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.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)