Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Jon Voight, John Turturro, Josh Duhamel
Dir. Michael Bay
Scr. Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman
When I heard a Transformers movie was in production, I was sceptical. Are they going to piss all over my childhood, I thought. When I saw the trailer, however, I was very excited. It looked fantastic. But when I saw the finished product, I couldn’t help but be disappointed. It was overlong, repetitive, lacked character development and (a common problem with blockbusters) gave away all its best bits in the trailer.
The plot is pretty basic – a war between two robotic “tribes” from the planet Cybertron (the Autobots and the Decepticons) breaks out and mankind is caught in the middle. Yes, it really is that naff. What made Transformers a great story, though, was what they could do – transform. And this aspect is by far the best thing about this film. The effects are a sight to behold. Everything I thought they could be. From your basic robot, to the more advanced sand-swimming scorpion robot, these mighty hunks of metal are awesome. I wasn’t so fond of the little stereo/cell-phone robot – the Jar Jar Binks of the film – but even this annoying transformer was superbly realised by the CGI experts.
There was plenty in Transformers that makes for a great action film – explosions, cheesy dialogue, more explosions, car/plane chases, a few more explosions, men in black, and some explosions. But this was not a great action film. Why?
Firstly, to make an action film truly great, we must care about the people. Yes, we need the explosions, but we need to care whether the characters die in the explosions. And the thing that makes us care is some solid character development – not overlong; rather short, snappy and to the point (it’s quite a skill). With the exception of Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf) and Mikaela Banes (Fox), character development is seriously lacking. Sure, we see that Captain Lennox (Duhamel) has a kid, but so what? And what’s with the blonde Australian genius girl who cracks the code? Who is she and why should I care what happens to her? The black kid who is a computer expert – who cares? What about the Secretary of Defence (Voight)? All I know is his job title. That’s not enough. Michael Bay gives us too many characters that we know next to nothing about – more robots transforming, Michael; less people being pointless!
Secondly, I really hated it when the robots talked. I know they have to talk. I know that we need to be told what is going on by someone, but why did they have to sound so ridiculous? It just made me roll my eyes. And not in a good way.
Thirdly, man, this is a looooooooong film. And it needn’t be. It’s unnecessarily complicated. And repetitive.
As for the acting, well, you’ll be surprised to learn there is some and it’s not all bad. LaBeouf in the lead role is extremely likable and funny. A very watchable young actor. Fox is okay – she’s too model-pretty for the film, I think, but I can understand why she was cast ahead of the girl-next-doors – the target audience are 14-year-old boys after all. Voight is criminally underused – this is a film that needed a few heavy-weights to give it some credibility and he certainly does, but he’s just not on the screen enough. The numerous soldiers and the kids who get recruited by the Government are so one-dimensional that the actors don’t get a chance to sink their teeth in. Witwicky’s parents, played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White, are diverting and I enjoy their screen-time. But, without a doubt, the man who lights up the screen is an oddly cast but brilliant John Turturro (as a mysterious man-in-black character). He plays slightly unhinged and scary like no other. Like Voight though, he doesn’t get nearly enough airtime.
So, if you want some explosions and some awesome effects, by all means go see Transformers. But this is not a well-rounded, memorable action film. There isn’t enough heart and, in the end, I just didn’t care enough whether Optimus Prime beats Megatron and saves mankind. They simply weren’t interesting enough to be worth saving.
Maybe Michael Bay is a robot … It would explain a few things.
------------------------
Mikaela: So if it’s some super advanced robot, why does it turn back into a piece of crap Camaro?
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen)
Ulrich Muhe, Sebastian Koch, Martina Gedeck, Ulrich Tukur
Dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Scr. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
The Lives of Others is a damn good film. Compelling, with a heart as well as a brain, this film is both frightening and funny. We are shown a world where nothing is secret and where privacy is an illusion. I wondered what could have possibly beaten the brilliant Pan’s Labyrinth to the Best Foreign Film Oscar. And while Pan’s is still my favourite movie of the year thus far, this German gem deserves every accolade it has received.
Set in the early 80s in East Germany, this film follows the lives of playwright Georg Dreyman (Koch) and actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Gedeck) who are oblivious to the fact that the Stasi (the secret police) are watching their every move. The man watching them, Gerd Wiesler (Muhe), is a model and unwaveringly loyal Stasi employee, whose work is his life and who is brilliant at what he does. But, as he observes their day-to-day lives, he becomes less of an unseen enemy and rather the best friend they don’t know they have. What drives Wiesler to change is not clear. Perhaps he comes to care for these people. Perhaps he deludes himself into thinking he is actually part of their lives. Perhaps he realises how unjust the system actually is. I don’t know. And it doesn’t matter. In the end, although personal tragedy strikes and the fall of the Berlin Wall means Wiesler’s career is over, he is a strangely heroic figure and the last scene brings a tear to the eye.
The Lives of Others is a depressingly drab-looking movie – muted tones, shades of brown and sometimes grey; this is the décor of socialism. I felt oppressed and stifled. It is brilliantly designed movie, creating mood and emotion with ease. The movie is also perfectly paced. It takes time for us to get to know the characters, which could be tiresome. But instead it is engrossing and makes the consequences of their actions so much more harrowing. The only complaint I have is the jarring jumps in time near the end of the film (“Two Years Later” … more than once), but I see why this technique was used and the concluding scenes put the very personal story we have been following into the larger picture of what occurred in Germany post-1989.
The acting in this film is outstanding. I think I benefited from the fact that all these actors are unknown to me – it helped pull me in and make me believe (instead of thinking to myself, “Oh, look, Tom Cruise” or “Isn’t that guy from CSI?”). Koch is extremely likeable as the “loyalist” playwright. Gedeck portrays the troubled actress brilliantly – there is so much sadness behind her eyes as we watch her driven to the edge by the horrible situation she finds herself in. But the star of this film is really Muhe. I was blown away by his performance. He is so restrained in his facial expressions and movements – his face rarely betrays his thoughts. He is the ultimate nowhere man who blends into the background in order to do his job in the most effective way. And the transformation we see in him is so subtle – the smallest movement in his expression speaks volumes; it is the ultimate minimalist performance. Behind his eyes is the horror of what is occurring to these people he is watching – we watch him soften in an almost imperceptible way. Brilliant stuff.
There are some scenes that have stayed with me and I keep recalling with horror or laughter or amazement – there is a particular scene which teaches us all not to joke about the boss over lunch. But the real joy of this film is the overall wash of drab hopelessness and the underlying current of terror. You’re unlikely to see a more intelligent or satisfying film this year. Highly recommended.
Dir. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
Scr. Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
The Lives of Others is a damn good film. Compelling, with a heart as well as a brain, this film is both frightening and funny. We are shown a world where nothing is secret and where privacy is an illusion. I wondered what could have possibly beaten the brilliant Pan’s Labyrinth to the Best Foreign Film Oscar. And while Pan’s is still my favourite movie of the year thus far, this German gem deserves every accolade it has received.
Set in the early 80s in East Germany, this film follows the lives of playwright Georg Dreyman (Koch) and actress Christa-Maria Sieland (Gedeck) who are oblivious to the fact that the Stasi (the secret police) are watching their every move. The man watching them, Gerd Wiesler (Muhe), is a model and unwaveringly loyal Stasi employee, whose work is his life and who is brilliant at what he does. But, as he observes their day-to-day lives, he becomes less of an unseen enemy and rather the best friend they don’t know they have. What drives Wiesler to change is not clear. Perhaps he comes to care for these people. Perhaps he deludes himself into thinking he is actually part of their lives. Perhaps he realises how unjust the system actually is. I don’t know. And it doesn’t matter. In the end, although personal tragedy strikes and the fall of the Berlin Wall means Wiesler’s career is over, he is a strangely heroic figure and the last scene brings a tear to the eye.
The Lives of Others is a depressingly drab-looking movie – muted tones, shades of brown and sometimes grey; this is the décor of socialism. I felt oppressed and stifled. It is brilliantly designed movie, creating mood and emotion with ease. The movie is also perfectly paced. It takes time for us to get to know the characters, which could be tiresome. But instead it is engrossing and makes the consequences of their actions so much more harrowing. The only complaint I have is the jarring jumps in time near the end of the film (“Two Years Later” … more than once), but I see why this technique was used and the concluding scenes put the very personal story we have been following into the larger picture of what occurred in Germany post-1989.
The acting in this film is outstanding. I think I benefited from the fact that all these actors are unknown to me – it helped pull me in and make me believe (instead of thinking to myself, “Oh, look, Tom Cruise” or “Isn’t that guy from CSI?”). Koch is extremely likeable as the “loyalist” playwright. Gedeck portrays the troubled actress brilliantly – there is so much sadness behind her eyes as we watch her driven to the edge by the horrible situation she finds herself in. But the star of this film is really Muhe. I was blown away by his performance. He is so restrained in his facial expressions and movements – his face rarely betrays his thoughts. He is the ultimate nowhere man who blends into the background in order to do his job in the most effective way. And the transformation we see in him is so subtle – the smallest movement in his expression speaks volumes; it is the ultimate minimalist performance. Behind his eyes is the horror of what is occurring to these people he is watching – we watch him soften in an almost imperceptible way. Brilliant stuff.
There are some scenes that have stayed with me and I keep recalling with horror or laughter or amazement – there is a particular scene which teaches us all not to joke about the boss over lunch. But the real joy of this film is the overall wash of drab hopelessness and the underlying current of terror. You’re unlikely to see a more intelligent or satisfying film this year. Highly recommended.
Sunday, July 1, 2007
Starter for Ten
James McAvoy, Catherine Tate, Alice Eve, Rebecca Hall, Mark Gatiss
Dir. Tom Vaughan
Scr. David Nicholls
Ever since seeing him in 2004’s Inside I’m Dancing, I’ve been a James McAvoy fan. You might think from all the hype that his first film was The Last King of Scotland, but he’s actually been around for quite some time. And he’s an extremely watch-able and gutsy actor. In Starter for Ten, playing a character ten years his junior with ease, McAvoy impresses again. I was a bit disappointed that the movie didn’t impress quite as much.
Anyone who knows me will realise that there is a second reason I went to see this film – University Challenge. I am a BIG fan. End of confession, back to review.
There is a lot to like about this movie. Set in 1985, it follows Brian (McAvoy) as he leaves his Essex home and starts Bristol University, overcoming academic challenges, romantic challenges and University Challenge. The romantic plot is very familiar – boy meets girl who is perfect for him and they become friends; boy meets another girl who is not perfect for him but is blonde and busty and they become more than friends; boy is betrayed by busty blonde; boy finally comes to senses and hooks up with the perfect girl. It’s certainly not a unique formula but its familiarity is comfortable in a film that is all about nostalgia.
From mixed tapes to Bamber Gascoigne, anyone who was a child/teen of the 80s will have a fondness for this film. Also, anyone who has been to university or has known anyone who has been to university will relate to the strange creature that is the First Year University Student – full of hope and self-belief, wearing a pretentious scarf and coat, talking with fervour about Nietzsche and postmodernism. The sight of three geeky students singing “I am the very model of a modern major general” at a party had me giggling hysterically. Accompanied by a great 80s Brit soundtrack, Starter for Ten is all warm and fuzzy.
And although that makes an enjoyable film, it doesn’t necessarily make a film I would want to watch over and over. Everything was predictable. And maybe that is great for some people, but not for me. I felt like it needed something more. And while it was funny, extremely funny in places, it should have been funnier. And, above all, there was nowhere near enough University Challenge scenes!
McAvoy, as mentioned, was a very solid and likeable lead. I look forward to his next movie. The girls – Alice (blonde one) and Rebecca (perfect one) – were portrayed well by, errrrrrr, Alice Eve and Rebecca Hall. Not brilliant, but competent. A cameo by Charles Dance, as Alice’s father, was woefully short. Catherine Tate was excellent as Brian’s mother – always a joy to watch, her comic timing was spot on. I was very disappointed by the portrayal of Bamber Gascoigne, by Gatiss (of League of Gentlemen fame) – he came across as a complete pretentious git, which is not my memory of Bamber at all. Bamber was, of course, outstandingly intelligent but quietly dignified and forgiving. Unlike the current host (Jeremy Paxman) who is a complete pretentious git, and proud of it.
So, yeah, I can’t necessarily fault this movie in any meaningful way. And I’m sure many people will enjoy it – after all, I enjoyed it. But I didn’t love it and I think it had the potential to make me love it. An opportunity missed perhaps.
---------------------------
Brian: Got an announcement to make. I'm gonna be on University Challenge.
Julie: What a relief. I thought you were gonna say you were gay.
Dir. Tom Vaughan
Scr. David Nicholls
Ever since seeing him in 2004’s Inside I’m Dancing, I’ve been a James McAvoy fan. You might think from all the hype that his first film was The Last King of Scotland, but he’s actually been around for quite some time. And he’s an extremely watch-able and gutsy actor. In Starter for Ten, playing a character ten years his junior with ease, McAvoy impresses again. I was a bit disappointed that the movie didn’t impress quite as much.
Anyone who knows me will realise that there is a second reason I went to see this film – University Challenge. I am a BIG fan. End of confession, back to review.
There is a lot to like about this movie. Set in 1985, it follows Brian (McAvoy) as he leaves his Essex home and starts Bristol University, overcoming academic challenges, romantic challenges and University Challenge. The romantic plot is very familiar – boy meets girl who is perfect for him and they become friends; boy meets another girl who is not perfect for him but is blonde and busty and they become more than friends; boy is betrayed by busty blonde; boy finally comes to senses and hooks up with the perfect girl. It’s certainly not a unique formula but its familiarity is comfortable in a film that is all about nostalgia.
From mixed tapes to Bamber Gascoigne, anyone who was a child/teen of the 80s will have a fondness for this film. Also, anyone who has been to university or has known anyone who has been to university will relate to the strange creature that is the First Year University Student – full of hope and self-belief, wearing a pretentious scarf and coat, talking with fervour about Nietzsche and postmodernism. The sight of three geeky students singing “I am the very model of a modern major general” at a party had me giggling hysterically. Accompanied by a great 80s Brit soundtrack, Starter for Ten is all warm and fuzzy.
And although that makes an enjoyable film, it doesn’t necessarily make a film I would want to watch over and over. Everything was predictable. And maybe that is great for some people, but not for me. I felt like it needed something more. And while it was funny, extremely funny in places, it should have been funnier. And, above all, there was nowhere near enough University Challenge scenes!
McAvoy, as mentioned, was a very solid and likeable lead. I look forward to his next movie. The girls – Alice (blonde one) and Rebecca (perfect one) – were portrayed well by, errrrrrr, Alice Eve and Rebecca Hall. Not brilliant, but competent. A cameo by Charles Dance, as Alice’s father, was woefully short. Catherine Tate was excellent as Brian’s mother – always a joy to watch, her comic timing was spot on. I was very disappointed by the portrayal of Bamber Gascoigne, by Gatiss (of League of Gentlemen fame) – he came across as a complete pretentious git, which is not my memory of Bamber at all. Bamber was, of course, outstandingly intelligent but quietly dignified and forgiving. Unlike the current host (Jeremy Paxman) who is a complete pretentious git, and proud of it.
So, yeah, I can’t necessarily fault this movie in any meaningful way. And I’m sure many people will enjoy it – after all, I enjoyed it. But I didn’t love it and I think it had the potential to make me love it. An opportunity missed perhaps.
---------------------------
Brian: Got an announcement to make. I'm gonna be on University Challenge.
Julie: What a relief. I thought you were gonna say you were gay.
Puppy
Nadia Townsend, Bernard Curry, Susan Ellis
Dir. Kieran Galvin
Scr. Kieran Galvin
This film is advertised as a Darkly Funny Romantic Thriller. With the tagline “He’s taking her home. Unconscious. Big Mistake.” And it’s Australian. So I don’t know quite what I was expecting – probably something quite odd and uncomfortable to watch. But what I got was a surprising little gem of a movie, certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, but strangely scary and compelling and funny and, yes, a little romantic.
Puppy really only has two characters: Liz, a troubled but canny young woman; and Aiden, an even more troubled and mildly dangerous young man. Liz, after being chucked out of her sister’s flat for stealing her jewellery, tries her hand at suicide. Aiden finds her passed out in a car, filled with exhaust fumes, and takes her back to his home which is, of course, miles from nowhere. And the fun begins. Well, actually, not so fun for Liz who is tied up by a man who is convinced she is the wife who walked out on him. Aiden is not a particularly sane man but Liz, being the canny girl that she is, finds that she might be able to get the upper hand in this bizarre and blooming relationship.
There are times when I thought the movie was really going to take a turn for the worst. I suspected that I was going to have to cover my eyes, a lot. And there are certainly some slightly dodgy and uncomfortable moments. Aiden, after all, is highly delusional and owns two large Rottweilers who succeed in making sure Liz does not leave his house. But writer/director Kieran Galvin doesn’t take the easy route of making this into an extreme and violent film. Instead, Liz sees opportunity in her situation. And, by the end, your heart is actually warmed by a tale of love found in the wrong place.
Townsend and Curry are excellent as the two leads. They are completely new faces to me (apparently famous in Australia; Curry has been on Neighbours) and I was impressed by their performances. The supporting cast is a little less strong – I was especially annoyed by Ellis who has, mercifully, a small role. The script is strong – dark, clever, laugh-out-loud funny. It feels a little like a play at times, but this may be due to the small number of characters and locations.
I was impressed by this film. I would put it into the same category as 2002’s Secretary, which I know many people found strange and disturbing. But if you have an open mind and a dark funny bone, you will probably like Puppy. It’s refreshingly different without being unwatchable. Recommended.
Dir. Kieran Galvin
Scr. Kieran Galvin
This film is advertised as a Darkly Funny Romantic Thriller. With the tagline “He’s taking her home. Unconscious. Big Mistake.” And it’s Australian. So I don’t know quite what I was expecting – probably something quite odd and uncomfortable to watch. But what I got was a surprising little gem of a movie, certainly not everyone’s cup of tea, but strangely scary and compelling and funny and, yes, a little romantic.
Puppy really only has two characters: Liz, a troubled but canny young woman; and Aiden, an even more troubled and mildly dangerous young man. Liz, after being chucked out of her sister’s flat for stealing her jewellery, tries her hand at suicide. Aiden finds her passed out in a car, filled with exhaust fumes, and takes her back to his home which is, of course, miles from nowhere. And the fun begins. Well, actually, not so fun for Liz who is tied up by a man who is convinced she is the wife who walked out on him. Aiden is not a particularly sane man but Liz, being the canny girl that she is, finds that she might be able to get the upper hand in this bizarre and blooming relationship.
There are times when I thought the movie was really going to take a turn for the worst. I suspected that I was going to have to cover my eyes, a lot. And there are certainly some slightly dodgy and uncomfortable moments. Aiden, after all, is highly delusional and owns two large Rottweilers who succeed in making sure Liz does not leave his house. But writer/director Kieran Galvin doesn’t take the easy route of making this into an extreme and violent film. Instead, Liz sees opportunity in her situation. And, by the end, your heart is actually warmed by a tale of love found in the wrong place.
Townsend and Curry are excellent as the two leads. They are completely new faces to me (apparently famous in Australia; Curry has been on Neighbours) and I was impressed by their performances. The supporting cast is a little less strong – I was especially annoyed by Ellis who has, mercifully, a small role. The script is strong – dark, clever, laugh-out-loud funny. It feels a little like a play at times, but this may be due to the small number of characters and locations.
I was impressed by this film. I would put it into the same category as 2002’s Secretary, which I know many people found strange and disturbing. But if you have an open mind and a dark funny bone, you will probably like Puppy. It’s refreshingly different without being unwatchable. Recommended.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Ocean’s Thirteen
George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Al Pacino, Matt Damon, Andy Garcia, Elliott Gould
Dir. Steven Soderbergh
Scr. Brian Koppelman & David Levien
Ocean’s Thirteen is an entertaining movie. It’s not going to change the world or extend your horizons or make you think about life, the universe and everything. But, so what? Most people go to the movies to be entertained and this film delivers in spades.
The gang’s back. In Ocean’s Eleven, they conned Andy Garcia (and we were heartedly amused). In Ocean’s Twelve, they stole some art (and lost their way in the plot department). In Thirteen they are out to avenge one of their own (Elliott Gould’s character, who is cheated and left for dead by Willie Bank, played with relish by Al Pacino). The setting is pure Rat Pack stuff – a huge (and monstrously ugly) casino and hotel in Las Vegas. There is simply too much plot to outline here, so let’s just say Bank gets his comeuppance in a litany of clever ways, utilising some cool gadgets, a lot of smarts and buckets of luck.
One thing I like about these movies, as well as the original on which they are based, is that it’s all a big in-joke. Watching George and Brad and Matt, you feel like you’re along for the ride but not always up to speed on what is exactly going on. Keep up as best you can and delight at the ending when everything becomes perfectly clear. Just as Frank, Dean and Sammy had a ball on set, you can tell that the cast of Thirteen are having the time of their lives. It’s slightly voyeuristic, in fact – the banter and jokes seem so real you sometimes feel like you’re watching George and Brad simply messing around. Which, with the help of Soderbergh and a budget of several million, they pretty much are. It’s fun. End of story. If you’re looking for anything else, you’ve come to the wrong movie.
There are some seriously funny moments in Thirteen. Rusty (Pitt) busting Ocean (Clooney) shedding a tear while watching Oprah. The two youngsters in the Thirteen gang nearly starting a worker’s revolution in Mexico. And when I wasn’t laughing the big laughs, I was chuckling away at the clever dialogue. I love the conversations between Clooney and Pitt – fragments of sentences, finishing each other’s thoughts. They both have superb timing and an intimacy of real friends.
Ocean’s Thirteen is an easy movie to like. Go expecting to escape reality for a couple of hours and have a giggle, and you won’t be disappointed.
--------------------
Willie Bank: “This town might have changed, but not me. I know people highly invested in my survival, and they are people who really know how to hurt in ways you can't even imagine.” Danny Ocean: “Well, I know all the guys that you'd hire to come after me, and they like me better than you.”
Dir. Steven Soderbergh
Scr. Brian Koppelman & David Levien
Ocean’s Thirteen is an entertaining movie. It’s not going to change the world or extend your horizons or make you think about life, the universe and everything. But, so what? Most people go to the movies to be entertained and this film delivers in spades.
The gang’s back. In Ocean’s Eleven, they conned Andy Garcia (and we were heartedly amused). In Ocean’s Twelve, they stole some art (and lost their way in the plot department). In Thirteen they are out to avenge one of their own (Elliott Gould’s character, who is cheated and left for dead by Willie Bank, played with relish by Al Pacino). The setting is pure Rat Pack stuff – a huge (and monstrously ugly) casino and hotel in Las Vegas. There is simply too much plot to outline here, so let’s just say Bank gets his comeuppance in a litany of clever ways, utilising some cool gadgets, a lot of smarts and buckets of luck.
One thing I like about these movies, as well as the original on which they are based, is that it’s all a big in-joke. Watching George and Brad and Matt, you feel like you’re along for the ride but not always up to speed on what is exactly going on. Keep up as best you can and delight at the ending when everything becomes perfectly clear. Just as Frank, Dean and Sammy had a ball on set, you can tell that the cast of Thirteen are having the time of their lives. It’s slightly voyeuristic, in fact – the banter and jokes seem so real you sometimes feel like you’re watching George and Brad simply messing around. Which, with the help of Soderbergh and a budget of several million, they pretty much are. It’s fun. End of story. If you’re looking for anything else, you’ve come to the wrong movie.
There are some seriously funny moments in Thirteen. Rusty (Pitt) busting Ocean (Clooney) shedding a tear while watching Oprah. The two youngsters in the Thirteen gang nearly starting a worker’s revolution in Mexico. And when I wasn’t laughing the big laughs, I was chuckling away at the clever dialogue. I love the conversations between Clooney and Pitt – fragments of sentences, finishing each other’s thoughts. They both have superb timing and an intimacy of real friends.
Ocean’s Thirteen is an easy movie to like. Go expecting to escape reality for a couple of hours and have a giggle, and you won’t be disappointed.
--------------------
Willie Bank: “This town might have changed, but not me. I know people highly invested in my survival, and they are people who really know how to hurt in ways you can't even imagine.” Danny Ocean: “Well, I know all the guys that you'd hire to come after me, and they like me better than you.”
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Bill Nighy, Chow Yun-Fat
Dir. Gore Verbinski
Scr. Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio
This review is going to be very, very short. There is no way I will even attempt to outline the convoluted and over-long plot, and no point in highlighting the good bits and bad bits (Johnny Depp = good bits, no Johnny Depp = bad bits, end of story). The first Pirates movie was entertaining – kudos to producer Jerry Bruckheimer and the genius of Depp for making pirates cool again. The problem is that’s where it should have stopped. The sequel was merely a placeholder for At World’s End. And At World’s End is, simply put, tiresome. Avoid.
--------------------
Captain Sao Feng: Jack Sparrow, you have paid me a great insult.
Jack Sparrow: That doesn't sound like me.
Dir. Gore Verbinski
Scr. Ted Elliot & Terry Rossio
This review is going to be very, very short. There is no way I will even attempt to outline the convoluted and over-long plot, and no point in highlighting the good bits and bad bits (Johnny Depp = good bits, no Johnny Depp = bad bits, end of story). The first Pirates movie was entertaining – kudos to producer Jerry Bruckheimer and the genius of Depp for making pirates cool again. The problem is that’s where it should have stopped. The sequel was merely a placeholder for At World’s End. And At World’s End is, simply put, tiresome. Avoid.
--------------------
Captain Sao Feng: Jack Sparrow, you have paid me a great insult.
Jack Sparrow: That doesn't sound like me.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Zodiac
Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jnr, Anthony Edwards, Chloe Sevingny, Brian Cox
Dir. David Fincher
Scr. James Vanderbilt
The latest from David Fincher – hands down, one of the most innovative film-makers of the last couple of decades – is not your typical David Fincher film. Which, I suppose, is the reason that Zodiac has received some pretty lukewarm reviews. But if you take the reputation of the director and separate it from this film, you’re left with a compelling, creepy and engaging piece of cinema that is well worth a viewing.
Zodiac is based on a true crime story by Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in the film) which was published in the 1990s. In a nutshell, the Zodiac Killer was a serial killer who did his thing in Northern California in the late 1960s. He coined his own name in a series of letters he sent to the press, taunting them with difficult ciphers (most of which remain unsolved) and requesting his letters were published or else more people would die. He was known to have killed five people, but took credit many others.
If you search for “zodiac killer” on the internet you’ll find that the story of the Zodiac killings are part of American folklore and have spawned many movies, books, tv shows and songs. The case is unsolved and remains open in several American jurisdictions – fantastic fodder for intriguing entertainment. This film, it is claimed, is the most thorough treatment of the killings and aftermath thus far – at over two and half hours long and spanning over four decades.
So, is it any good?
In my humble opinion, yes. And it would have been even better with 30 minutes or so shaved off it. It is overlong, and after a brilliant and extremely compelling first half, it loses its way somewhat. The difficulty is that we are introduced to several characters, who play very well off each other and we invest our energy in, and then a couple of them disappear from the action completely and the film becomes, in the last third, a one-man show. That one man (Gyllenhaal) does very well. But it’s a big adjustment for the audience to make. It is, perhaps, a pointless criticism to offer – this was simply what happened in real life – but it’s a factor that makes the last half less compelling than the first half nonetheless.
There are an abundance of characters to get your head around but they are played superbly by a brilliant cast. Gyllenhaal, the man obsessed, carries the movie until the end very well. Downey Jnr is on fine form playing a slightly unhinged and drug addicted investigative reporter and shows again that his comic timing is genius. Ruffalo and Edwards are both excellent as the cops assigned to the case. There is an array of fine actors with small but important roles and I cannot fault the acting in any way.
One of the main criticisms of this film is that there’s no punch to the ending. Fincher fans, for example, will expect that unforeseen twist he is so brilliant at delivering. But don’t expect it. And, instead, enjoy the punches and twists you get along the way. Enjoy the way lives are continually taken over by the obsession with this unsolved mystery. Enjoy being emotionally unsettled and intellectually stimulated. Enjoy several brilliant scenes which frighten or amuse or leave you gasping. There is one line (you’ll know it when it’s uttered) that sent a chill throughout my entire body and still makes me shiver slightly when I think about it days later.
If this movie appears incomplete, it’s because, by the very nature of the case it is following, it is. But it was, for me, somewhat refreshing for a Hollywood film not to be tied up neatly at the end. The pay off for the viewer is the attention to detail, the characters, and the creepiness. Don’t wait for the BIG ending – be patient and savour the many brilliant moments when they come along.
-------------------------
Robert: I just want to help.
Ken: What are you, some kind of boy scout?
Robert: Eagle Scout, actually... First class.
Dir. David Fincher
Scr. James Vanderbilt
The latest from David Fincher – hands down, one of the most innovative film-makers of the last couple of decades – is not your typical David Fincher film. Which, I suppose, is the reason that Zodiac has received some pretty lukewarm reviews. But if you take the reputation of the director and separate it from this film, you’re left with a compelling, creepy and engaging piece of cinema that is well worth a viewing.
Zodiac is based on a true crime story by Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in the film) which was published in the 1990s. In a nutshell, the Zodiac Killer was a serial killer who did his thing in Northern California in the late 1960s. He coined his own name in a series of letters he sent to the press, taunting them with difficult ciphers (most of which remain unsolved) and requesting his letters were published or else more people would die. He was known to have killed five people, but took credit many others.
If you search for “zodiac killer” on the internet you’ll find that the story of the Zodiac killings are part of American folklore and have spawned many movies, books, tv shows and songs. The case is unsolved and remains open in several American jurisdictions – fantastic fodder for intriguing entertainment. This film, it is claimed, is the most thorough treatment of the killings and aftermath thus far – at over two and half hours long and spanning over four decades.
So, is it any good?
In my humble opinion, yes. And it would have been even better with 30 minutes or so shaved off it. It is overlong, and after a brilliant and extremely compelling first half, it loses its way somewhat. The difficulty is that we are introduced to several characters, who play very well off each other and we invest our energy in, and then a couple of them disappear from the action completely and the film becomes, in the last third, a one-man show. That one man (Gyllenhaal) does very well. But it’s a big adjustment for the audience to make. It is, perhaps, a pointless criticism to offer – this was simply what happened in real life – but it’s a factor that makes the last half less compelling than the first half nonetheless.
There are an abundance of characters to get your head around but they are played superbly by a brilliant cast. Gyllenhaal, the man obsessed, carries the movie until the end very well. Downey Jnr is on fine form playing a slightly unhinged and drug addicted investigative reporter and shows again that his comic timing is genius. Ruffalo and Edwards are both excellent as the cops assigned to the case. There is an array of fine actors with small but important roles and I cannot fault the acting in any way.
One of the main criticisms of this film is that there’s no punch to the ending. Fincher fans, for example, will expect that unforeseen twist he is so brilliant at delivering. But don’t expect it. And, instead, enjoy the punches and twists you get along the way. Enjoy the way lives are continually taken over by the obsession with this unsolved mystery. Enjoy being emotionally unsettled and intellectually stimulated. Enjoy several brilliant scenes which frighten or amuse or leave you gasping. There is one line (you’ll know it when it’s uttered) that sent a chill throughout my entire body and still makes me shiver slightly when I think about it days later.
If this movie appears incomplete, it’s because, by the very nature of the case it is following, it is. But it was, for me, somewhat refreshing for a Hollywood film not to be tied up neatly at the end. The pay off for the viewer is the attention to detail, the characters, and the creepiness. Don’t wait for the BIG ending – be patient and savour the many brilliant moments when they come along.
-------------------------
Robert: I just want to help.
Ken: What are you, some kind of boy scout?
Robert: Eagle Scout, actually... First class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)