone’s taste. A charming film, some will find a little too hard to swallow. But I heartily recommend Lars. The acting is great, the script is smart and witty, and the story restored my faith in human kindness and acceptance. For a while, anyway.
----------------
Lars: [after giving some flowers to Bianca] See, they're even fake so they'll never die.
Dir. Craig Gillespie
Scr. Nancy Oliver
Lars and the Real Girl is an odd, endearing film. The subject matter could have easily led to a crass movie, filled with off-colour jokes and gutter appeal. Instead, the film is a touching story of loneliness, growth and, ultimately, love. Top-notch acting abounds in Lars and the Real Girl, with excellent performances from an impressive cast. It’ll make you giggle, that’s for damn sure, but this film may also see you unexpectedly shed a tear.
Lars and the Real Girl tells the story of Lars Lindstrom, a 30-year-old introvert living in his brother’s garage, who, despite working every day, is trying his best to avoid all human contact. Oblivious to the girl at work with a crush on him, blind to how much people care about him, Lars is an odd boy – human physical contact actually causes him physical pain, and he clearly has issues with intimacy of any kind. So, when Lars tells his brother and his wife that a girl he met on the internet is coming to stay and could she sleep in their guest room, they are both stunned and ecstatic. When the girl turns out to be Bianca – a real doll – they are just plain stunned. What comes next is testament to the fact there is still goodness in the world, though you have to be prepared to suspend much disbelief to actually buy that an entire town would play along with Lars’s delusion (even if they are Canadian).
This film succeeds because it doesn’t go where most would expect it to go – Lars doesn’t want to have sex with his real doll (although she is anatomically correct). He wants a companion who won’t leave him or die. He wants to be normal, or at least live the delusion of being normal. He doesn’t want to be alone. We’ve all been there. So, we have a story with heart. Sure, there’s a few laughs along the way – how could there not be! Maybe it’s a bit precious – cynics might have a hard time sitting through this film. But if you’re looking for something to warm the cockles of your heart, this is the one.
The acting in Lars and the Real Girl is, without exception, brilliant. Ryan Gosling is a revelation in the lead role. A perfect performance as one of the most insular characters you will ever see. The scenes between him and Doctor Dagmar (who, under the guise of “treating” Bianca, plays counsellor to Lars) are outstanding. Dagmar is played by the fantastic Patricia Clarkson and she is simply sublime. When she delivers the line “sometimes I get so lonely I forget what day it is and how to spell my name” I had to stop myself from bursting into tears. Lars’s brother, Gus, and his wife, Karin, are played by Paul Schneider (a near unknown to me) and Emily Mortimer (an extremely prolific and lovely Brit), and they are both wonderful. Mortimer especially gives a heartfelt and gutsy performance. A great turn also from Kelli Garner as Lars’s colleague Margo.
Lars and the Real Girl won’t be to everyone’s taste. A charming film, some will find a little too hard to swallow. But I heartily recommend Lars. The acting is great, the script is smart and witty, and the story restored my faith in human kindness and acceptance. For a while, anyway.
----------------
Lars: [after giving some flowers to Bianca] See, they're even fake so they'll never die.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
3:10 to Yuma
Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Peter Fonda, Gretchen Mol, Ben Foster, Alan Tudyk, Logan Lerman
Dir. James Mangold
Scr. Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt & Derek Haas (based on the short story by Elmore Leonard)
3:10 to Yuma is a sharp, action-packed, somewhat uneven western, with some good acting and a rubbish ending. Crowe and Bale are perfectly on-song, and are supported by a strong cast. I like a good western, and 3:10 to Yuma is close enough to being one to have entertained me. Don’t expect cinematic brilliance, but do expect a good night out.
Dan Evans (Bale), a small-time, struggling, one-legged rancher and Civil War veteran signs on to join a small group of men whose job it is to make sure outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe) catches the 3:10 train to Yuma, where he will be tried and hung for a slew of hold-ups and murders. The film follows their journey, and focuses on the battle of wills between Evans and Wade – Wade trying to corrupt the rancher; Evans trying his darnest to get Wade on that train and collect his $200 reward. Tagging along for the ride is, among others, Evans’ teenage son (Lerman) who has long since lost respect for his father and starts to see Wade as someone worth looking up to. Hot on their tail is Wade’s gang, led (in Wade’s absence) by the psychotic Charlie Prince (Foster), hell-bent on freeing Wade and killing anyone who gets in their way.
As in any good western, there is much of a moral nature to ponder – is Wade all bad? Is Evans all good? What will a man do when he is pushed to his limit? Evans is, by far, the most interesting and complex character and his journey is extremely compelling. Wade seems more clear-cut, but in the end, changes in a way that is simply unbelievable - sorry, I just didn’t buy it. The ending of 3:10 to Yuma does not entirely ruin what has come before, but it does make you exclaim “WTF?!” and feel slightly ripped off by the filmmakers. This would have been a finer film if it had ended differently. Just don’t ask me how I would have ended it …
The acting in this film is very solid indeed. There are some great turns by the supporting cast. Peter Fonda is simply a joy to watch, as a weathered and grizzly bounty-hunter. Alan Tudyk injects some humour and light to an otherwise heady story. Gretchen Mol gives an excellent performance as Evans’ wife. Ben Foster is chilling as Wade’s showy and ruthless right-hand man. Lerman is very good as William, the wide-eyed teenage son of Evans. The film really does hinge, however, on the performances of and relationship between Crowe and Bale. Crowe was clearly having fun as the confident, badass Wade and plays the role with relish. Bale, tackling a more nuanced and morally ambiguous character, is simply excellent in this film. More proof, if any was needed, that Bale is one of the finest actors of his generation. The film benefits from the almost tangible chemistry between Crowe and Bale.
The “shoot-em-up” in 3:10 to Yuma is perhaps a bit heavy-handed in parts. And it wasn’t as dusty and grimy as it perhaps should have been. But, all in all, this film feels and looks like a western of old. It could certainly have been 15 minutes or so shorter – perhaps they could have cut out the bad ending altogether! But these criticisms aside, I enjoyed this film and recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the western genre.
-----------------
Ben Wade: You ever read the bible, Dan? I read it one time. I was eight years old. My daddy just got hisself killed over a shot of whiskey and my mama said "we're going back East to start over". So she gave me a bible, sat me down in the train station, told me to read it. She was gonna get our tickets. Well, I did what she said. I read that bible from cover to cover. It took me three days. She never came back.
Dir. James Mangold
Scr. Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt & Derek Haas (based on the short story by Elmore Leonard)
3:10 to Yuma is a sharp, action-packed, somewhat uneven western, with some good acting and a rubbish ending. Crowe and Bale are perfectly on-song, and are supported by a strong cast. I like a good western, and 3:10 to Yuma is close enough to being one to have entertained me. Don’t expect cinematic brilliance, but do expect a good night out.
Dan Evans (Bale), a small-time, struggling, one-legged rancher and Civil War veteran signs on to join a small group of men whose job it is to make sure outlaw Ben Wade (Crowe) catches the 3:10 train to Yuma, where he will be tried and hung for a slew of hold-ups and murders. The film follows their journey, and focuses on the battle of wills between Evans and Wade – Wade trying to corrupt the rancher; Evans trying his darnest to get Wade on that train and collect his $200 reward. Tagging along for the ride is, among others, Evans’ teenage son (Lerman) who has long since lost respect for his father and starts to see Wade as someone worth looking up to. Hot on their tail is Wade’s gang, led (in Wade’s absence) by the psychotic Charlie Prince (Foster), hell-bent on freeing Wade and killing anyone who gets in their way.
As in any good western, there is much of a moral nature to ponder – is Wade all bad? Is Evans all good? What will a man do when he is pushed to his limit? Evans is, by far, the most interesting and complex character and his journey is extremely compelling. Wade seems more clear-cut, but in the end, changes in a way that is simply unbelievable - sorry, I just didn’t buy it. The ending of 3:10 to Yuma does not entirely ruin what has come before, but it does make you exclaim “WTF?!” and feel slightly ripped off by the filmmakers. This would have been a finer film if it had ended differently. Just don’t ask me how I would have ended it …
The acting in this film is very solid indeed. There are some great turns by the supporting cast. Peter Fonda is simply a joy to watch, as a weathered and grizzly bounty-hunter. Alan Tudyk injects some humour and light to an otherwise heady story. Gretchen Mol gives an excellent performance as Evans’ wife. Ben Foster is chilling as Wade’s showy and ruthless right-hand man. Lerman is very good as William, the wide-eyed teenage son of Evans. The film really does hinge, however, on the performances of and relationship between Crowe and Bale. Crowe was clearly having fun as the confident, badass Wade and plays the role with relish. Bale, tackling a more nuanced and morally ambiguous character, is simply excellent in this film. More proof, if any was needed, that Bale is one of the finest actors of his generation. The film benefits from the almost tangible chemistry between Crowe and Bale.
The “shoot-em-up” in 3:10 to Yuma is perhaps a bit heavy-handed in parts. And it wasn’t as dusty and grimy as it perhaps should have been. But, all in all, this film feels and looks like a western of old. It could certainly have been 15 minutes or so shorter – perhaps they could have cut out the bad ending altogether! But these criticisms aside, I enjoyed this film and recommend it to anyone who is a fan of the western genre.
-----------------
Ben Wade: You ever read the bible, Dan? I read it one time. I was eight years old. My daddy just got hisself killed over a shot of whiskey and my mama said "we're going back East to start over". So she gave me a bible, sat me down in the train station, told me to read it. She was gonna get our tickets. Well, I did what she said. I read that bible from cover to cover. It took me three days. She never came back.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Michael Clayton
George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack, Austin Williams
Dir. Tony Gilroy
Scr. Tony Gilroy
Michael Clayton is a slow burning, intriguing legal thriller, not flawless but as fine a movie of its type as you’ll see this year. Clooney goes from strength to strength as an actor and in this film he is top-notch. With a strong supporting cast and a smarter-than-average script, you won’t be disappointed by Michael Clayton.
Michael Clayton is a “fixer”, a “janitor” – that guy in a law firm that makes a mess disappear. And what a mess he is faced with in this film – a senior partner strips off in a hearing and generally, well, goes bonkers while in charge of a case that has the potential, if unsuccessful, to bring the law firm down. Clayton is given the job of containing the crazy partner, who is perhaps not as crazy as it first appears. Without spoiling too much of the action, let’s just say there is murder, there is extortion, there’s an explosion (yay!), and there’s a healthy dose of second-guessing and intrigue. The pace may be a little slow in some places for adrenaline-junkie movie-goers, but it sits well with the complex story and gives us ample time to get to know the characters and care about what happens to them.
The acting in Michael Clayton is very good indeed – in particular, a triumvirate of exceptional performances. A brilliant turn from Wilkinson as the manic depressive Arthur Edens – there is no doubt this character is unbalanced but Wilkinson doesn’t let the role become too showy. He plays Edens with an undercurrent of intelligence and compassion. An equally fantastic performance from Swinton, who plays corporate counsel Karen Crowder, a woman thriving in a man’s world and, in the end, thriving just a little too well and a little too ruthlessly. Swinton has a magnetism about her. The final scene between her and Clayton is worth the price of admission. A very well deserved supporting actress Oscar win. And then we have George; lovely, lovely George. I truly believe that Clooney will be remembered in the same breath as the likes of Redford and Newman – an extremely talented leading man with much more than just good looks. And Michael Clayton is perhaps the best example of this – Clooney shines in the title role. Clayton is a morally ambiguous character and right until the final breath, we are not entirely sure on which side of the moral fence he will fall (perhaps it would have been more interesting if he fell on the opposite side than he did, but never mind). Clooney plays this flawed man superbly. In a weaker Oscar year, I would have put money on him winning.
This is not a perfect film, by any means, but it is one I heartily recommend. It’s a movie about ethics, about big business, about the lengths people will go to. If you’re in the mood for “27 Dresses”, don’t see this film. But if you want to be taken on a compelling and intriguing journey, see Michael Clayton.
----------------------------------
Michael Clayton: You are the senior litigating partner of one of the largest, most respected law firms in the world. You are a legend.
Arthur Edens: I'm an accomplice!
Michael Clayton: You're a manic-depressive!
Arthur Edens: I am Shiva, the god of death.
Dir. Tony Gilroy
Scr. Tony Gilroy
Michael Clayton is a slow burning, intriguing legal thriller, not flawless but as fine a movie of its type as you’ll see this year. Clooney goes from strength to strength as an actor and in this film he is top-notch. With a strong supporting cast and a smarter-than-average script, you won’t be disappointed by Michael Clayton.
Michael Clayton is a “fixer”, a “janitor” – that guy in a law firm that makes a mess disappear. And what a mess he is faced with in this film – a senior partner strips off in a hearing and generally, well, goes bonkers while in charge of a case that has the potential, if unsuccessful, to bring the law firm down. Clayton is given the job of containing the crazy partner, who is perhaps not as crazy as it first appears. Without spoiling too much of the action, let’s just say there is murder, there is extortion, there’s an explosion (yay!), and there’s a healthy dose of second-guessing and intrigue. The pace may be a little slow in some places for adrenaline-junkie movie-goers, but it sits well with the complex story and gives us ample time to get to know the characters and care about what happens to them.
The acting in Michael Clayton is very good indeed – in particular, a triumvirate of exceptional performances. A brilliant turn from Wilkinson as the manic depressive Arthur Edens – there is no doubt this character is unbalanced but Wilkinson doesn’t let the role become too showy. He plays Edens with an undercurrent of intelligence and compassion. An equally fantastic performance from Swinton, who plays corporate counsel Karen Crowder, a woman thriving in a man’s world and, in the end, thriving just a little too well and a little too ruthlessly. Swinton has a magnetism about her. The final scene between her and Clayton is worth the price of admission. A very well deserved supporting actress Oscar win. And then we have George; lovely, lovely George. I truly believe that Clooney will be remembered in the same breath as the likes of Redford and Newman – an extremely talented leading man with much more than just good looks. And Michael Clayton is perhaps the best example of this – Clooney shines in the title role. Clayton is a morally ambiguous character and right until the final breath, we are not entirely sure on which side of the moral fence he will fall (perhaps it would have been more interesting if he fell on the opposite side than he did, but never mind). Clooney plays this flawed man superbly. In a weaker Oscar year, I would have put money on him winning.
This is not a perfect film, by any means, but it is one I heartily recommend. It’s a movie about ethics, about big business, about the lengths people will go to. If you’re in the mood for “27 Dresses”, don’t see this film. But if you want to be taken on a compelling and intriguing journey, see Michael Clayton.
----------------------------------
Michael Clayton: You are the senior litigating partner of one of the largest, most respected law firms in the world. You are a legend.
Arthur Edens: I'm an accomplice!
Michael Clayton: You're a manic-depressive!
Arthur Edens: I am Shiva, the god of death.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
There Will Be Blood
Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier, Ciarán Hinds, Kevin J. O'Connor
Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson
Scr. Paul Thomas Anderson (based on the novel “Oil” by Upton Sinclair)
The title of this film didn’t lie – there certainly was blood. Literal blood of man and figurative blood of Jesus. Blood spilled accidentally and not so accidentally. Misfortune. Murder. Revenge. Cruelty. And then there was Day-Lewis, who gave such a phenomenal performance that you found yourself rooting for perhaps one of the most unlikeable and ruthless characters to ever appear on screen. There Will Be Blood is a crazy, emotionally draining, brilliant film – a film that may alienate and disturb as many people as it will engage.
There Will Be Blood follows the journey of Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis), from humble beginnings in the oil business, to absolute fortune and success. Lured to the small community of Little Boston by the promise of an ocean of oil, Plainview goes about setting up shop and buying as much land as possible. Along the way to making his fortune, he develops an extremely odd relationship with the local preacher, has tragedy strike his young son, and encounters his long, lost brother from another mother. Among other things. There Will Be Blood is a story of family, of ego, of revenge, of hatred. And, of course, that ocean of oil.
It’s been a while since we’ve been treated to a film by Paul Thomas Anderson. And what an interesting list of films he has to his name. The only word I can think of to link There Will Be Blood, Punch-Drunk Love, Magnolia and Boogie Nights – arguably his most well known endeavours – is, well, different. Anderson’s work has not universally been greeted with acclaim – Punch-Drunk Love, for instance, was bagged by many (a little unfairly, in my opinion). But it’s clear he has a unique vision and There Will Be Blood is perhaps his finest and most original work to date.
The best decision Anderson made on this film was to cast Day-Lewis in the lead. Day-Lewis hasn’t been seen for a while either – Gangs of New York in 2002 was his last major role. There’s no doubt that we’re used to seeing Day-Lewis give memorable and powerful performances, but his turn in this film will blow you away. Day-Lewis’s Plainview is a truly ruthless and despicable man. He is a man consumed by hatred for, well, pretty much everyone. He is a man who just cannot handle being told, by anyone, what he should or should not do. He is greedy and cruel. And yet, by the end of the film, you will find yourself on his side. You will be delighted by his victories. And why is this? Well, I’m not entirely sure. Day-Lewis is so very compelling to watch, and perhaps that is part of the reason. But it must also have something to do with the ruthlessness inside each of us. It must be because we also like to win. All I know is that every time I thought Plainview was going to redeem himself, was going to finally do the right thing, he didn’t – why is it that we assume there is goodness in everyone? Plainview chose the evil option at every turn and this made him completely unlikeable. I found this man and his journey so utterly disturbing, and yet so incredibly intriguing.
The supporting cast in There Will Be Blood is very good indeed. Dillon Freasier, as Plainview’s son, gives a very mature and nuanced performance for such a young actor. I hope he’s not allowed to watch the movie he was in! Kevin J. O'Connor’s snivelling performance as Plainview’s brother, Henry, is excellent. Much, much credit must go to Paul Dano who plays preacher Eli Sunday – in many ways a character just as disturbed and disturbing as Plainview. The scenes between Dano and Day-Lewis are undoubtedly the highlights of the film. I first saw Dano give a brilliant performance in Little Miss Sunshine and continue to be impressed by this young actor. I hope the good roles keep heading his way.
There Will Be Blood won’t be everyone’s cup of tea. I think it’s strange pace may bore some. I think the madness may confuse others. But, please, try and stick with it. This is one of the most original and compelling movies I have seen in a long time. You won’t necessary like it – I’m not sure “enjoyment” is a word that springs to mind – but you will find yourself drawn into an engaging and disturbing tale of the worst in us all.
----------------------------------------
Daniel Plainview: Drainage! Drainage, Eli! Drained dry, you boy! If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw and my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!
Dir. Paul Thomas Anderson
Scr. Paul Thomas Anderson (based on the novel “Oil” by Upton Sinclair)
The title of this film didn’t lie – there certainly was blood. Literal blood of man and figurative blood of Jesus. Blood spilled accidentally and not so accidentally. Misfortune. Murder. Revenge. Cruelty. And then there was Day-Lewis, who gave such a phenomenal performance that you found yourself rooting for perhaps one of the most unlikeable and ruthless characters to ever appear on screen. There Will Be Blood is a crazy, emotionally draining, brilliant film – a film that may alienate and disturb as many people as it will engage.
There Will Be Blood follows the journey of Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis), from humble beginnings in the oil business, to absolute fortune and success. Lured to the small community of Little Boston by the promise of an ocean of oil, Plainview goes about setting up shop and buying as much land as possible. Along the way to making his fortune, he develops an extremely odd relationship with the local preacher, has tragedy strike his young son, and encounters his long, lost brother from another mother. Among other things. There Will Be Blood is a story of family, of ego, of revenge, of hatred. And, of course, that ocean of oil.
It’s been a while since we’ve been treated to a film by Paul Thomas Anderson. And what an interesting list of films he has to his name. The only word I can think of to link There Will Be Blood, Punch-Drunk Love, Magnolia and Boogie Nights – arguably his most well known endeavours – is, well, different. Anderson’s work has not universally been greeted with acclaim – Punch-Drunk Love, for instance, was bagged by many (a little unfairly, in my opinion). But it’s clear he has a unique vision and There Will Be Blood is perhaps his finest and most original work to date.
The best decision Anderson made on this film was to cast Day-Lewis in the lead. Day-Lewis hasn’t been seen for a while either – Gangs of New York in 2002 was his last major role. There’s no doubt that we’re used to seeing Day-Lewis give memorable and powerful performances, but his turn in this film will blow you away. Day-Lewis’s Plainview is a truly ruthless and despicable man. He is a man consumed by hatred for, well, pretty much everyone. He is a man who just cannot handle being told, by anyone, what he should or should not do. He is greedy and cruel. And yet, by the end of the film, you will find yourself on his side. You will be delighted by his victories. And why is this? Well, I’m not entirely sure. Day-Lewis is so very compelling to watch, and perhaps that is part of the reason. But it must also have something to do with the ruthlessness inside each of us. It must be because we also like to win. All I know is that every time I thought Plainview was going to redeem himself, was going to finally do the right thing, he didn’t – why is it that we assume there is goodness in everyone? Plainview chose the evil option at every turn and this made him completely unlikeable. I found this man and his journey so utterly disturbing, and yet so incredibly intriguing.
The supporting cast in There Will Be Blood is very good indeed. Dillon Freasier, as Plainview’s son, gives a very mature and nuanced performance for such a young actor. I hope he’s not allowed to watch the movie he was in! Kevin J. O'Connor’s snivelling performance as Plainview’s brother, Henry, is excellent. Much, much credit must go to Paul Dano who plays preacher Eli Sunday – in many ways a character just as disturbed and disturbing as Plainview. The scenes between Dano and Day-Lewis are undoubtedly the highlights of the film. I first saw Dano give a brilliant performance in Little Miss Sunshine and continue to be impressed by this young actor. I hope the good roles keep heading his way.
There Will Be Blood won’t be everyone’s cup of tea. I think it’s strange pace may bore some. I think the madness may confuse others. But, please, try and stick with it. This is one of the most original and compelling movies I have seen in a long time. You won’t necessary like it – I’m not sure “enjoyment” is a word that springs to mind – but you will find yourself drawn into an engaging and disturbing tale of the worst in us all.
----------------------------------------
Daniel Plainview: Drainage! Drainage, Eli! Drained dry, you boy! If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw and my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Juno
Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Allison Janney, JK Simmons, Olivia Thirlby
Dir. Jason Reitman
Scr. Diablo Cody
Juno is a damn fine film. You’ll laugh – both giggles and big belly laughs. You might even cry. You’ll feel warm fuzzies, and you’ll care what happens to the characters. This little movie will do perhaps the best thing a movie can do – it’ll make you feel good.
This film tells the story of 16-year-old Juno MacGuff, a quirky, smart, funny teenager who finds herself in a pickle – she’s pregnant and knows that she’s not ready for motherhood. After chickening out at the abortion clinic, Juno decides to have the baby and goes about trying to find the perfect adoptive parents. Enter Vanessa and Alan Loring, who live in a perfect house in a perfectly planned community and are desperate to be a perfect mum and dad. But all, as always, is not as it seems. Juno is mostly a movie about figuring out what is important in life; whether it be parenthood, following your dreams, or finding love.
The performances in this film, without exception, are absolutely brilliant. Much has been said about young Ellen Page, who plays Juno. She’s already won a bunch of awards for this role and is also up for the Oscar for Best Actress. And while there are a few performances I can think of which may prevent her from winning the big one (most especially Marion Cotillard’s wonderful Edith Piaf), there is no doubt that Page gives a flawless performance as Juno. This movie works, in the main, because the lead is a character who is quirky without being a freak, smart without being intimidating, funny without being too mean. And much of the credit for creating such an approachable main character has to go to Page. Juno is awfully mature for a 16-year-old, but this doesn’t seem out of place or odd – Page gives Juno a mature edge, while retaining those sometime teenage traits of fear, wonder, cattiness and confusion.
Just as fantastic in Juno is the stellar supporting cast. In my opinion, Allison Janney is one of the funniest actresses working today and, as Juno step-mother Bren, she is simply wonderful in this film. Equally great is JK Simmons as Juno’s father. Who wouldn’t want these parents? Sure, they’re mildly crazy, but their love and support for their wayward daughter never falters. It’s so nice to see parents on film who actually get on with their children because, shock horror, it does actually happen. Both Simmons and Janney have some wonderful dialogue and scenes – they’re a treat to watch. In the youngster stakes, there are a couple of great performances by Olivia Thirlby, as Juno’s best friend Leah – she’s a riot – and Michael Cera, as Juno’s sometime boyfriend and partner in baby-making Bleeker. Bleeker is a tad dorkish, there’s no question, but he’s not a social outcast or freak. Instead, he’s a slightly awkward but completely sincere and loveable teen – Cera absolutely nails every scene and you can’t help but love this goofy guy. Rounding off the cast is Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman as the seemingly perfect Vanessa and Mark, the couple Juno is pinning her hopes on to provide for her baby. Garner is surprisingly good in this role – I am not usually a fan, but here she is both steely and vulnerable in her desperation to be a mum. Bateman, whose long-lost career seems to be going from strength to strength, is fantastic – he completely nails the early mid-life crisis sufferer, Mark, a man who perhaps isn’t ready to settle down and give up on his late teen dreams of being a rock star. Here’s a guy most of us can relate to – the feeling of being trapped by a life that seems to be moving along without your permission is all too common. And, man, he’s definitely finally grown into his slightly goofy looks.
The dialogue in Juno is incredibly funny and undeniably memorable. The turn of phrase and expressions seem so original and fresh and had me laughing out loud. Below, instead of the usual single quote I provide, are a few – I just couldn’t decide on one. Like Clueless in the 90s, Juno will undoubtedly introduce (or reintroduce) a few choice phrases and words into the teenage lexicon. A couple of good ones: “honest to blog”, “wizard” (which I am assured is actually very old indeed), “they call me the cautionary whale”, “I'm forshizz up the spout”, and so on.
Juno is a teenage flick, with a twist. It doesn’t stick to the usual, tired teenage stereotypes and, instead, these teens are highly individual. It heartens me. Juno is funny and sweet – see it.
--------------------------------
Vanessa: Your parents are probably wondering where you are.
Juno: Nah... I mean, I'm already pregnant, so what other kind of shenanigans could I get into?
***
Juno: Ow, ow, fuckity-ow! Bren, when do I get that spinal tap thing?
Bren: It's called a spinal block. And you can't have it yet, honey. The doctor said you're not dilated enough.
Juno: You mean I have to wait for it to get worse? Why can't they just give it to me now?
Bren: Well, honey, doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream...
***
Mac: In my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who loves you for exactly what you are. Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you, the right person will still think the sun shines out your ass. That's the kind of person that's worth sticking with.
Dir. Jason Reitman
Scr. Diablo Cody
Juno is a damn fine film. You’ll laugh – both giggles and big belly laughs. You might even cry. You’ll feel warm fuzzies, and you’ll care what happens to the characters. This little movie will do perhaps the best thing a movie can do – it’ll make you feel good.
This film tells the story of 16-year-old Juno MacGuff, a quirky, smart, funny teenager who finds herself in a pickle – she’s pregnant and knows that she’s not ready for motherhood. After chickening out at the abortion clinic, Juno decides to have the baby and goes about trying to find the perfect adoptive parents. Enter Vanessa and Alan Loring, who live in a perfect house in a perfectly planned community and are desperate to be a perfect mum and dad. But all, as always, is not as it seems. Juno is mostly a movie about figuring out what is important in life; whether it be parenthood, following your dreams, or finding love.
The performances in this film, without exception, are absolutely brilliant. Much has been said about young Ellen Page, who plays Juno. She’s already won a bunch of awards for this role and is also up for the Oscar for Best Actress. And while there are a few performances I can think of which may prevent her from winning the big one (most especially Marion Cotillard’s wonderful Edith Piaf), there is no doubt that Page gives a flawless performance as Juno. This movie works, in the main, because the lead is a character who is quirky without being a freak, smart without being intimidating, funny without being too mean. And much of the credit for creating such an approachable main character has to go to Page. Juno is awfully mature for a 16-year-old, but this doesn’t seem out of place or odd – Page gives Juno a mature edge, while retaining those sometime teenage traits of fear, wonder, cattiness and confusion.
Just as fantastic in Juno is the stellar supporting cast. In my opinion, Allison Janney is one of the funniest actresses working today and, as Juno step-mother Bren, she is simply wonderful in this film. Equally great is JK Simmons as Juno’s father. Who wouldn’t want these parents? Sure, they’re mildly crazy, but their love and support for their wayward daughter never falters. It’s so nice to see parents on film who actually get on with their children because, shock horror, it does actually happen. Both Simmons and Janney have some wonderful dialogue and scenes – they’re a treat to watch. In the youngster stakes, there are a couple of great performances by Olivia Thirlby, as Juno’s best friend Leah – she’s a riot – and Michael Cera, as Juno’s sometime boyfriend and partner in baby-making Bleeker. Bleeker is a tad dorkish, there’s no question, but he’s not a social outcast or freak. Instead, he’s a slightly awkward but completely sincere and loveable teen – Cera absolutely nails every scene and you can’t help but love this goofy guy. Rounding off the cast is Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman as the seemingly perfect Vanessa and Mark, the couple Juno is pinning her hopes on to provide for her baby. Garner is surprisingly good in this role – I am not usually a fan, but here she is both steely and vulnerable in her desperation to be a mum. Bateman, whose long-lost career seems to be going from strength to strength, is fantastic – he completely nails the early mid-life crisis sufferer, Mark, a man who perhaps isn’t ready to settle down and give up on his late teen dreams of being a rock star. Here’s a guy most of us can relate to – the feeling of being trapped by a life that seems to be moving along without your permission is all too common. And, man, he’s definitely finally grown into his slightly goofy looks.
The dialogue in Juno is incredibly funny and undeniably memorable. The turn of phrase and expressions seem so original and fresh and had me laughing out loud. Below, instead of the usual single quote I provide, are a few – I just couldn’t decide on one. Like Clueless in the 90s, Juno will undoubtedly introduce (or reintroduce) a few choice phrases and words into the teenage lexicon. A couple of good ones: “honest to blog”, “wizard” (which I am assured is actually very old indeed), “they call me the cautionary whale”, “I'm forshizz up the spout”, and so on.
Juno is a teenage flick, with a twist. It doesn’t stick to the usual, tired teenage stereotypes and, instead, these teens are highly individual. It heartens me. Juno is funny and sweet – see it.
--------------------------------
Vanessa: Your parents are probably wondering where you are.
Juno: Nah... I mean, I'm already pregnant, so what other kind of shenanigans could I get into?
***
Juno: Ow, ow, fuckity-ow! Bren, when do I get that spinal tap thing?
Bren: It's called a spinal block. And you can't have it yet, honey. The doctor said you're not dilated enough.
Juno: You mean I have to wait for it to get worse? Why can't they just give it to me now?
Bren: Well, honey, doctors are sadists who like to play God and watch lesser people scream...
***
Mac: In my opinion, the best thing you can do is find a person who loves you for exactly what you are. Good mood, bad mood, ugly, pretty, handsome, what have you, the right person will still think the sun shines out your ass. That's the kind of person that's worth sticking with.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Sacha Baron Cohen, Jamie Campbell Bower
Dir. Tim Burton
Scr. John Logan (based on musical by Stephen Sondheim & Hugh Wheeler)
Tim Burton, as wonderfully original as he is, tends to split audiences and critics right down the middle. This film is no exception and my own opinion of it changes from minute-to-minute. There is little doubt that Sweeney Todd in Burton’s hands is a sight to behold, but something nags at me – something just doesn’t work. I can’t fault the vision and the execution of that vision. But, still, this film seems to lack something that might have made it great.
The film is a grim telling of the story of Benjamin Barker – a happily married barber, with a beautiful wife and child, who is arrested and sent away by a jealous and powerful man, Judge Turpin. Fifteen years later, a much changed man, Barker returns to London as the evil and disturbed Sweeney Todd, intent on revenge. Teaming up with pie shop owner, Mrs Lovett, Todd re-establishes his barber business and sets out to find his daughter and inflict much suffering on not only Turpin, but all the evil in London. Cue much blood, murder, accidental cannibalism and singing – the retelling of a not-so-typical and hugely successful Broadway musical.
Without a doubt, the best thing about Sweeney Todd is the way it looks and feels – Burton gives us a London so dark and grimy that you can almost smell the urine in the streets and feel the dirt under your fingernails. This film is an absolute visual treat – Burton brilliance comes from the way in which he can create a world, real or otherwise, and make us truly live it.
The acting here is okay. Depp and Burton are somewhat of a dream-team and I imagine Depp was Burton’s one and only choice to play Sweeney Todd. Burton is lucky that Depp not only does dark extremely well, but also that he has a healthy set of lungs in him – he’s not a phenomenal singer, but he does the job well enough and never slips out of character. It’s certainly not Depp’s best performance in a Burton film (both Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood would feature highly above this one), but I can’t imagine anyone else as Burton’s Sweeney Todd. A much better performance, in my view, is that given by Helena Bonham Carter as the morally dubious and often hilarious Mrs Lovett. Humour is integral in this dark tale, and many of the laughs come from Bonham Carter. And, boy, can she belt out a tune. Alan Rickman, as Judge Turpin, is a tad flat and perhaps doesn’t get enough screen time to really develop his character. In fact, the same might be said for the remainder of the cast, with the exception of Sacha Baron Cohen who shines in his small role. Apart from Sweeney and Mrs Lovett, we don’t really know enough about the rest of the characters – I just didn’t care about them and, therefore, when Sweeney cut their throats it was, well, a bit ho-hum.
The musical numbers in Sweeney Todd were a mixed bag. A couple were pretty good – catchy and clever. But many were just a bit boring, with uninspiring melody and predictable lyrics. I guess this is less a fault of the movie and more a criticism of the original musical. I didn’t exit the cinema humming a song (in fact, I could hardly recall one at all), and that’s a pretty essential element of a good musical film for me.
I’m glad I saw Sweeney Todd – the dark subject matter and humour and feel appealed to me greatly. And I was wowed by Bonham Carter and aspects of Depp’s performance. But, overall, this film wasn’t the thrill it could have been. And a word of warning – if you’re squeamish, avoid like the plague.
------------------------
Sweeney Todd: [holding up one of his razors] At last! My arm is complete again!
Dir. Tim Burton
Scr. John Logan (based on musical by Stephen Sondheim & Hugh Wheeler)
Tim Burton, as wonderfully original as he is, tends to split audiences and critics right down the middle. This film is no exception and my own opinion of it changes from minute-to-minute. There is little doubt that Sweeney Todd in Burton’s hands is a sight to behold, but something nags at me – something just doesn’t work. I can’t fault the vision and the execution of that vision. But, still, this film seems to lack something that might have made it great.
The film is a grim telling of the story of Benjamin Barker – a happily married barber, with a beautiful wife and child, who is arrested and sent away by a jealous and powerful man, Judge Turpin. Fifteen years later, a much changed man, Barker returns to London as the evil and disturbed Sweeney Todd, intent on revenge. Teaming up with pie shop owner, Mrs Lovett, Todd re-establishes his barber business and sets out to find his daughter and inflict much suffering on not only Turpin, but all the evil in London. Cue much blood, murder, accidental cannibalism and singing – the retelling of a not-so-typical and hugely successful Broadway musical.
Without a doubt, the best thing about Sweeney Todd is the way it looks and feels – Burton gives us a London so dark and grimy that you can almost smell the urine in the streets and feel the dirt under your fingernails. This film is an absolute visual treat – Burton brilliance comes from the way in which he can create a world, real or otherwise, and make us truly live it.
The acting here is okay. Depp and Burton are somewhat of a dream-team and I imagine Depp was Burton’s one and only choice to play Sweeney Todd. Burton is lucky that Depp not only does dark extremely well, but also that he has a healthy set of lungs in him – he’s not a phenomenal singer, but he does the job well enough and never slips out of character. It’s certainly not Depp’s best performance in a Burton film (both Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood would feature highly above this one), but I can’t imagine anyone else as Burton’s Sweeney Todd. A much better performance, in my view, is that given by Helena Bonham Carter as the morally dubious and often hilarious Mrs Lovett. Humour is integral in this dark tale, and many of the laughs come from Bonham Carter. And, boy, can she belt out a tune. Alan Rickman, as Judge Turpin, is a tad flat and perhaps doesn’t get enough screen time to really develop his character. In fact, the same might be said for the remainder of the cast, with the exception of Sacha Baron Cohen who shines in his small role. Apart from Sweeney and Mrs Lovett, we don’t really know enough about the rest of the characters – I just didn’t care about them and, therefore, when Sweeney cut their throats it was, well, a bit ho-hum.
The musical numbers in Sweeney Todd were a mixed bag. A couple were pretty good – catchy and clever. But many were just a bit boring, with uninspiring melody and predictable lyrics. I guess this is less a fault of the movie and more a criticism of the original musical. I didn’t exit the cinema humming a song (in fact, I could hardly recall one at all), and that’s a pretty essential element of a good musical film for me.
I’m glad I saw Sweeney Todd – the dark subject matter and humour and feel appealed to me greatly. And I was wowed by Bonham Carter and aspects of Depp’s performance. But, overall, this film wasn’t the thrill it could have been. And a word of warning – if you’re squeamish, avoid like the plague.
------------------------
Sweeney Todd: [holding up one of his razors] At last! My arm is complete again!
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Charlie Wilson’s War
Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Om Puri
Dir. Mike Nichols
Scr. Aaron Sorkin (based on the book by George Crile)
This may earn me a few enemies, but I’m not a Tom Hanks fan. Well, “80s Tom Hanks” was great … but since then his movies usually take themselves too seriously or are just plain rubbish. I nearly didn’t see Charlie Wilson’s War for this very reason. But a slew of good reviews and Oscar-talk made me give in. And I’m glad I did. This is a perfectly paced, smartly acted, entertaining film. It didn’t feel very real or convincing, but was a joy to watch nonetheless. And Tom Hanks, I have to admit, was mighty fine.
Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of Charlie Wilson, a Congressman from the Second District of Texas, who was known more for his partying than his politics. But, despite what the trailer leads you to believe (that Charlie is a moron), Wilson is in fact a smart, savvy politician. Yes, his office is filled with beauties, but these girls are as smart and savvy as their boss. Yes, he drinks whiskey like it’s going out of fashion, but he also checks the wires and shows a more than passing interest in global goings-on. Enter Joanne Herring (Roberts) – the fourth richest woman in Texas – who asks Wilson to help the Afghani people (who are suffering after being invaded by the Russians), and, well, we have a serious plot on our hands, which includes the CIA, the Pakistanis, the Jews, and a whole lot of American money. This is, somewhat unbelievably, a true story – the Afghani people defeated the powerful Russian because a Texan congressman saw to it they were trained and armed. But while this true story doesn’t feel all that “true”, it’s a ripper of a story nonetheless.
Mike Nichols is on fine form here, directing this film at a brisk pace and getting some great performances out of his cast. Credit too must go to screenwriter Sorkin, no stranger to compelling political tales as a regular writer on The West Wing, who does a great job in keeping the audience glued to the action which, in the wrong hands, could have easily been complex or tedious – this is certainly a dialogue-intensive script. Instead, this film feels fresh and crisp.
There are some excellent performances in Charlie Wilson’s War. Tom Hanks is spot-on as Wilson – despite appearances and reputation, Wilson is a man with intellect and integrity. Hanks pulls off this difficult mix expertly. In order for the film to succeed, we have to really like Wilson and root for his hugely optimistic and unbelievable plans. In Hanks’ hands, Wilson is damn-near loveable. Julia Roberts, as Herring, gives a lovely turn (wearing more make-up and hairspray in this one film than all her other films combined, I suspect) – she, like Wilson, is a somewhat paradoxical character, and Roberts understands what she needs to do to make Herring both unnerving and endearing. Despite this heady star-power, the real star of the show is Philip Seymour Hoffman, as CIA agent Gust Avrakotos. Like Wilson and Herring, Avrakotos is more than meets the eye – an unattractive, overweight agent, with serious anger management issues, Gust isn’t exactly typical CIA material. But his mind is sharp as a tack and he gets things done. Hoffman is absolutely brilliant in this role – it is as if it was written solely for him. The scenes between Hanks and Hoffman are a joy to watch (especially the first time their characters meet) – the delivery, the timing, the chemistry; it’s a rare thing to see. It’s a tight race this year, but my money is on Hoffman to get the best supporting actor Oscar nod. The remainder of the cast is equally excellent in this film – notably Amy Adams as Wilson’s right-hand-woman and Om Puri who gives a great performance as Pakistan’s President Zia.
There are some somewhat heavy-handed, but ultimately poignant and certainly necessary, messages in this film. About what nations choose to throw money at and what they choose to ignore. About the extent of America’s responsibility for the current situation in Afghanistan. About the nature of politics in general. Perhaps a dose of subtlety might not have gone amiss here. But, on the other hand, these things need saying and they need to be said loudly.
Charlie Wilson’s War is, in the end, a highly entertaining film. What you choose to make of it or take from it is your own business. But see it – you won’t be disappointed.
------------------------
Joanne Herring: Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?
Charlie Wilson: Well, tradition mostly.
Dir. Mike Nichols
Scr. Aaron Sorkin (based on the book by George Crile)
This may earn me a few enemies, but I’m not a Tom Hanks fan. Well, “80s Tom Hanks” was great … but since then his movies usually take themselves too seriously or are just plain rubbish. I nearly didn’t see Charlie Wilson’s War for this very reason. But a slew of good reviews and Oscar-talk made me give in. And I’m glad I did. This is a perfectly paced, smartly acted, entertaining film. It didn’t feel very real or convincing, but was a joy to watch nonetheless. And Tom Hanks, I have to admit, was mighty fine.
Charlie Wilson’s War tells the story of Charlie Wilson, a Congressman from the Second District of Texas, who was known more for his partying than his politics. But, despite what the trailer leads you to believe (that Charlie is a moron), Wilson is in fact a smart, savvy politician. Yes, his office is filled with beauties, but these girls are as smart and savvy as their boss. Yes, he drinks whiskey like it’s going out of fashion, but he also checks the wires and shows a more than passing interest in global goings-on. Enter Joanne Herring (Roberts) – the fourth richest woman in Texas – who asks Wilson to help the Afghani people (who are suffering after being invaded by the Russians), and, well, we have a serious plot on our hands, which includes the CIA, the Pakistanis, the Jews, and a whole lot of American money. This is, somewhat unbelievably, a true story – the Afghani people defeated the powerful Russian because a Texan congressman saw to it they were trained and armed. But while this true story doesn’t feel all that “true”, it’s a ripper of a story nonetheless.
Mike Nichols is on fine form here, directing this film at a brisk pace and getting some great performances out of his cast. Credit too must go to screenwriter Sorkin, no stranger to compelling political tales as a regular writer on The West Wing, who does a great job in keeping the audience glued to the action which, in the wrong hands, could have easily been complex or tedious – this is certainly a dialogue-intensive script. Instead, this film feels fresh and crisp.
There are some excellent performances in Charlie Wilson’s War. Tom Hanks is spot-on as Wilson – despite appearances and reputation, Wilson is a man with intellect and integrity. Hanks pulls off this difficult mix expertly. In order for the film to succeed, we have to really like Wilson and root for his hugely optimistic and unbelievable plans. In Hanks’ hands, Wilson is damn-near loveable. Julia Roberts, as Herring, gives a lovely turn (wearing more make-up and hairspray in this one film than all her other films combined, I suspect) – she, like Wilson, is a somewhat paradoxical character, and Roberts understands what she needs to do to make Herring both unnerving and endearing. Despite this heady star-power, the real star of the show is Philip Seymour Hoffman, as CIA agent Gust Avrakotos. Like Wilson and Herring, Avrakotos is more than meets the eye – an unattractive, overweight agent, with serious anger management issues, Gust isn’t exactly typical CIA material. But his mind is sharp as a tack and he gets things done. Hoffman is absolutely brilliant in this role – it is as if it was written solely for him. The scenes between Hanks and Hoffman are a joy to watch (especially the first time their characters meet) – the delivery, the timing, the chemistry; it’s a rare thing to see. It’s a tight race this year, but my money is on Hoffman to get the best supporting actor Oscar nod. The remainder of the cast is equally excellent in this film – notably Amy Adams as Wilson’s right-hand-woman and Om Puri who gives a great performance as Pakistan’s President Zia.
There are some somewhat heavy-handed, but ultimately poignant and certainly necessary, messages in this film. About what nations choose to throw money at and what they choose to ignore. About the extent of America’s responsibility for the current situation in Afghanistan. About the nature of politics in general. Perhaps a dose of subtlety might not have gone amiss here. But, on the other hand, these things need saying and they need to be said loudly.
Charlie Wilson’s War is, in the end, a highly entertaining film. What you choose to make of it or take from it is your own business. But see it – you won’t be disappointed.
------------------------
Joanne Herring: Why is Congress saying one thing and doing nothing?
Charlie Wilson: Well, tradition mostly.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
No Country for Old Men
Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald, Tess Harper, Garret Dillahunt
Dirs. Ethan & Joel Coen
Scr. Ethan & Joel Coen (based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy)
I’m willing to put a large sum of money on the likelihood of No Country for Old Men being in my top ten of 2008, despite the fact it’s only the second film I’ve seen this year. This is a finely crafted, perfectly paced, intelligent and rewarding film. The Coen Brothers seemed to have lost their way in recent years (with the disappointing Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty). With this film, however, Ethan and Joel have once again given us an absolute classic.
No Country for Old Men is a story of violence and madness and fate. Local hunter Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) stumbles across a drug sale gone wrong – including a suitcase filled with cash. The film follows his desperate attempt to get away from a ruthless killer (Bardem) intent on retrieving the money, alongside Sheriff Bell (Jones) who is trying to both piece together the bloody events and understand what is driving those involved. Moss, obviously, is driven by a large amount of money. But the real enigma in this film is Anton Chigurh – a contract killer, a true psychopath. A man who will decide the future of another on a coin toss. A man who kills with glee in his eyes.
The performances in No Country for Old Men are absolutely spot-on, without exception. Tommy Lee Jones, as the weathered sheriff with sad eyes and a profound turn of phrase, gives exactly the performance that we would expect from such an experienced and accomplished actor. You just can’t help to really feel for a man who feels defeated by a new generation and breed of criminal. Woody Harrelson gives a fine performance as a fellow contract killer sent after Chigurh – he injects humour and charisma into his small role. Josh Brolin (as instant millionaire Moss) is somewhat of a surprise. For me, Brolin was always a forgettable face in the supporting cast of a usually mediocre movie (with the notable exception of the recent American Gangster). But in No Country for Old Men his performance is perfect - Moss is a somewhat hapless man, with an odd sense of invincibility. Brolin succeeds in making Moss incredibly likeable, an “average joe” that the audience truly wants to see make a clean getaway. The performance that will stay with you long after the film is over, however, is that of Javier Bardem as Chigurh. Perhaps a bit of an unknown to many, Bardem is a Spanish-born actor who has a fine string of films (many foreign) behind him. He is blessed with an incredibly expressive face and the skill to use it in both an incredibly subtle and frighteningly exaggerated way. The early scene in which Chigurh strangles a deputy sheriff is a fine example of the latter – an utterly disturbing image. Bardem is amazing in this film – creepy, charismatic, ruthless, philosophical. We never quite understand what drives him, but you can’t help but suspect it is something incredibly profound and utterly convincing.
The other star of No Country for Old Men is the script. The Coen Brothers are known for smart, quirky, dark dialogue, and this film is a fine example of their skill. The turn of phrase is at times hilarious, at times profound, at times ridiculous, and at times so very sad. The language is a hugely important aspect of the film and its characters. Just like the Minnesota accent in Fargo, the Texan way of speaking and expressing gives No Country for Old Men a very particular and memorable flavour. It will certainly be a screenplay worth reading, as well as a movie worth seeing.
No Country for Old Men is basically a flawless film. The bursts of violence will not be to everyone’s taste. But you don’t mind a bit of blood, see this movie. This is film-making at it’s finest – so tense and compelling and funny and profound. For me, the finest Coen Brothers film is still Fargo, but No Country for Old Men is a damn close second and I can’t wait to see it again. And again.
----------------------------------
Wendell: That's very linear Sheriff.
Sheriff Bell: Well, age will flatten a man.
Dirs. Ethan & Joel Coen
Scr. Ethan & Joel Coen (based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy)
I’m willing to put a large sum of money on the likelihood of No Country for Old Men being in my top ten of 2008, despite the fact it’s only the second film I’ve seen this year. This is a finely crafted, perfectly paced, intelligent and rewarding film. The Coen Brothers seemed to have lost their way in recent years (with the disappointing Ladykillers and Intolerable Cruelty). With this film, however, Ethan and Joel have once again given us an absolute classic.
No Country for Old Men is a story of violence and madness and fate. Local hunter Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) stumbles across a drug sale gone wrong – including a suitcase filled with cash. The film follows his desperate attempt to get away from a ruthless killer (Bardem) intent on retrieving the money, alongside Sheriff Bell (Jones) who is trying to both piece together the bloody events and understand what is driving those involved. Moss, obviously, is driven by a large amount of money. But the real enigma in this film is Anton Chigurh – a contract killer, a true psychopath. A man who will decide the future of another on a coin toss. A man who kills with glee in his eyes.
The performances in No Country for Old Men are absolutely spot-on, without exception. Tommy Lee Jones, as the weathered sheriff with sad eyes and a profound turn of phrase, gives exactly the performance that we would expect from such an experienced and accomplished actor. You just can’t help to really feel for a man who feels defeated by a new generation and breed of criminal. Woody Harrelson gives a fine performance as a fellow contract killer sent after Chigurh – he injects humour and charisma into his small role. Josh Brolin (as instant millionaire Moss) is somewhat of a surprise. For me, Brolin was always a forgettable face in the supporting cast of a usually mediocre movie (with the notable exception of the recent American Gangster). But in No Country for Old Men his performance is perfect - Moss is a somewhat hapless man, with an odd sense of invincibility. Brolin succeeds in making Moss incredibly likeable, an “average joe” that the audience truly wants to see make a clean getaway. The performance that will stay with you long after the film is over, however, is that of Javier Bardem as Chigurh. Perhaps a bit of an unknown to many, Bardem is a Spanish-born actor who has a fine string of films (many foreign) behind him. He is blessed with an incredibly expressive face and the skill to use it in both an incredibly subtle and frighteningly exaggerated way. The early scene in which Chigurh strangles a deputy sheriff is a fine example of the latter – an utterly disturbing image. Bardem is amazing in this film – creepy, charismatic, ruthless, philosophical. We never quite understand what drives him, but you can’t help but suspect it is something incredibly profound and utterly convincing.
The other star of No Country for Old Men is the script. The Coen Brothers are known for smart, quirky, dark dialogue, and this film is a fine example of their skill. The turn of phrase is at times hilarious, at times profound, at times ridiculous, and at times so very sad. The language is a hugely important aspect of the film and its characters. Just like the Minnesota accent in Fargo, the Texan way of speaking and expressing gives No Country for Old Men a very particular and memorable flavour. It will certainly be a screenplay worth reading, as well as a movie worth seeing.
No Country for Old Men is basically a flawless film. The bursts of violence will not be to everyone’s taste. But you don’t mind a bit of blood, see this movie. This is film-making at it’s finest – so tense and compelling and funny and profound. For me, the finest Coen Brothers film is still Fargo, but No Country for Old Men is a damn close second and I can’t wait to see it again. And again.
----------------------------------
Wendell: That's very linear Sheriff.
Sheriff Bell: Well, age will flatten a man.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
American Gangster
Russell Crowe, Denzel Washington, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Josh Brolin, Lymari Nadal
Dir. Ridley Scott
Scr. Steven Zaillian
With American Gangster, Ridley Scott gives audiences a solid start to 2008. It’s not the classic that is it perhaps hoping to be, but nevertheless, this film is compelling and well acted. It’s a story of some very different conceptions of what is right and what is wrong. There is perhaps not much that is new or enlightening here – we have seen the drug world, the corrupt cops world, many times before. But you won’t be bored or disappointed by this film – it’s an entertaining trip to a gritty time and place.
American Gangster tells the true story of Frank Lucas (Washington), a drug smuggler and crime lord in New York in the 60s and 70s, and the cop (Crowe) who tries to bring him and his operation down. In a time when the Italian Mafia ruled the roost, Lucas did what many thought impossible – had the Mafia working for him. By importing pure heroin direct from Korea and offering a better product at a cheaper price, Lucas made a lot of money and just as many enemies. Just as interesting a character is Richie Roberts (Crowe) – an honest cop in a time when every second cop was on the take.
It is Crowe and Washington who hold this movie together – their characters are very different and very seldom share the screen at the same time, and it is this juxtaposition of worlds and morals that makes this an above-average, interesting tale. And their performances are spot-on. Crowe does the “everyman” role very well indeed – here, he is a man just trying to do his job in an environment that is trying it’s best to tempt him into doing wrong. Washington is also at the top of his game. His baddie roles are often more compelling and this is no exception. Lucas is, in many ways, a very moral man – he believes in family and community and just rewards. But he is also a violent man and his drug business undoubtedly killed many people and ruined countless lives, but somehow this doesn’t register on his moral compass. Despite everything, you like Lucas, even though you shouldn’t. A top-notch performance by Denzel.
The rest of the cast is equally solid. Stand-outs include Ejiofor, as one of Lucas’s brothers, and Brolin, who plays a corrupt special investigator. Nadal, who plays Lucas’s beauty queen wife, is also very good (not to mention exceptionally beautiful).
Although I can’t find a lot to fault in this movie, it doesn’t feel like the absolute stellar film it should be. And I’m not sure why this is. Perhaps because we’ve been told this story a million times (drug lord takes hold of a community, of a city, and a flawed but brilliant cop takes him down). Perhaps it’s a bit long (at nearly 170 minutes), although I don’t remember thinking “what the hell is the point of this scene?” Maybe it didn’t grip me as completely as it should have. I wasn’t bored and I was entertained, but I suspect, by year’s end, I won’t be desperate to add American Gangster to my Top Ten of 2008.
So, yeah, this review seems to have fizzled out somewhat. If gritty cop/drug/corruption stories with moments of brutality are your thing, see this film. You won’t be disappointed, although you might feel that you’ve seen it all before.
------------------------------------
Frank Lucas: The man I worked for had one of the biggest companies in New York City. He didn't own his own company. White man owned it, so they owned him. Nobody owns me, though.
Dir. Ridley Scott
Scr. Steven Zaillian
With American Gangster, Ridley Scott gives audiences a solid start to 2008. It’s not the classic that is it perhaps hoping to be, but nevertheless, this film is compelling and well acted. It’s a story of some very different conceptions of what is right and what is wrong. There is perhaps not much that is new or enlightening here – we have seen the drug world, the corrupt cops world, many times before. But you won’t be bored or disappointed by this film – it’s an entertaining trip to a gritty time and place.
American Gangster tells the true story of Frank Lucas (Washington), a drug smuggler and crime lord in New York in the 60s and 70s, and the cop (Crowe) who tries to bring him and his operation down. In a time when the Italian Mafia ruled the roost, Lucas did what many thought impossible – had the Mafia working for him. By importing pure heroin direct from Korea and offering a better product at a cheaper price, Lucas made a lot of money and just as many enemies. Just as interesting a character is Richie Roberts (Crowe) – an honest cop in a time when every second cop was on the take.
It is Crowe and Washington who hold this movie together – their characters are very different and very seldom share the screen at the same time, and it is this juxtaposition of worlds and morals that makes this an above-average, interesting tale. And their performances are spot-on. Crowe does the “everyman” role very well indeed – here, he is a man just trying to do his job in an environment that is trying it’s best to tempt him into doing wrong. Washington is also at the top of his game. His baddie roles are often more compelling and this is no exception. Lucas is, in many ways, a very moral man – he believes in family and community and just rewards. But he is also a violent man and his drug business undoubtedly killed many people and ruined countless lives, but somehow this doesn’t register on his moral compass. Despite everything, you like Lucas, even though you shouldn’t. A top-notch performance by Denzel.
The rest of the cast is equally solid. Stand-outs include Ejiofor, as one of Lucas’s brothers, and Brolin, who plays a corrupt special investigator. Nadal, who plays Lucas’s beauty queen wife, is also very good (not to mention exceptionally beautiful).
Although I can’t find a lot to fault in this movie, it doesn’t feel like the absolute stellar film it should be. And I’m not sure why this is. Perhaps because we’ve been told this story a million times (drug lord takes hold of a community, of a city, and a flawed but brilliant cop takes him down). Perhaps it’s a bit long (at nearly 170 minutes), although I don’t remember thinking “what the hell is the point of this scene?” Maybe it didn’t grip me as completely as it should have. I wasn’t bored and I was entertained, but I suspect, by year’s end, I won’t be desperate to add American Gangster to my Top Ten of 2008.
So, yeah, this review seems to have fizzled out somewhat. If gritty cop/drug/corruption stories with moments of brutality are your thing, see this film. You won’t be disappointed, although you might feel that you’ve seen it all before.
------------------------------------
Frank Lucas: The man I worked for had one of the biggest companies in New York City. He didn't own his own company. White man owned it, so they owned him. Nobody owns me, though.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Top Ten of 2007
Below are my top ten films of 2007 (in alphabetical order, because ranking them is just too hard). Note – I saw these films at the cinema in 2007. They may have been released earlier in some parts of the world and you may wonder why they appear in this list – it is because I live in New Zealand and we get some things a tad late. Deal with it.
The Bourne Ultimatum – The third in the Bourne trilogy delivers in spades. Fantastic, intelligent, fast-paced thriller. It is a rare thing indeed. Best action film of the year.
Breach – A gem of a film. Great acting (especially from the amazing Chris Cooper). A compelling and intriguing story.
Eastern Promises – Just brilliant. A tale of morality and the human condition. And you gotta love the Russian accents … Although Viggo Mortensen is sexy in any language.
Hot Fuzz – No, it’s not as good as Shaun of the Dead, but it’s still a very clever and very funny comedy. And stands up to repeats viewings. Funniest film of the year.
Into the Wild – A beautifully film adaptation of a great book about one man’s need to find himself. Wonderfully acted by a stellar cast; great directing by Sean Penn; brilliant soundtrack by Eddie Vedder.
The Last King of Scotland – A disturbing film. Superb acting (and certainly not just a one-man show). Great script. Deserved award-winner.
Lives of Others – Arguably the best foreign film of the last decade. Utterly compelling. The characters are brilliantly realised and the acting is superb – you truly care what happens to the people in this story. Excellent film-making.
Music and Lyrics – It’s in this list because of my weakness for three things: Hugh, Drew and romance. Throw in some music and, BAM, fantastic film! This is a lovely rom-com that delivers on both laughs and chemistry – best rom-com of the year, no contest.
Pan’s Labyrinth – My personal favourite of the year (so good it has entered my top ten of all time). I can’t rave enough about this film. If you haven’t seen it, SEE IT! Yes, it’s a fairy tale, but definitely not one for the kids.
The Prestige – A clever and entertaining story with some fantastic acting and enough twists and turns to make you dizzy. A film you will think about long after the credits have rolled.
Notable mentions: The Bridge (a truly powerful documentary), The Descent (bloody scary), Dreamgirls (great music and phenomenal performance by Jennifer Hudson), The Simpsons Movie (they did it – kept you laughing for 90 minutes!) Stardust (lovely adaptation of the Neil Gaiman novel)
The Bourne Ultimatum – The third in the Bourne trilogy delivers in spades. Fantastic, intelligent, fast-paced thriller. It is a rare thing indeed. Best action film of the year.
Breach – A gem of a film. Great acting (especially from the amazing Chris Cooper). A compelling and intriguing story.
Eastern Promises – Just brilliant. A tale of morality and the human condition. And you gotta love the Russian accents … Although Viggo Mortensen is sexy in any language.
Hot Fuzz – No, it’s not as good as Shaun of the Dead, but it’s still a very clever and very funny comedy. And stands up to repeats viewings. Funniest film of the year.
Into the Wild – A beautifully film adaptation of a great book about one man’s need to find himself. Wonderfully acted by a stellar cast; great directing by Sean Penn; brilliant soundtrack by Eddie Vedder.
The Last King of Scotland – A disturbing film. Superb acting (and certainly not just a one-man show). Great script. Deserved award-winner.
Lives of Others – Arguably the best foreign film of the last decade. Utterly compelling. The characters are brilliantly realised and the acting is superb – you truly care what happens to the people in this story. Excellent film-making.
Music and Lyrics – It’s in this list because of my weakness for three things: Hugh, Drew and romance. Throw in some music and, BAM, fantastic film! This is a lovely rom-com that delivers on both laughs and chemistry – best rom-com of the year, no contest.
Pan’s Labyrinth – My personal favourite of the year (so good it has entered my top ten of all time). I can’t rave enough about this film. If you haven’t seen it, SEE IT! Yes, it’s a fairy tale, but definitely not one for the kids.
The Prestige – A clever and entertaining story with some fantastic acting and enough twists and turns to make you dizzy. A film you will think about long after the credits have rolled.
Notable mentions: The Bridge (a truly powerful documentary), The Descent (bloody scary), Dreamgirls (great music and phenomenal performance by Jennifer Hudson), The Simpsons Movie (they did it – kept you laughing for 90 minutes!) Stardust (lovely adaptation of the Neil Gaiman novel)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)