Ok, I have to admit that this is a well made film, that the story is pretty unconventional and that Ms Jolie is pretty splendid. Clint Eastwood directed, you couldn't go very wrong with a film so imbued with class and professionalism. Unfortunately, it's just a bit too much for me. A little too emotional and far too perfect.
Jolie plays a mother who dotes on her son. A 'regular' mum working hard to support herself and her child in a world unsympathetic to lone women trying to make their way through life. We see how hard she works and how compromise to continue working leads to the terrible disappearance of her boy. Jolie's acting lends an immediate sense of desperation to the movie whilst the police and media do their best, at first, to support her. As the flip-side of the story unfolds, we also see the police's desperation to find her son. When they can't find an immediate solution, they provide her with another boy and pressurise her to accept him as her own. When she refuses, both the police then the media ridicule and finally incarcerate her.
Jolie's most successful scenes, for me, are those whilst she is locked away, primarily because they are reminiscent of her earlier work in the brilliant film 'Girl, Interrupted' where she displayed magnificent tenderness mixed with violent desperation, as she does here. The shocking realisation that society used to treat women who spoke out, caused trouble or who were forced to prostitute themselves as mental-cases and whom they locked up indefinitely was the most important message within the film for me.
As the film progresses it is shocking to discover the number of disappeared children but worse is yet to come when we discover where they all ended up. The story does seem, on the surface, to follow the story of Jolie, the mother, and the problems she faces but ultimately it's a rather good study of society and how the media is used to re-write the truth. I really liked the seemingly honest portrayal of the women of the time, how their 'nature' is held up to be their weakness yet in turn how they hold families together. By the end of the film, although truly shocking on many levels, the fate of the children seems almost secondary to the elements of police manipulation, societal bigotry and the decent into 'modern' life.
Eastwood really is a magnificent director, cool, calm and observant. Jolie though didn't quite fit the role for me although she is a great crier and does 'hysterical' almost better than anyone in Hollywood. A little wooden though except, as mentioned, when locked up. Not sure what that says about Ms Jolie, though.
A recommended film but be prepared to blub AND to hid behind the proverbial pillow.
Viewed: 26th November 2008
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Easy Virtue ~~~
12th November 2008
Very briefly, this was a rather successful, post WW1, mixed up aristo family in a big, old country house trying to get through life, poor us, Noel Coward based rom-com with a twist flick.
Excellent cast included Colin Firth (the Dad), Kristin Scott Thomas (the Mum) and a ravishing Jessica Biel (the Easy Virtue?) The story is very simple; boy meets girl, they fall in love, get married, go back to see his family in their country pile and all hell breaks loose. Unfortunately for Biel's character, the family, specifically the mother and daughters', don't take very kindly to an older, beautiful, divorced American bride setting foot in the ancestral home presumably to drink their heir-to-be, dry of his inheritance. It's bitch, bitch here and bitch, bitch there. Part-farce, part-British drama it's certainly a film with it's fingers in many pies.
I'm not sure whether it was Coward's or the film makers' intention to create a real mish-mash of a story or whether it just all gets a little bit mixed up as it goes along. It jumps from the innocent murder of mother's annoying rat-dog by Biel (too much of a set up and pretty embarrassing), to set-piece dance routines to incredibly touching scenes about the father who returned from war a broken man - I just had too many emotions fighting to get out all at once and that was pretty unsatisfactory really.
Everyone was very good in their parts, the casting was spot on. The lead actor, Ben Barnes has a marvellous singing voice whilst Biel was magnif on the dance floor. It must be said, I'd never seen Miss Biel on screen before (just in trashy magazines) but was very impressed. Gorgeous but human. Good start. Scott Thomas played the irrational, fraught but sympathetic mother losing her estate and family spot on. Mr Firth was great. His role here reminded me of the wonderful part he played in 'A Month in the Country'; war-ravaged and broken.
What I do have to complain about was the score. It might have sounded like a good idea at the time, but with such a well dressed set, why confuse the audience with a jazzy, mock-20's rendition of 'Car Wash'? It wasn't even relevant to the scene at the time.... The band making the music was great but the aged renditions of modern tunes just, excuse me, sucked. If they release it on DVD, any chance I could have the option of another soundtrack? Far too distracting to make a positive contribution to an otherwise entertaining and well realised period comedy. Overall though, I'm still glad the BBC is making flicks.
Very briefly, this was a rather successful, post WW1, mixed up aristo family in a big, old country house trying to get through life, poor us, Noel Coward based rom-com with a twist flick.
Excellent cast included Colin Firth (the Dad), Kristin Scott Thomas (the Mum) and a ravishing Jessica Biel (the Easy Virtue?) The story is very simple; boy meets girl, they fall in love, get married, go back to see his family in their country pile and all hell breaks loose. Unfortunately for Biel's character, the family, specifically the mother and daughters', don't take very kindly to an older, beautiful, divorced American bride setting foot in the ancestral home presumably to drink their heir-to-be, dry of his inheritance. It's bitch, bitch here and bitch, bitch there. Part-farce, part-British drama it's certainly a film with it's fingers in many pies.
I'm not sure whether it was Coward's or the film makers' intention to create a real mish-mash of a story or whether it just all gets a little bit mixed up as it goes along. It jumps from the innocent murder of mother's annoying rat-dog by Biel (too much of a set up and pretty embarrassing), to set-piece dance routines to incredibly touching scenes about the father who returned from war a broken man - I just had too many emotions fighting to get out all at once and that was pretty unsatisfactory really.
Everyone was very good in their parts, the casting was spot on. The lead actor, Ben Barnes has a marvellous singing voice whilst Biel was magnif on the dance floor. It must be said, I'd never seen Miss Biel on screen before (just in trashy magazines) but was very impressed. Gorgeous but human. Good start. Scott Thomas played the irrational, fraught but sympathetic mother losing her estate and family spot on. Mr Firth was great. His role here reminded me of the wonderful part he played in 'A Month in the Country'; war-ravaged and broken.
What I do have to complain about was the score. It might have sounded like a good idea at the time, but with such a well dressed set, why confuse the audience with a jazzy, mock-20's rendition of 'Car Wash'? It wasn't even relevant to the scene at the time.... The band making the music was great but the aged renditions of modern tunes just, excuse me, sucked. If they release it on DVD, any chance I could have the option of another soundtrack? Far too distracting to make a positive contribution to an otherwise entertaining and well realised period comedy. Overall though, I'm still glad the BBC is making flicks.
Quantum of Solace ~~~
5th November 2008
Dear Lord. Please say it isn't so. Can it be...? 'Bourne Spawn 2'????
I don't mean it really. Or do I? It's very difficult to judge fairly any new action/thriller flick, let alone a new Bond film, in the light of the recent and pretty remarkable Bourne films'. But try I will.
I think it's easier to say what was disappointing about this film rather than what was good. Don't get me wrong, Daniel Craig is the best Bond since... (I'd rather not commit myself) I love watching him get all hot and bothered, going off on a mission to help the wonderfully played 'M'. Judy Dench is immensely watchable, as always, although here, not on screen as long as she should have been. And neither was Gemma Arterton, token Brit Bond babe. Shame.
The baddie (I can't even be bothered to go into it...) was ok. Slightly slimy and rather a lot creepy but nevertheless just a cliche bad guy. And the plot. Who cares? Just bear in mind that Bond is very pissed that his lovely Vespa (from the 'first' Bond) is dead and that he wants to kill lots of baddies and blow up as many cars as he can. What we can't decide from the off-set is whether James is on the edge or indeed just kickin' back and making the most of his no rules job?
The locations are gorgeous and the set-piece stunts are pretty amazing. There's a pretty unique, hidden in the shadows, Bond-hunts-baddies scene set in an awe inspiring opera watching theatre. I think that must have been the highlight, action-wise.
All Bond films, henceforth, have rather a lot to live up to with regards to 'Casino Royale' and aforementioned 'Bourne's. I think they need to re-focus on the script in the future. This film suffered from an appalling lack of imagination, flare or even, as often is expected, flirty, sexual tension. The main actress, Olga Kurylenko, tried her best to be a new-age feminist B-Girl but just wasn't given the script to succeed. Dench was the best Bond girl, by far. As for Craig, I hope he sticks with Bond for a while. He really injects something rather special into the films, even in this Bond outing which for me, gave no quantum of solace whatsoever. (Whatever the title means, anyway!)
Dear Lord. Please say it isn't so. Can it be...? 'Bourne Spawn 2'????
I don't mean it really. Or do I? It's very difficult to judge fairly any new action/thriller flick, let alone a new Bond film, in the light of the recent and pretty remarkable Bourne films'. But try I will.
I think it's easier to say what was disappointing about this film rather than what was good. Don't get me wrong, Daniel Craig is the best Bond since... (I'd rather not commit myself) I love watching him get all hot and bothered, going off on a mission to help the wonderfully played 'M'. Judy Dench is immensely watchable, as always, although here, not on screen as long as she should have been. And neither was Gemma Arterton, token Brit Bond babe. Shame.
The baddie (I can't even be bothered to go into it...) was ok. Slightly slimy and rather a lot creepy but nevertheless just a cliche bad guy. And the plot. Who cares? Just bear in mind that Bond is very pissed that his lovely Vespa (from the 'first' Bond) is dead and that he wants to kill lots of baddies and blow up as many cars as he can. What we can't decide from the off-set is whether James is on the edge or indeed just kickin' back and making the most of his no rules job?
The locations are gorgeous and the set-piece stunts are pretty amazing. There's a pretty unique, hidden in the shadows, Bond-hunts-baddies scene set in an awe inspiring opera watching theatre. I think that must have been the highlight, action-wise.
All Bond films, henceforth, have rather a lot to live up to with regards to 'Casino Royale' and aforementioned 'Bourne's. I think they need to re-focus on the script in the future. This film suffered from an appalling lack of imagination, flare or even, as often is expected, flirty, sexual tension. The main actress, Olga Kurylenko, tried her best to be a new-age feminist B-Girl but just wasn't given the script to succeed. Dench was the best Bond girl, by far. As for Craig, I hope he sticks with Bond for a while. He really injects something rather special into the films, even in this Bond outing which for me, gave no quantum of solace whatsoever. (Whatever the title means, anyway!)
Ghost Town ~~~
29th October 2008
A highly admirable, gentle comedy with a twist starring Brit comedy actor du jour Ricky Gervais, Greg Kinnear and Tea Leoni. Great supporting cast too, must be noted.
So, miserable git, the dentist who's a Brit, Gervais hates life. Hates people, hates most things. He plods through life without reason or rhyme. Enter Kinnear, but with a twist. I can't bring myself to divulge the story to ruin the plot but I might add, although nicely paced (slow and observant), well scripted and intelligently revealed overall, and even though I did leave the cinema thinking 'Oh, that was a nice film', something was lacking. In retrospect it might have been I left feeling the novelty of the story-line petered out in the end and that the team just didn't know whether to embrace what they'd started with.
I had no expectations of either the plot or how Gervais might fare on the big screen. I'm used to seeing him on telly in his half hour slots and as wonderful as 'The Office' is (I advise watching his stand up also) I was unsure as to how I'd take to an hour and a bits worth of 'really big Ricky'! Actually, it wasn't that bad. He manages to lure you into his character's sad little world and actually makes you care what happens to him. Ricky in a Rom-com, well I never! But it actually works. A bizarre accident changes his outlook on life and thus we join him on his journey from miserable git to the dentist who embraces both life and love.
It's all very life affirming stuff. Very believable (unbelievably!) and very sweet. The humour is pitched just right and I think Gervais' input into the script had great impact on this Brit reviewer's reaction to the film and its humour. The supporting cast and their histories are developed and presented very subtly and to great effect. Kinnear and Leoni were great but greatly overshadowed by Gervais, two hospital staff and his fellow dentist colleague.
I'm very glad to seen this film - I certainly wasn't disappointed. Unusual plot but not too over done. If anything, more could have been made of the McGuffin supporting cast.
This would make a great Sunday afternoon film that the whole family could watch. Congrats to the whole team who made this.
A highly admirable, gentle comedy with a twist starring Brit comedy actor du jour Ricky Gervais, Greg Kinnear and Tea Leoni. Great supporting cast too, must be noted.
So, miserable git, the dentist who's a Brit, Gervais hates life. Hates people, hates most things. He plods through life without reason or rhyme. Enter Kinnear, but with a twist. I can't bring myself to divulge the story to ruin the plot but I might add, although nicely paced (slow and observant), well scripted and intelligently revealed overall, and even though I did leave the cinema thinking 'Oh, that was a nice film', something was lacking. In retrospect it might have been I left feeling the novelty of the story-line petered out in the end and that the team just didn't know whether to embrace what they'd started with.
I had no expectations of either the plot or how Gervais might fare on the big screen. I'm used to seeing him on telly in his half hour slots and as wonderful as 'The Office' is (I advise watching his stand up also) I was unsure as to how I'd take to an hour and a bits worth of 'really big Ricky'! Actually, it wasn't that bad. He manages to lure you into his character's sad little world and actually makes you care what happens to him. Ricky in a Rom-com, well I never! But it actually works. A bizarre accident changes his outlook on life and thus we join him on his journey from miserable git to the dentist who embraces both life and love.
It's all very life affirming stuff. Very believable (unbelievably!) and very sweet. The humour is pitched just right and I think Gervais' input into the script had great impact on this Brit reviewer's reaction to the film and its humour. The supporting cast and their histories are developed and presented very subtly and to great effect. Kinnear and Leoni were great but greatly overshadowed by Gervais, two hospital staff and his fellow dentist colleague.
I'm very glad to seen this film - I certainly wasn't disappointed. Unusual plot but not too over done. If anything, more could have been made of the McGuffin supporting cast.
This would make a great Sunday afternoon film that the whole family could watch. Congrats to the whole team who made this.
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
Burn After Reading ~~
I believe in the Coen brothers. I have faith in their story-telling abilities and I absolutely subscribe to the notion that they know what they’re doing. But. And help me our here, especially if I’m wrong – what the frig was going on in this film???
‘Burn After Reading’. I saw the trailers, every version of them, and that may have been the problem. I think I’d already seen the film by the time I took my seat in the cinema. How could something with so many ‘right’ elements go so preposterously wrong?
Let’s begin with the ‘right’s’ – Coen brothers written and directed. Check. Interesting storyline about ordinary folk interacting with each other and the American Government. Check, again. Stellar cast – George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Bradley Pitt, Tilda Swinton, John Malkovich and JK Simmons. It’s all there, as it should be and yet, for me nothing really worked.
I really don’t want to give the plot away (plot!!! Let me know if you can find one…) but suffice it to say that the ensemble cast grimace and gurn their way through the ‘story’ to no avail. Frances wants a new body, Brad wants an adventure, George wants a shag (or two…), Tilda wants a divorce, John wants revenge and JK Simmons is left with having to clear up the mess these folk make.
I get the impression the film was meant to play like a farce but I still can’t be sure due to the lack of comedy. Frances was clearly left lacking in the script department (shame on Mr McDormand…) because the amount of face pulling throughout the film was in a league of its own. Brad’s character – bozo gym-bunny with magnificently crap hair ended up being slightly mind boggling. I truly didn’t get his motivation for becoming involved with the espionage scam other than believing the financial rewards would be as great as the adventure. (Losing his bike makes him sad, motivating enough I think!!??!!) A guy like that would never help a gal like Frances attain a new body via plastic surgery? Or would he? May be I missed the point of the quest for body-perfect? Anyway, the gym setting for part of the film was rather interesting purely for reasons of originality.
As for the non-gym bunny characters’ – what was there to like? George was a carousing git (yuck to the heavy gold chain and ‘Dad jeans’) out to find women to test his rather unusual ‘exercising chair’ home-build. Tilda was the ice-queen, bitch doctor boinking George (that would never happen, the character was far too bright to be off with this sad-sack) whilst John was just drunk and mad. If anything, I felt sorry for him! Stuck in this nest of self-obsessed, sex-obsessed nincompoops. I realise all the characters in the film were striving for change; divorce, new career, new body, but frankly I didn’t give a damn because I didn’t like any of them.
Yes, I do get the over-riding themes of paranoia and control. I understand the almost lost comments on Government, Agency, surveillance and secrets. Unfortunately, it just wasn’t presented clearly enough. It was all lost underneath the faux-farce. Heck, I live in the UK, CCTV capital of the world. We are being watched, for better or worse, and maybe we should freak out about it but shooting someone in the face won’t get you anywhere!
More than anything, the casting against type really peed me off. I could stomach John Malkovich as the ex-CIA guy seeking revenge. He plays angry very well. Everyone one else looked like they were having fun but at my expense. Perhaps I’m wrong. I know George C. likes to play ‘ugly’ characters, but this ugly? Mr Pitt was exploring the saner side of his ‘Twelve Monkey’s’ character – jitter much? And Tilda is great at ‘ice’, but lack of character depth (I’m pointing the finger at the script here) let it all down.
The saving grace of the whole film, for me, was JK Simmons as the Agency guy looking down on the mess the ensemble has created. With just a few dismissive lines, he made me laugh, something which I’d been waiting for the entire movie. The idea that ‘zany’ people do unintelligible things is acceptable and the idea that these things are unfathomable and might be swept under the carpet for want of understanding does not surprise me at all.
I’d built my hopes up so much for this movie, after the dearth of decent films over the summer, that perhaps it was my own fault that I didn’t really enjoy it as much as I could have done. I felt barely entertained throughout and guessed the outcome a third of the way through. But saying that, bar ‘No Country for Old Men’, and the fact that ‘Fargo’ took about a decade to really infect and thrill me, all the previous Coen films have really failed to impress me as much as they should have done. I expect so much from the Coen’s that perhaps I’ve scuppered myself before a film even begins. Never mind, ‘No County’ will keep me going for quite a while (see review earlier) and besides, I’m happy to wait for their next. Keep the faith. Parting words on ‘Burn After Reading’, please burn after viewing. (I may, I say ‘may’, just give this another go. I could, after all, be a wrong and misguided fool!) I wanted to believe what I was seeing, I wanted to care about the characters. I’m an absolute ‘spy’ and thriller film nut, in their many guises but, with reference to ‘Burn After Reading’, as William Shatner once ‘sang’, “I just can’t get behind that!”
‘Burn After Reading’. I saw the trailers, every version of them, and that may have been the problem. I think I’d already seen the film by the time I took my seat in the cinema. How could something with so many ‘right’ elements go so preposterously wrong?
Let’s begin with the ‘right’s’ – Coen brothers written and directed. Check. Interesting storyline about ordinary folk interacting with each other and the American Government. Check, again. Stellar cast – George Clooney, Frances McDormand, Bradley Pitt, Tilda Swinton, John Malkovich and JK Simmons. It’s all there, as it should be and yet, for me nothing really worked.
I really don’t want to give the plot away (plot!!! Let me know if you can find one…) but suffice it to say that the ensemble cast grimace and gurn their way through the ‘story’ to no avail. Frances wants a new body, Brad wants an adventure, George wants a shag (or two…), Tilda wants a divorce, John wants revenge and JK Simmons is left with having to clear up the mess these folk make.
I get the impression the film was meant to play like a farce but I still can’t be sure due to the lack of comedy. Frances was clearly left lacking in the script department (shame on Mr McDormand…) because the amount of face pulling throughout the film was in a league of its own. Brad’s character – bozo gym-bunny with magnificently crap hair ended up being slightly mind boggling. I truly didn’t get his motivation for becoming involved with the espionage scam other than believing the financial rewards would be as great as the adventure. (Losing his bike makes him sad, motivating enough I think!!??!!) A guy like that would never help a gal like Frances attain a new body via plastic surgery? Or would he? May be I missed the point of the quest for body-perfect? Anyway, the gym setting for part of the film was rather interesting purely for reasons of originality.
As for the non-gym bunny characters’ – what was there to like? George was a carousing git (yuck to the heavy gold chain and ‘Dad jeans’) out to find women to test his rather unusual ‘exercising chair’ home-build. Tilda was the ice-queen, bitch doctor boinking George (that would never happen, the character was far too bright to be off with this sad-sack) whilst John was just drunk and mad. If anything, I felt sorry for him! Stuck in this nest of self-obsessed, sex-obsessed nincompoops. I realise all the characters in the film were striving for change; divorce, new career, new body, but frankly I didn’t give a damn because I didn’t like any of them.
Yes, I do get the over-riding themes of paranoia and control. I understand the almost lost comments on Government, Agency, surveillance and secrets. Unfortunately, it just wasn’t presented clearly enough. It was all lost underneath the faux-farce. Heck, I live in the UK, CCTV capital of the world. We are being watched, for better or worse, and maybe we should freak out about it but shooting someone in the face won’t get you anywhere!
More than anything, the casting against type really peed me off. I could stomach John Malkovich as the ex-CIA guy seeking revenge. He plays angry very well. Everyone one else looked like they were having fun but at my expense. Perhaps I’m wrong. I know George C. likes to play ‘ugly’ characters, but this ugly? Mr Pitt was exploring the saner side of his ‘Twelve Monkey’s’ character – jitter much? And Tilda is great at ‘ice’, but lack of character depth (I’m pointing the finger at the script here) let it all down.
The saving grace of the whole film, for me, was JK Simmons as the Agency guy looking down on the mess the ensemble has created. With just a few dismissive lines, he made me laugh, something which I’d been waiting for the entire movie. The idea that ‘zany’ people do unintelligible things is acceptable and the idea that these things are unfathomable and might be swept under the carpet for want of understanding does not surprise me at all.
I’d built my hopes up so much for this movie, after the dearth of decent films over the summer, that perhaps it was my own fault that I didn’t really enjoy it as much as I could have done. I felt barely entertained throughout and guessed the outcome a third of the way through. But saying that, bar ‘No Country for Old Men’, and the fact that ‘Fargo’ took about a decade to really infect and thrill me, all the previous Coen films have really failed to impress me as much as they should have done. I expect so much from the Coen’s that perhaps I’ve scuppered myself before a film even begins. Never mind, ‘No County’ will keep me going for quite a while (see review earlier) and besides, I’m happy to wait for their next. Keep the faith. Parting words on ‘Burn After Reading’, please burn after viewing. (I may, I say ‘may’, just give this another go. I could, after all, be a wrong and misguided fool!) I wanted to believe what I was seeing, I wanted to care about the characters. I’m an absolute ‘spy’ and thriller film nut, in their many guises but, with reference to ‘Burn After Reading’, as William Shatner once ‘sang’, “I just can’t get behind that!”
Sunday, 19 October 2008
Tropic Thunder ~~~
1st October 2008
What can be said about a film which drops a bunch of prima-donna, drugged up, failing actors into the jungles of Northern Thailand under the misapprehension that they are being secretly filmed with the hope of producing the best Vietnam movie in history? No-one can argue the premise isn’t a good one.
The film begins with mock film trailers of the latest hits and misses of the actors involved in the latest production of a Vietnam War movie. Ben Stiller is Tugg Speedman a failing actor having recently portrayed an action hero and magnificently cruel version of a Forrest Gump-like character on screen. Ben Stiller also directed and co-wrote the film with the equally as talented Justin Theroux. Hats off to Mr Ben et al. Robert Downey Jr, without doubt relishing his role in this film, is showed as having previously portrayed a confused monk in what looks like a ‘The Name of the Rose’ piss take with Tobey McGuire making a cameo appearance as the other monk with whom he shares a rosary bead fondling moment. As Kirk Lazarus, an award winning ‘method’ actor, he’s great but can it be argued that he crosses a very politically ambiguous line when he undergoes an op to ‘black’ himself up for the new role?
His fellow actors on set spend much of their time reminding him that he isn’t a black guy and is thus disentitled to feel slighted when his ‘brothers’ are dissed etc. I’m not sure how to feel about that one but I think the issue of certain actors stepping into certain characters shoes unnecessarily is a valid point to be raised. At least here it’s done tongue in cheek and with real relish! Finally, of note is Jack Black’s strung out, drugged up, washed up ‘comedy’ actor Jeff Portnoy. His mock trailer shows a none too subtle version of an Eddie Murphy ‘chuckler’ in the form of an overweight, fart addicted family sitting around a dinner table making rude noises but later cuts to the actor behaving badly in red carpet interviews. He is indeed a vile character and one which I am sure the writers thought they had a handle on. I could really have done without both Jack Black and his sweaty, useless, moaning dusted up thespian. I do believe that the writers have first hand evidence of all of these peculiar ‘actors’ in the real Hollywood and I’m sure there’s worse out there but I’m not sure if I really needed the satirical energy wasted on them.
Nevertheless, the film moves at quite a pace and the scenes in the jungle are well filmed. The group, led by Brit Steve Coogan as idiotic director of mayhem, find themselves behind real enemy lines without their knowledge. Believing themselves to be completing the film with real ‘method’ acting, they stumble across a vicious band of locals and, as you can imagine, spend the rest of the film trying to escape capture. Little do they know that the plan has already gone wrong and the ‘baddies’ are really trying to get them rather than being the extras on the film set guiding them to the conclusion of the movie. It’s like a film within a film within a film. Go figure. We, at least, are in on the ‘joke’. Nick Nolte plays a Vietnam vet on set to keep the crew true to his original book of his ‘real life’ jungle escapades. Even this is an illusion. And I think that’s what the main point of the film is – that Hollywood, the actors, even the films themselves are really all illusion. Tugg’s agent played enthusiastically by Matthew McConaughey is used to show how fickle the movie world is. Surrounded in his office with old Tugg memorabilia, he fights for his client’s right to have Tivo in his on set trailer despite bigger issues coming to light. Also adding to the notion that the movie world is fake, merely a manipulated and constructed world by those with the power, is the addition of the all powerful and totally egoistical character of Les Grossman, the studio boss. What he says goes. And whilst I would love to tell you who’s playing this greasy and repugnant character, I’ll let you work that out for yourselves. But fair play to him for letting loose. Usually less is more but in this case more is not nearly enough!
Cutting to the chase, the film spirals a little out of control once the set piece of the gang trying to rescue of one of the actors begins. Bombs, fire, explosions etc. Too much. Tugg gets lost in his ‘method’ and turns out to be able to produce a spot on Marlon Brando in the jungle from ‘Apocalypse Now’ impression. Blink and you’ll miss it. There are many and various send ups of a whole barrel full of well know and possibly well disliked characters and industry people. Did the ‘industry’ laugh in spite of itself with this one? Who knows what insider bitching goes on in the wonderful world of the movies?
Moving on, the film kept me giggling throughout but I rather hoped I’d be laughed out loud. Downey Jr rarely disappoints me but in this, although appreciating his sense of humour and daring on taking on what could have been such a controversial role, wasn’t really too nuanced to cause any real damage. The real black actor within the film could have been given a few more lines. The character of Alpa Chino, played wonderfully by Brandon T Jackson, had to take a lot of shit from the character of Downey Jr. If he hadn’t been such a great actor, might it have turned out a little sour?
The film within a film within a film is a great concept (although Shakespeare beat them to it by several hundred years as I am sure many others had done so before all around the world) but it didn’t all work quite as it should. It was a little too frenetic in parts and descended into madness too soon. The characters interacted very well with each other but the story needn’t have been so complicated. Jack Black didn’t need to be in it. At all. Sorry but his character was just an over indulgent side-track. For a spoof the jungle scenes and action shots were very well done as was the detail of being on set with all the crew and cast members. The writers have certainly had their experiences of the movies first hand. Had this film been edited a little more judiciously, it may have been funnier for it. I did enjoy many aspects but some parts were a little too well observed – Tugg’s impossibly mentally challenged ‘Forrest’ being one. Too cruel by far!
Anyway, if you have a couple of hours to spare and you know the difference between right and wrong but have no problem in seeing them merge and swop places occasionally, please do give this flick a go. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
What can be said about a film which drops a bunch of prima-donna, drugged up, failing actors into the jungles of Northern Thailand under the misapprehension that they are being secretly filmed with the hope of producing the best Vietnam movie in history? No-one can argue the premise isn’t a good one.
The film begins with mock film trailers of the latest hits and misses of the actors involved in the latest production of a Vietnam War movie. Ben Stiller is Tugg Speedman a failing actor having recently portrayed an action hero and magnificently cruel version of a Forrest Gump-like character on screen. Ben Stiller also directed and co-wrote the film with the equally as talented Justin Theroux. Hats off to Mr Ben et al. Robert Downey Jr, without doubt relishing his role in this film, is showed as having previously portrayed a confused monk in what looks like a ‘The Name of the Rose’ piss take with Tobey McGuire making a cameo appearance as the other monk with whom he shares a rosary bead fondling moment. As Kirk Lazarus, an award winning ‘method’ actor, he’s great but can it be argued that he crosses a very politically ambiguous line when he undergoes an op to ‘black’ himself up for the new role?
His fellow actors on set spend much of their time reminding him that he isn’t a black guy and is thus disentitled to feel slighted when his ‘brothers’ are dissed etc. I’m not sure how to feel about that one but I think the issue of certain actors stepping into certain characters shoes unnecessarily is a valid point to be raised. At least here it’s done tongue in cheek and with real relish! Finally, of note is Jack Black’s strung out, drugged up, washed up ‘comedy’ actor Jeff Portnoy. His mock trailer shows a none too subtle version of an Eddie Murphy ‘chuckler’ in the form of an overweight, fart addicted family sitting around a dinner table making rude noises but later cuts to the actor behaving badly in red carpet interviews. He is indeed a vile character and one which I am sure the writers thought they had a handle on. I could really have done without both Jack Black and his sweaty, useless, moaning dusted up thespian. I do believe that the writers have first hand evidence of all of these peculiar ‘actors’ in the real Hollywood and I’m sure there’s worse out there but I’m not sure if I really needed the satirical energy wasted on them.
Nevertheless, the film moves at quite a pace and the scenes in the jungle are well filmed. The group, led by Brit Steve Coogan as idiotic director of mayhem, find themselves behind real enemy lines without their knowledge. Believing themselves to be completing the film with real ‘method’ acting, they stumble across a vicious band of locals and, as you can imagine, spend the rest of the film trying to escape capture. Little do they know that the plan has already gone wrong and the ‘baddies’ are really trying to get them rather than being the extras on the film set guiding them to the conclusion of the movie. It’s like a film within a film within a film. Go figure. We, at least, are in on the ‘joke’. Nick Nolte plays a Vietnam vet on set to keep the crew true to his original book of his ‘real life’ jungle escapades. Even this is an illusion. And I think that’s what the main point of the film is – that Hollywood, the actors, even the films themselves are really all illusion. Tugg’s agent played enthusiastically by Matthew McConaughey is used to show how fickle the movie world is. Surrounded in his office with old Tugg memorabilia, he fights for his client’s right to have Tivo in his on set trailer despite bigger issues coming to light. Also adding to the notion that the movie world is fake, merely a manipulated and constructed world by those with the power, is the addition of the all powerful and totally egoistical character of Les Grossman, the studio boss. What he says goes. And whilst I would love to tell you who’s playing this greasy and repugnant character, I’ll let you work that out for yourselves. But fair play to him for letting loose. Usually less is more but in this case more is not nearly enough!
Cutting to the chase, the film spirals a little out of control once the set piece of the gang trying to rescue of one of the actors begins. Bombs, fire, explosions etc. Too much. Tugg gets lost in his ‘method’ and turns out to be able to produce a spot on Marlon Brando in the jungle from ‘Apocalypse Now’ impression. Blink and you’ll miss it. There are many and various send ups of a whole barrel full of well know and possibly well disliked characters and industry people. Did the ‘industry’ laugh in spite of itself with this one? Who knows what insider bitching goes on in the wonderful world of the movies?
Moving on, the film kept me giggling throughout but I rather hoped I’d be laughed out loud. Downey Jr rarely disappoints me but in this, although appreciating his sense of humour and daring on taking on what could have been such a controversial role, wasn’t really too nuanced to cause any real damage. The real black actor within the film could have been given a few more lines. The character of Alpa Chino, played wonderfully by Brandon T Jackson, had to take a lot of shit from the character of Downey Jr. If he hadn’t been such a great actor, might it have turned out a little sour?
The film within a film within a film is a great concept (although Shakespeare beat them to it by several hundred years as I am sure many others had done so before all around the world) but it didn’t all work quite as it should. It was a little too frenetic in parts and descended into madness too soon. The characters interacted very well with each other but the story needn’t have been so complicated. Jack Black didn’t need to be in it. At all. Sorry but his character was just an over indulgent side-track. For a spoof the jungle scenes and action shots were very well done as was the detail of being on set with all the crew and cast members. The writers have certainly had their experiences of the movies first hand. Had this film been edited a little more judiciously, it may have been funnier for it. I did enjoy many aspects but some parts were a little too well observed – Tugg’s impossibly mentally challenged ‘Forrest’ being one. Too cruel by far!
Anyway, if you have a couple of hours to spare and you know the difference between right and wrong but have no problem in seeing them merge and swop places occasionally, please do give this flick a go. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Pineapple Express ~~ & a bit
24th September 2008
Ok. This is going to be quick. This is a nice little ‘stoner’ movie. Not as good as any of the ‘Cheech and Chong’ films of the 1970’s but still, I’m amazed that drugs are allowed such coverage even today. This is a mainstream movie and kids are going to see it. Nevertheless, it’s an entertaining if incredibly ‘light’ piece of entertainment.
Story goes – man meets with friendly local drug dealer, gets stoned on rare but potent Pineapple Express strain of grass, witnesses a murder amongst the warring drug barons, is identified and goes on the run with aforementioned buddy drug dealer. Seth Rogan is the stoner and James Franco is the dealer. The greatest fun comes from the pair padding around their living room talking utter crap. The nuances of a drug den are pretty spot on. (Don’t ask – this is what I imagine.) Their increasingly paranoid, indulgent chit-chat is very funny. Obsessing over the computer printer and such like. Very silly stuff but that’s what drugs do to your brain. So I am told. For me, it goes a bit wrong when the violence breaks out with the ensuing drug barons etc. It wasn’t necessary. I liked seeing the two bone-heads wrestle with the notion of being lost in the woods or evading the cops. You might have seen the trailer where Franco attempts to kick the windscreen out of his car but instead puts his foot through the glass and gets it stuck. That’s as good as it gets really.
Seth Rogan co-wrote this little piece and perhaps I’m granting him too much intelligence when I say I’m sure it didn’t take long to jot down the entire piece and should therefore be able to produce far better material. Marked down for effort Roth. Franco, on the other hand, made the film for me. Sure he’s cute but I’ve never seen any one grin their entire way through a part. I did end up wondering whether he was being passed a doobie or two on set. No, I am sure he’s just that good an actor. The character who I took an enormous amount of time to warm up to was the double crossing character of Red played by Danny R McBride. The film comes to life a bit more when he’s on screen. Sure it’s because he spends most of it getting beaten up with various household objects. Nothing is as funny as a guy getting hit with his own possessions.
It all becomes rather farcical and by the end I’d almost given up hope. It was neither a comedy nor an action/adventure nor a stoner movie but in the tradition of Cheech and Chong, it was a little bit of everything. I wish they’d have dropped the action sequences. I didn’t need the hard-core violence at all. But I suppose the film makers thought a film about stoners wasn’t that interesting without it? If that’s the case, they should have tried harder with the original storyline and script. It descended into a boy’s own bash ‘em up and for me, what had started off as a reasonably gentle ‘bud-dy’ movie lapsed into an ultra violent non-com ass kick – a real waste of the practically sewn up loser ‘n laughs beginning of the film. Shame on you boys.
Ok. This is going to be quick. This is a nice little ‘stoner’ movie. Not as good as any of the ‘Cheech and Chong’ films of the 1970’s but still, I’m amazed that drugs are allowed such coverage even today. This is a mainstream movie and kids are going to see it. Nevertheless, it’s an entertaining if incredibly ‘light’ piece of entertainment.
Story goes – man meets with friendly local drug dealer, gets stoned on rare but potent Pineapple Express strain of grass, witnesses a murder amongst the warring drug barons, is identified and goes on the run with aforementioned buddy drug dealer. Seth Rogan is the stoner and James Franco is the dealer. The greatest fun comes from the pair padding around their living room talking utter crap. The nuances of a drug den are pretty spot on. (Don’t ask – this is what I imagine.) Their increasingly paranoid, indulgent chit-chat is very funny. Obsessing over the computer printer and such like. Very silly stuff but that’s what drugs do to your brain. So I am told. For me, it goes a bit wrong when the violence breaks out with the ensuing drug barons etc. It wasn’t necessary. I liked seeing the two bone-heads wrestle with the notion of being lost in the woods or evading the cops. You might have seen the trailer where Franco attempts to kick the windscreen out of his car but instead puts his foot through the glass and gets it stuck. That’s as good as it gets really.
Seth Rogan co-wrote this little piece and perhaps I’m granting him too much intelligence when I say I’m sure it didn’t take long to jot down the entire piece and should therefore be able to produce far better material. Marked down for effort Roth. Franco, on the other hand, made the film for me. Sure he’s cute but I’ve never seen any one grin their entire way through a part. I did end up wondering whether he was being passed a doobie or two on set. No, I am sure he’s just that good an actor. The character who I took an enormous amount of time to warm up to was the double crossing character of Red played by Danny R McBride. The film comes to life a bit more when he’s on screen. Sure it’s because he spends most of it getting beaten up with various household objects. Nothing is as funny as a guy getting hit with his own possessions.
It all becomes rather farcical and by the end I’d almost given up hope. It was neither a comedy nor an action/adventure nor a stoner movie but in the tradition of Cheech and Chong, it was a little bit of everything. I wish they’d have dropped the action sequences. I didn’t need the hard-core violence at all. But I suppose the film makers thought a film about stoners wasn’t that interesting without it? If that’s the case, they should have tried harder with the original storyline and script. It descended into a boy’s own bash ‘em up and for me, what had started off as a reasonably gentle ‘bud-dy’ movie lapsed into an ultra violent non-com ass kick – a real waste of the practically sewn up loser ‘n laughs beginning of the film. Shame on you boys.
The Duchess ~~~~
17th September 2008
Keira Knightly has indeed redeemed herself. Still simpering? Yes but in this case in character and grown up and responsible with it, with bells on. For such a long time, I’ve looked to Miss Knightly as one of the British new generation actresses to whom women like me look to to represent, entertain and carry voice with. Until now, it just hasn’t happened. But ‘The Duchess’, although not the most contemporaneous of stories, gives platform to women who throughout the ages have endured and fought against a society who believe them to be nothing but breeders of children and pretty ornaments. Whilst I have little or no sympathy for those who have everything in life whilst others suffer with nothing, it is interesting to recognise that from whatever standing one emanates from, life can be unfair and rotten.
Many have drawn similarities between this story, the life of Georgiana the Duchess of Devonshire, and that of Princess Diana’s in that they both married for convenience on behalf of the husbands’ want of male heirs and that both women suffered terribly at their husbands’ hands with regard to marital affairs, I do not hold that one is the tale of the other.
Chosen for her beauty, probable fertility and potential pliability Georgiana is married off to the incredibly distant and single minded Duke, played astonishingly coldly by Ralph Fiennes. His only goal is to produce a male heir. Nothing more and nothing less. Georgiana is thrown into a lonely world of mansions and servants with only her worldly-wise but harsh mother played by the wonderful Charlotte Rampling to keep her on the straight and narrow.
It was wonderful to see the English countryside and beautiful period architecture used to its fullest potential and a refreshing change to having parts of Eastern Europe and Ireland used as stand-ins as so often happens in modern ‘British’ films. Full marks should go to the location scouts for utilising our rich heritage of architecture and beautiful countryside so well in the film. A delight to behold. As were the unbelievably magnificent costumes – surely an award should go to those who worked on the majestic array of clothing of which I have not seen such a standard since the second ‘Elizabeth’ film. Bravo! The music and score too, should be complimented as they themselves complimented the visuals and emotions of the film to a tee.
It must be said that it is a sad story. Unable to produce a male child, Georgiana slides slowly into a lonely depression. Her husband is distant and evidentially having affairs with staff and any other ladies who take his fancy. When Georgiana discovers a little girl who has been brought into the house is in fact his illegitimate child, we see her already fragile world view shatter. How can life be so unbalanced and unfair? None the less, she eventually embraces the girl as her own daughter and defies contemporary society to go on to become the ‘It Girl’ of the generation. She throws herself into politics and becomes a fashion icon. Whilst on her travels she meets the handsome Charles Gray, one time childhood friend and now potential politician. They fall in love and working under the misapprehension that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that the Duke will happily accept her lover, Georgiana confesses her affair. But oh dear, her beliefs couldn’t be farther from the truth. General unhappiness and pains ensues. The Duchesses best friend turns out to be the Dukes’ true love whilst the real turmoil really only has just begun.
The plot gets so dark at one point that one is forgiven for believing total doom will ensue. One must not forget, however, that human beings are amazingly resilient especially when faced with loss of status, money and all the other trappings of wealth and rank. It is not until a male heir is produced that the Duke feels Georgina’s reason for being is satiated. The scene in which the couple meet for the first time after their son is born is quite, quite startling and amazingly emotional. I have to admit, my feminist streak came out crying after which, I became quite angry in a ‘I knew it all along’ way knowing full well that many women live their lives like this all over the world today. I’d rather acknowledge those still living under these conditions and against these attitudes today than simper away for a rich woman long dead. Still, it does bear thinking about how far some of us have been ‘allowed’ to come even though I believe women have fought hard for the rights they have today and the rights we’ll have in the future. In a way I hadn’t imagined, this is quite the feminist film. I hope those of us wise enough to see through the attributed ‘there were three of us in the marriage’ tagline caught a glimpse of a more important and politically and socially interesting film.
To a certain degree, the Duchess’s story the film sparked an interest in me to read the book upon which it is based but then, in a very lazy way, I think I’d prefer to see the film again. The camera work on this production was stunning. There are several scenes in the film in which the main characters sit eating dinner at the most awe inspiring table one can imagine – talk about metaphorical – but where the characters sit yards apart. The camera for the most part sits near to the Duchess but when another character is introduced, and where the Duke holds all the cards, near to the end of the film, the camera angle changes and gives us a different perspective. Subtle but effective. The camera work also makes the most of the splendid costumes and the lighting is brilliant. If there is a more unpleasant rape scene in a film where absolutely no-one makes a sound, I would like to be directed to it (although, not really if you know what I mean.) The glamour of the public world is so very honestly contrasted with the bloodiness and loneliness of the characters private lives that I should imagine no-one would wish these scenarios on their worst enemies.
So, for the benefit of those who stayed away from this film because of the parallels drawn with Diana’s life, please go and see it. Cast all thoughts of the modern monarchy from your mind and allow yourself to be taken into another world which isn’t so very far away from our own. (Please do however note that the rich still generally have a better time of it than most.) My only real criticism was that the contemporary political situation wasn’t really explored within the film. So much was happening at that time all around the world. A small nod to the revolutions or issues of slavery would not have gone amiss.
So, I stand corrected. Miss Knightly can act. Mr Fiennes continues to act and British film is still some of the best in the word.
Keira Knightly has indeed redeemed herself. Still simpering? Yes but in this case in character and grown up and responsible with it, with bells on. For such a long time, I’ve looked to Miss Knightly as one of the British new generation actresses to whom women like me look to to represent, entertain and carry voice with. Until now, it just hasn’t happened. But ‘The Duchess’, although not the most contemporaneous of stories, gives platform to women who throughout the ages have endured and fought against a society who believe them to be nothing but breeders of children and pretty ornaments. Whilst I have little or no sympathy for those who have everything in life whilst others suffer with nothing, it is interesting to recognise that from whatever standing one emanates from, life can be unfair and rotten.
Many have drawn similarities between this story, the life of Georgiana the Duchess of Devonshire, and that of Princess Diana’s in that they both married for convenience on behalf of the husbands’ want of male heirs and that both women suffered terribly at their husbands’ hands with regard to marital affairs, I do not hold that one is the tale of the other.
Chosen for her beauty, probable fertility and potential pliability Georgiana is married off to the incredibly distant and single minded Duke, played astonishingly coldly by Ralph Fiennes. His only goal is to produce a male heir. Nothing more and nothing less. Georgiana is thrown into a lonely world of mansions and servants with only her worldly-wise but harsh mother played by the wonderful Charlotte Rampling to keep her on the straight and narrow.
It was wonderful to see the English countryside and beautiful period architecture used to its fullest potential and a refreshing change to having parts of Eastern Europe and Ireland used as stand-ins as so often happens in modern ‘British’ films. Full marks should go to the location scouts for utilising our rich heritage of architecture and beautiful countryside so well in the film. A delight to behold. As were the unbelievably magnificent costumes – surely an award should go to those who worked on the majestic array of clothing of which I have not seen such a standard since the second ‘Elizabeth’ film. Bravo! The music and score too, should be complimented as they themselves complimented the visuals and emotions of the film to a tee.
It must be said that it is a sad story. Unable to produce a male child, Georgiana slides slowly into a lonely depression. Her husband is distant and evidentially having affairs with staff and any other ladies who take his fancy. When Georgiana discovers a little girl who has been brought into the house is in fact his illegitimate child, we see her already fragile world view shatter. How can life be so unbalanced and unfair? None the less, she eventually embraces the girl as her own daughter and defies contemporary society to go on to become the ‘It Girl’ of the generation. She throws herself into politics and becomes a fashion icon. Whilst on her travels she meets the handsome Charles Gray, one time childhood friend and now potential politician. They fall in love and working under the misapprehension that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that the Duke will happily accept her lover, Georgiana confesses her affair. But oh dear, her beliefs couldn’t be farther from the truth. General unhappiness and pains ensues. The Duchesses best friend turns out to be the Dukes’ true love whilst the real turmoil really only has just begun.
The plot gets so dark at one point that one is forgiven for believing total doom will ensue. One must not forget, however, that human beings are amazingly resilient especially when faced with loss of status, money and all the other trappings of wealth and rank. It is not until a male heir is produced that the Duke feels Georgina’s reason for being is satiated. The scene in which the couple meet for the first time after their son is born is quite, quite startling and amazingly emotional. I have to admit, my feminist streak came out crying after which, I became quite angry in a ‘I knew it all along’ way knowing full well that many women live their lives like this all over the world today. I’d rather acknowledge those still living under these conditions and against these attitudes today than simper away for a rich woman long dead. Still, it does bear thinking about how far some of us have been ‘allowed’ to come even though I believe women have fought hard for the rights they have today and the rights we’ll have in the future. In a way I hadn’t imagined, this is quite the feminist film. I hope those of us wise enough to see through the attributed ‘there were three of us in the marriage’ tagline caught a glimpse of a more important and politically and socially interesting film.
To a certain degree, the Duchess’s story the film sparked an interest in me to read the book upon which it is based but then, in a very lazy way, I think I’d prefer to see the film again. The camera work on this production was stunning. There are several scenes in the film in which the main characters sit eating dinner at the most awe inspiring table one can imagine – talk about metaphorical – but where the characters sit yards apart. The camera for the most part sits near to the Duchess but when another character is introduced, and where the Duke holds all the cards, near to the end of the film, the camera angle changes and gives us a different perspective. Subtle but effective. The camera work also makes the most of the splendid costumes and the lighting is brilliant. If there is a more unpleasant rape scene in a film where absolutely no-one makes a sound, I would like to be directed to it (although, not really if you know what I mean.) The glamour of the public world is so very honestly contrasted with the bloodiness and loneliness of the characters private lives that I should imagine no-one would wish these scenarios on their worst enemies.
So, for the benefit of those who stayed away from this film because of the parallels drawn with Diana’s life, please go and see it. Cast all thoughts of the modern monarchy from your mind and allow yourself to be taken into another world which isn’t so very far away from our own. (Please do however note that the rich still generally have a better time of it than most.) My only real criticism was that the contemporary political situation wasn’t really explored within the film. So much was happening at that time all around the world. A small nod to the revolutions or issues of slavery would not have gone amiss.
So, I stand corrected. Miss Knightly can act. Mr Fiennes continues to act and British film is still some of the best in the word.
Hellboy II ~
I really don’t want to spend too much time on this film. I felt totally let down. Not funny, not even a titter. Whilst I loved the first film, and perhaps I’m being too hard on it by comparing it too closely with the first Hellboy and other recent action/adventures (such as Batman which was viewed the week before), I can’t help but feel something got lost in translation between story line and celluloid.
I can’t think of anyone else who could play ‘Hellboy’ as well as Ron Pearlman nor anyone as sassy and dark-humoured as Selma Blair to play the much maligned Liz but that said, Guillermo del Toro has lost the plot. Literally. What started the series as a dark, other-worldly vision of an alternative anti-hero has turned into a slightly edgy kids flick. I did not need to see the big, brash climax with its wandering, stomping tree-headed baddie. I did love the secret city beneath the ‘real world’ but there wasn’t enough of it. I appreciated the love story between Abe Sapien and the princess but didn’t feel that it was necessary and can’t stop humming ‘I’m a man not a boy’ whenever I see Luke Goss (of Bros fame) on the screen no matter how ace he is at swinging a sword. Sorry Mr Bros. I’m just of that age and disposition!
Overall, a visually creative film with crappy script and OTT sound track. Again, give the ladies better screen time and stick with the notion that it’s ok to make a film without excessive violence and set pieces throughout. A pretty snoring-boring film, with a twist. Perhaps Hellboy 3, if ever there is such a thing, can repair the disappointment I feel about this chapter?
I can’t think of anyone else who could play ‘Hellboy’ as well as Ron Pearlman nor anyone as sassy and dark-humoured as Selma Blair to play the much maligned Liz but that said, Guillermo del Toro has lost the plot. Literally. What started the series as a dark, other-worldly vision of an alternative anti-hero has turned into a slightly edgy kids flick. I did not need to see the big, brash climax with its wandering, stomping tree-headed baddie. I did love the secret city beneath the ‘real world’ but there wasn’t enough of it. I appreciated the love story between Abe Sapien and the princess but didn’t feel that it was necessary and can’t stop humming ‘I’m a man not a boy’ whenever I see Luke Goss (of Bros fame) on the screen no matter how ace he is at swinging a sword. Sorry Mr Bros. I’m just of that age and disposition!
Overall, a visually creative film with crappy script and OTT sound track. Again, give the ladies better screen time and stick with the notion that it’s ok to make a film without excessive violence and set pieces throughout. A pretty snoring-boring film, with a twist. Perhaps Hellboy 3, if ever there is such a thing, can repair the disappointment I feel about this chapter?
The Dark Knight ~~~~
30th July 2008
The ‘Dark Knight’ is a good film, but it’s not a great film and it’s not ‘Batman Begins’. First things first. It’s too long and it’s too indulgent in the sense that someone gave someone else too much money to spend. It’s just not necessary. Secondly, I am still enamoured with Christian Bale. Certainly the best Batman ever (after Michael Keaton???, discuss.) But what’s with the frigging voice? It’s so deep you can hardly hear it. Is this an appeal to frogs or other such animals who may indeed be able to fathom his delivery. I certainly couldn’t – stop messing with computers and leave the Batman’s voice alone! Poor Bruce Wayne, he must have one hell of a sore throat after a night on the tiles (literally, roof tiles… ha, ha!) Thirdly, in line with the opinion of the unnecessarily large budget, who was in charge of editing? It needn’t have been that long a film. Reality check please but it does follow that having spent all that cash, someone wanted to prove to the studio that their money had been well spent. I didn’t need to sit in that seat for at least 30 minutes of the film.
Bitching over, I think. This was the Batman film real fans were waiting for. A darker Batman, the Joker, Two Face and even more chaos. And they got it all. But did they have to pack it all into just one film?
Poor Maggie Gyllenhaal, sidelined as Rachel after taking on the mantle left by Katie Holmes. Note to producers, please maintain some sense of continuity. I can understand that some actors and actresses may not necessarily want to sign up to each and every film in a series but please, for my sake alone, get their little butts signed up or not at all. It bugs me. Muchly. That said, I liked Maggie’s Rachel but aside from being an emotional devise which was hardly utilised to its full potential, her character was really pretty duff. As was the Batman’s. With the introduction of not one but two magnificent screen baddies, the Batman, as I imagine was the plan, faded into the background. Roll on the third film for swift revenge and the resurgence of the Bat fiend!
Congratulations must go to, in no preferential order at all, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart and Michael Caine. Oldman’s cop Gordon could carry his own series. By far the most nuanced performance of the whole picture, he delivers the most subtle but emotionally in-gear character torn between family and upholding the law. Ledger is magical and more about that later. Eckhart gives a sterling performance as the cross-over good guy/bad guy. As Harvey Dent he’s the city’s knight in shining moral armour, a character where you look for the flaws but find none until dramatically, although predictably, he is pushed over the edge into ‘Two Face’ territory. Caine presents the human face of the film, Bruce’s real love, as opposed to the shadowy Rachel, and as such gives the film a much needed grounding in the emotional stakes.
The Joker. Much loved anti-hero of the Batman comics and arguably personified best on screen by ‘Big’ Jack Nicholson in the Burton classic, until now. Ledger really does give his performance of a lifetime. So much energy, so quick and intelligent, so very, very bad but so very, very good! Looking like a cross between Bette Davies’ ‘Baby Jane’ character on acid and the worst nightmare of a clown gone wrong, Ledger lets himself go full throttle aiming at the jugular. He makes one hell of a mess wherever he goes. If there was ever a villain to take seriously, it’s Ledger’s joker. Given that he’s so attracted to the vilest sorts of violence it’s difficult to appreciate where he’s coming from but that said, his pitch perfectly delivered soliloquies make one wonder whether his doctrine is honest one albeit delivered in such a violent way. His perception of people, their desires and their needs is actually spot on. He might be mad but he understands people and that’s why he’s so successful at beating those with good intentions but no real beliefs. Only the Batman can really see his flaws and only he can ultimately beat him. Which is a real shame because he’s a great character and a possible philosophical genius! Ledger, had he been alive today to receive the applause he very much deserved, should have been proud of his performance. It is a real shame he didn’t get to see how the audience received his best performance to date and an even greater shame we shall never be treated to such a performance by him again in this series let alone in other films.
The film runs along at quite a pace with enjoyable scenes between the main characters both in action sequences and in tight little set pieces. Bruce’s longing for bigger and better gadgets is fed by Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox’s genius inventions. One point though, and rather a big grip, what was with all the scenes of the Bat flying about in Hong Kong? Visually stunning but totally extraneous to the plot. Money issues, again? And another gripe - the boat scene. I appreciate what Nolan was trying to achieve. In a world where a Joker, rather than a bat, could be king, who could truly predict what human beings would do to each other to survive? A set piece if ever there was one in cinematic terms, hundreds of people become potential floating bombs when the Joker plants explosives onto the local ferry services. In one boat are the most terrible criminals of the city and in the other, the regular citizens. But under orders who will blow the other boat sky high and how can they justify it? I get the point. I understand the predicament. I see the moral dilemma. I appreciate the nature of human beings. But in the middle of this film, the scenario just doesn’t sit comfortably. Dramatic licence underpinning the overall morality of the plot or surplus cash begging to be spent? Perhaps I labour under a misapprehension? Even if I do, I stand by my gut feeling in that it was just unnecessary. I’d have preferred to see the Bat in action or at least a bit more emoting from Mr Wayne on screen.
I don’t think I need to even attempt to convey the plot of the film needless to say that it flies about all over the place just about taking the audience with it. The script wasn’t quite as fleshed out as the previous film and in some parts the soundtrack dominated excessively. There were far too many characters and side-line stories (the gangster of Eric Roberts, the Mayor character and the other various bad guys). It’s visually stunning and the gadgets and vehicles are totally ace. I particularly loved Batman’s new motorbike thing. Wicked stuff! The special effects are magnificent - this is how action films should look. The scenes of carnage the Joker creates are creative, extreme and vile but at the same time visually awe inspiring. Bale continues to portray both Bruce and the Batman with just the right amount of humour and darkness. I do think he needs a hug, though. All alone yet with so much responsibility on his broad, but perfectly formed, shoulders.
Don’t get me wrong. I may seem to have picked on the film somewhat but even so I found it to be a more enjoyable film than most released this year. With its stellar cast and steady direction by Nolan, I’m desperate to see the film again and no doubt it will, in the long run, go down as one of my top 100 films. But please, Mr Nolan, get tough with your flicks. Cut them down. Be ruthless. I’m sure it won’t hurt them at all. I look forward to the next instalment. (One last request, please make room for at least one strong female character. It’s only fair as at least half the audience were female.)
The ‘Dark Knight’ is a good film, but it’s not a great film and it’s not ‘Batman Begins’. First things first. It’s too long and it’s too indulgent in the sense that someone gave someone else too much money to spend. It’s just not necessary. Secondly, I am still enamoured with Christian Bale. Certainly the best Batman ever (after Michael Keaton???, discuss.) But what’s with the frigging voice? It’s so deep you can hardly hear it. Is this an appeal to frogs or other such animals who may indeed be able to fathom his delivery. I certainly couldn’t – stop messing with computers and leave the Batman’s voice alone! Poor Bruce Wayne, he must have one hell of a sore throat after a night on the tiles (literally, roof tiles… ha, ha!) Thirdly, in line with the opinion of the unnecessarily large budget, who was in charge of editing? It needn’t have been that long a film. Reality check please but it does follow that having spent all that cash, someone wanted to prove to the studio that their money had been well spent. I didn’t need to sit in that seat for at least 30 minutes of the film.
Bitching over, I think. This was the Batman film real fans were waiting for. A darker Batman, the Joker, Two Face and even more chaos. And they got it all. But did they have to pack it all into just one film?
Poor Maggie Gyllenhaal, sidelined as Rachel after taking on the mantle left by Katie Holmes. Note to producers, please maintain some sense of continuity. I can understand that some actors and actresses may not necessarily want to sign up to each and every film in a series but please, for my sake alone, get their little butts signed up or not at all. It bugs me. Muchly. That said, I liked Maggie’s Rachel but aside from being an emotional devise which was hardly utilised to its full potential, her character was really pretty duff. As was the Batman’s. With the introduction of not one but two magnificent screen baddies, the Batman, as I imagine was the plan, faded into the background. Roll on the third film for swift revenge and the resurgence of the Bat fiend!
Congratulations must go to, in no preferential order at all, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart and Michael Caine. Oldman’s cop Gordon could carry his own series. By far the most nuanced performance of the whole picture, he delivers the most subtle but emotionally in-gear character torn between family and upholding the law. Ledger is magical and more about that later. Eckhart gives a sterling performance as the cross-over good guy/bad guy. As Harvey Dent he’s the city’s knight in shining moral armour, a character where you look for the flaws but find none until dramatically, although predictably, he is pushed over the edge into ‘Two Face’ territory. Caine presents the human face of the film, Bruce’s real love, as opposed to the shadowy Rachel, and as such gives the film a much needed grounding in the emotional stakes.
The Joker. Much loved anti-hero of the Batman comics and arguably personified best on screen by ‘Big’ Jack Nicholson in the Burton classic, until now. Ledger really does give his performance of a lifetime. So much energy, so quick and intelligent, so very, very bad but so very, very good! Looking like a cross between Bette Davies’ ‘Baby Jane’ character on acid and the worst nightmare of a clown gone wrong, Ledger lets himself go full throttle aiming at the jugular. He makes one hell of a mess wherever he goes. If there was ever a villain to take seriously, it’s Ledger’s joker. Given that he’s so attracted to the vilest sorts of violence it’s difficult to appreciate where he’s coming from but that said, his pitch perfectly delivered soliloquies make one wonder whether his doctrine is honest one albeit delivered in such a violent way. His perception of people, their desires and their needs is actually spot on. He might be mad but he understands people and that’s why he’s so successful at beating those with good intentions but no real beliefs. Only the Batman can really see his flaws and only he can ultimately beat him. Which is a real shame because he’s a great character and a possible philosophical genius! Ledger, had he been alive today to receive the applause he very much deserved, should have been proud of his performance. It is a real shame he didn’t get to see how the audience received his best performance to date and an even greater shame we shall never be treated to such a performance by him again in this series let alone in other films.
The film runs along at quite a pace with enjoyable scenes between the main characters both in action sequences and in tight little set pieces. Bruce’s longing for bigger and better gadgets is fed by Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox’s genius inventions. One point though, and rather a big grip, what was with all the scenes of the Bat flying about in Hong Kong? Visually stunning but totally extraneous to the plot. Money issues, again? And another gripe - the boat scene. I appreciate what Nolan was trying to achieve. In a world where a Joker, rather than a bat, could be king, who could truly predict what human beings would do to each other to survive? A set piece if ever there was one in cinematic terms, hundreds of people become potential floating bombs when the Joker plants explosives onto the local ferry services. In one boat are the most terrible criminals of the city and in the other, the regular citizens. But under orders who will blow the other boat sky high and how can they justify it? I get the point. I understand the predicament. I see the moral dilemma. I appreciate the nature of human beings. But in the middle of this film, the scenario just doesn’t sit comfortably. Dramatic licence underpinning the overall morality of the plot or surplus cash begging to be spent? Perhaps I labour under a misapprehension? Even if I do, I stand by my gut feeling in that it was just unnecessary. I’d have preferred to see the Bat in action or at least a bit more emoting from Mr Wayne on screen.
I don’t think I need to even attempt to convey the plot of the film needless to say that it flies about all over the place just about taking the audience with it. The script wasn’t quite as fleshed out as the previous film and in some parts the soundtrack dominated excessively. There were far too many characters and side-line stories (the gangster of Eric Roberts, the Mayor character and the other various bad guys). It’s visually stunning and the gadgets and vehicles are totally ace. I particularly loved Batman’s new motorbike thing. Wicked stuff! The special effects are magnificent - this is how action films should look. The scenes of carnage the Joker creates are creative, extreme and vile but at the same time visually awe inspiring. Bale continues to portray both Bruce and the Batman with just the right amount of humour and darkness. I do think he needs a hug, though. All alone yet with so much responsibility on his broad, but perfectly formed, shoulders.
Don’t get me wrong. I may seem to have picked on the film somewhat but even so I found it to be a more enjoyable film than most released this year. With its stellar cast and steady direction by Nolan, I’m desperate to see the film again and no doubt it will, in the long run, go down as one of my top 100 films. But please, Mr Nolan, get tough with your flicks. Cut them down. Be ruthless. I’m sure it won’t hurt them at all. I look forward to the next instalment. (One last request, please make room for at least one strong female character. It’s only fair as at least half the audience were female.)
Wall-e ~~~~
23rd July 2008
Those Pixar chaps and chapesses are really pulling their fingers out on the animation front. If someone had shown me this film twenty-five years ago, I would have totally freaked out – it was what any kid would have dreamt of seeing. We seem today a little blasé about the standard of animation being produced around the world but it’s still worth shouting about. I have a general understanding about how they do it all and how long it takes but it still amazes me. And it can’t get much better when the story matches the quality of the graphics. And here, with ‘Wall-e’ it does.
I’m sure it’s been said before but if you liked the film ‘E.T.’ (who doesn’t…) you’ll like this. Wall-e is the 21st century E.T., get over it and embrace it. The story is simple but ingenious at the same time. Sticking with the theme that us stupid humans, if there is a way, we’ll f**k it up, the scenario is plain and simple. In the distant future (or possibly in the next hundred years or sooner, discuss) we’ve abandoned Earth for outer space having divested the planet of all resources and natural life leaving behind only those hardy little cockroaches’ and one solitary rubbish robot. Not a robot who’s rubbish but a rubbish collecting robot. (Garbage, for those of you who live on the continent.)
Wall-e lives alone, carrying out his day job collecting, squashing and stacking crap. But he loves it. He has a little house and happily mends himself when he gets broken. The scenes focused on out little hero, a nine to fiver if ever I saw one, wheeling about his home town are almost joyous. He’s the king of his domain. The well observed touches of modern life are picked up beautifully by the animators making one feel like it’s our world now. My favourite nuance had to be the immense detail of Wall-e’s world but also of the subtle flecks of dust floating around. Ten out of ten film makers. Wall-e watches old films on his home-made screen and dances about fantasising about being a human. But for his mechanicalness, he is indeed one of us. So cute, it hurts. He carries on, day after day with the audience being taken deeper and deeper into his little world, shown his idiosyncrasies and his joys and fears. Until one day, fast from the skies, another robot descends to change his world.
Eve. The beautiful life searching robot sent to see if Earth still lives. Wall-e falls in love and discovers what she came here for was not him but the green sapling living in his boot. Life, not metal and bytes. He can’t help himself and so we are taken, along with Wall-e and his little bug friend on a journey to an alien world, or rather where the humans are. And this, I am almost certain most people will agree having watched the film, is where their interest may wane. After being treated to minimal dialogue (not unlike the tremendous ‘There Will be Blood’ at the beginning of the year) and maximum emotion and sentimentality, we meet what’s left of the human population.
They are fat, they are greedy, they get about in whizzing chairs and they are spoon-fed life. Floating consumers. How’s that for social comment? The film, at this point, descends into a comedy chase. Will Wall-e get Eve to fall in love with him? Will he escape the clutches of the evil spaceship computer? In their quest for their ultimate return to Earth, will the humans ever snap out of their lazy-hazes? It got a bit predictable at this point but nevertheless, it was beautifully done and gave the grown ups in the audience a chance of a bit of serious musings on the previously made points regarding the preciousness of life and precariousness of modern advancement and technology.
Fat captain to the rescue. With Wall-e as his guide, he learns to walk, to talk and to say “no” to the evil computer ultimately straying off course and guiding them all home. Wall-e finds true love, and rightly so. Never before have I felt such joy at seeing two hunks of computer generated metal declaring love for one another. (Plastic, yes – ‘Toy Story’, of course.)
This is a well meaning, well scripted, well delivered and well produced film – let alone ‘animation’ which, by now should no longer be thought of as the poor cousin to ‘real’ film (please note however the irony of saying ‘poor’ when I am positive these pictures costs caboodles more than their live action counter-parts.) The Pixar stable have produced another classic. Without being too sentimental or too preachy about the enormously important issues of environmental and political debate, they have set yet another standard in film making. Wall-e will be with us for many years to some and could easily beat up the cartoon fat Panda who paraded out the week before. Take note Disney. This is an important lesson in getting your priorities right – morality tales are important but the issues today are bigger and more serious than whether fat Panda’s can kick ass.
Those Pixar chaps and chapesses are really pulling their fingers out on the animation front. If someone had shown me this film twenty-five years ago, I would have totally freaked out – it was what any kid would have dreamt of seeing. We seem today a little blasé about the standard of animation being produced around the world but it’s still worth shouting about. I have a general understanding about how they do it all and how long it takes but it still amazes me. And it can’t get much better when the story matches the quality of the graphics. And here, with ‘Wall-e’ it does.
I’m sure it’s been said before but if you liked the film ‘E.T.’ (who doesn’t…) you’ll like this. Wall-e is the 21st century E.T., get over it and embrace it. The story is simple but ingenious at the same time. Sticking with the theme that us stupid humans, if there is a way, we’ll f**k it up, the scenario is plain and simple. In the distant future (or possibly in the next hundred years or sooner, discuss) we’ve abandoned Earth for outer space having divested the planet of all resources and natural life leaving behind only those hardy little cockroaches’ and one solitary rubbish robot. Not a robot who’s rubbish but a rubbish collecting robot. (Garbage, for those of you who live on the continent.)
Wall-e lives alone, carrying out his day job collecting, squashing and stacking crap. But he loves it. He has a little house and happily mends himself when he gets broken. The scenes focused on out little hero, a nine to fiver if ever I saw one, wheeling about his home town are almost joyous. He’s the king of his domain. The well observed touches of modern life are picked up beautifully by the animators making one feel like it’s our world now. My favourite nuance had to be the immense detail of Wall-e’s world but also of the subtle flecks of dust floating around. Ten out of ten film makers. Wall-e watches old films on his home-made screen and dances about fantasising about being a human. But for his mechanicalness, he is indeed one of us. So cute, it hurts. He carries on, day after day with the audience being taken deeper and deeper into his little world, shown his idiosyncrasies and his joys and fears. Until one day, fast from the skies, another robot descends to change his world.
Eve. The beautiful life searching robot sent to see if Earth still lives. Wall-e falls in love and discovers what she came here for was not him but the green sapling living in his boot. Life, not metal and bytes. He can’t help himself and so we are taken, along with Wall-e and his little bug friend on a journey to an alien world, or rather where the humans are. And this, I am almost certain most people will agree having watched the film, is where their interest may wane. After being treated to minimal dialogue (not unlike the tremendous ‘There Will be Blood’ at the beginning of the year) and maximum emotion and sentimentality, we meet what’s left of the human population.
They are fat, they are greedy, they get about in whizzing chairs and they are spoon-fed life. Floating consumers. How’s that for social comment? The film, at this point, descends into a comedy chase. Will Wall-e get Eve to fall in love with him? Will he escape the clutches of the evil spaceship computer? In their quest for their ultimate return to Earth, will the humans ever snap out of their lazy-hazes? It got a bit predictable at this point but nevertheless, it was beautifully done and gave the grown ups in the audience a chance of a bit of serious musings on the previously made points regarding the preciousness of life and precariousness of modern advancement and technology.
Fat captain to the rescue. With Wall-e as his guide, he learns to walk, to talk and to say “no” to the evil computer ultimately straying off course and guiding them all home. Wall-e finds true love, and rightly so. Never before have I felt such joy at seeing two hunks of computer generated metal declaring love for one another. (Plastic, yes – ‘Toy Story’, of course.)
This is a well meaning, well scripted, well delivered and well produced film – let alone ‘animation’ which, by now should no longer be thought of as the poor cousin to ‘real’ film (please note however the irony of saying ‘poor’ when I am positive these pictures costs caboodles more than their live action counter-parts.) The Pixar stable have produced another classic. Without being too sentimental or too preachy about the enormously important issues of environmental and political debate, they have set yet another standard in film making. Wall-e will be with us for many years to some and could easily beat up the cartoon fat Panda who paraded out the week before. Take note Disney. This is an important lesson in getting your priorities right – morality tales are important but the issues today are bigger and more serious than whether fat Panda’s can kick ass.
Kung Fu Panda ~~
9th July 2008
An animated film about a Panda and Kung Fu. What’s the worst that could happen? OK. So, firstly I have to admit that I’m no longer in the 12 or under category and so possibly shouldn’t have been spending my hard earned cash going to see what is essentially a kids flick about a world of animals living in China in the distant past. I’ve done worse. Nevertheless, for the money the film is just about worth it although don’t expect to be thinking about it a moment longer than your feet leave the cinema property. That said, for the time the films runs, if you let yourself, you can suspend your disbelief… just.
An animated film about a Panda and Kung Fu. What’s the worst that could happen? OK. So, firstly I have to admit that I’m no longer in the 12 or under category and so possibly shouldn’t have been spending my hard earned cash going to see what is essentially a kids flick about a world of animals living in China in the distant past. I’ve done worse. Nevertheless, for the money the film is just about worth it although don’t expect to be thinking about it a moment longer than your feet leave the cinema property. That said, for the time the films runs, if you let yourself, you can suspend your disbelief… just.
‘Kung Fu Panda’ is a lightweight comedy, a morality tale – never count anyone out. Even podgy Pandas' have something to give and even baddies have reasons why they’ve turned out like they have. I can’t think why the studio willing paid out what must have been a packet for the voices of well known stars such as Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie or Lucy Liu. It wasn’t worth it. (But Ian McShane was, please note!) The animation style was great – the beginning of the film probably the stand out section – an Asian inspired animation bookending the piece with an historic myth story leading up to the main play. I think it was this, and the finale piece, again with the stylised animation and an updated version of the tune ‘Kung Fu Fighting’, which really entertained me.
Panda is a slightly plump dreamer living and working with his ‘father’ (a duck of sorts, yes it’s weird and alluded to a few times in the film) in the family run noodle restaurant. But this is not the life Panda aspires to. Panda, played by Jack Black, is clumsy, idealistic and food-obsessed but having been inspired by the famous group of Kung Fu fighters making their names throughout the land fighting baddies, decides to try out for their team. Hilarity ensues when he can’t even get himself into the stadium to show off his skills without avoiding injury to both body any dignity.
The film eventually gets going when Panda finds his destiny does indeed lie in becoming the martial arts hero he believed he was destined to become. The other team members – a snake, a crane, monkey, tiger et al, are not impressed but are led by their mentor, a funny looking mammal creature voiced by Hoffman, and the legendary visions of a once great martial artist. Training Panda is pretty funny. Cast your mind back to any great martial art film, or even ‘sport’ orientated film, like ‘Rocky’, and you’ll get an idea of the kind of set up presented here. Dodging fast missiles, running the gauntlet of turning, spinning logs, running up hills etc etc. Poor Panda doesn’t seem to stand a chance until… here’s the big joke, he finds he can do almost anything with the promise of food as a reward… Not a fan of that joke? Tough, it’s the basis of the rest of the film and you then know how it will all end… Say no more.
I’m sure kids and those of a softer disposition will have loved the film, but for me it was joke-light and weight-heavy (the Panda’s weight that is – ok, we get it, he likes food and is a bit big…. So what!!!) It isn’t a bad film at all, just not for me. Adults could easily have been catered for with more in-jokes or even more historical comment (sorry, what a bore I am???) to no real cost to the film and its intended audience, the kids. I suppose my concession is that the overall moral is worth while telling – no matter what you look like, everyone is capable of something special. Unfortunately, the film just wasn’t. You may beg to differ… but I’ll fight you for it. (Food fight, that is.)
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Wanted ~~~~
Wanted: sex, violence, dark comedy, violence, more violence.
Reward: James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie, two of the hottest film stars of the moment kicking ass on screen.
This is quite a film and possibly the best translation of comic book to screen in recent years (although I am still waiting for 'Hellboy II' and 'Batman' to make appearances later this year.)
You can't really say much about action films except that they're actiony then go on to add comments about any other stand-out bonuses to the genre. This film is sexy. It's fast. It's dark, oh so dark.
My viewing partner and I both enjoyed this flick tremendously although said partner was hacked off with the running narration from McAvoy. This became the only view we disagreed on regarding this film. I thought the narration added an even darker, more sarcastic, overtone to the film (especially setting the tone at the beginning) whilst partner thought it was unnecessary due to the visuals doing the same job. However, it's a really stupid story. Take one young man, allegedly destined for greatness, and scoop him up from his dreary and embarrassingly underwhelming life and dump him into a world of gun toting, knife welding, kick ass super-agents who want to train him up to become the man his father never could be.
Angelina is the greatest hard-core female agent I've ever seen on screen. She's awesome - literally. How can you not love this woman? (But what would the old school feminists say? Oh, heck a girl's gotta let off steam once in a while...) McAvoy is superb as the nerdy, bullied office monkey turned superhero. But why couldn't he have kept his wonderful Scots accent??? Morgan Freeman plays the head honcho under whose orders the gang respond to and in whose headquarters all the agents live happily together in a weirdly bloody weaving factory come training camp.
Without giving it all away, McAvoy is drafted into the team and is rewarded with physical powers beyond his imagination. He also gets the opportunity to dish some some sweet revenge on his bratty girlfriend and shitty best mate. You'll agree that this is their just deserts once you see the film and how they treated this once mild-mannered fellow. There's plenty of blood and pain dished out in the training and even more once in the field. The agents get their 'hit' orders from a code which appears in the warp and weft of the fabric created by a ginormous weaving machine... go figure.
Lots of stuff happens. It gets dark. Then it gets a bit darker. Then it goes slightly silly then it ends. Bang. There's double crossing all over the shop but frankly, I'm sure most viewers didn't even give a damn who's on whose side. I certainly didn't although I know if there's ever a sequel, all bets are off as to who's left to star in it! Enough said.
After all that silly, violent darkness, I have only one real criticism. I just wish Danny Elfman would cool it with the overblown and therefore totally offensive sound tracks. I've had enough. Really. Less is more Danny. Take note. I know you're good at what you do but heck, give Clint Mansell a chance. He knows what he's doing, too.
Jolie and McAvoy are gorgeous and work hard to keep the pace flowing. It's a totally indulgent and ultra violent, but very clever and extremely visually creative and stunning, film. And after all, which other films can claim to have made an ancient skill exciting again? No, I don't mean hand to hand combat or even a martial art... Weaving has never been so cool!
(Viewed 25/06/08)
Reward: James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie, two of the hottest film stars of the moment kicking ass on screen.
This is quite a film and possibly the best translation of comic book to screen in recent years (although I am still waiting for 'Hellboy II' and 'Batman' to make appearances later this year.)
You can't really say much about action films except that they're actiony then go on to add comments about any other stand-out bonuses to the genre. This film is sexy. It's fast. It's dark, oh so dark.
My viewing partner and I both enjoyed this flick tremendously although said partner was hacked off with the running narration from McAvoy. This became the only view we disagreed on regarding this film. I thought the narration added an even darker, more sarcastic, overtone to the film (especially setting the tone at the beginning) whilst partner thought it was unnecessary due to the visuals doing the same job. However, it's a really stupid story. Take one young man, allegedly destined for greatness, and scoop him up from his dreary and embarrassingly underwhelming life and dump him into a world of gun toting, knife welding, kick ass super-agents who want to train him up to become the man his father never could be.
Angelina is the greatest hard-core female agent I've ever seen on screen. She's awesome - literally. How can you not love this woman? (But what would the old school feminists say? Oh, heck a girl's gotta let off steam once in a while...) McAvoy is superb as the nerdy, bullied office monkey turned superhero. But why couldn't he have kept his wonderful Scots accent??? Morgan Freeman plays the head honcho under whose orders the gang respond to and in whose headquarters all the agents live happily together in a weirdly bloody weaving factory come training camp.
Without giving it all away, McAvoy is drafted into the team and is rewarded with physical powers beyond his imagination. He also gets the opportunity to dish some some sweet revenge on his bratty girlfriend and shitty best mate. You'll agree that this is their just deserts once you see the film and how they treated this once mild-mannered fellow. There's plenty of blood and pain dished out in the training and even more once in the field. The agents get their 'hit' orders from a code which appears in the warp and weft of the fabric created by a ginormous weaving machine... go figure.
Lots of stuff happens. It gets dark. Then it gets a bit darker. Then it goes slightly silly then it ends. Bang. There's double crossing all over the shop but frankly, I'm sure most viewers didn't even give a damn who's on whose side. I certainly didn't although I know if there's ever a sequel, all bets are off as to who's left to star in it! Enough said.
After all that silly, violent darkness, I have only one real criticism. I just wish Danny Elfman would cool it with the overblown and therefore totally offensive sound tracks. I've had enough. Really. Less is more Danny. Take note. I know you're good at what you do but heck, give Clint Mansell a chance. He knows what he's doing, too.
Jolie and McAvoy are gorgeous and work hard to keep the pace flowing. It's a totally indulgent and ultra violent, but very clever and extremely visually creative and stunning, film. And after all, which other films can claim to have made an ancient skill exciting again? No, I don't mean hand to hand combat or even a martial art... Weaving has never been so cool!
(Viewed 25/06/08)
The Happening ~~
M. Night Shyamalan, the director, is possibly the next Hitchcock. But not quite. His films are going to have to get a bit better than this offering. He's exceptionally good at building tension in all his films' but often lacks the kick in the ass at the end which the audience have come to expect. Or, perhaps I'm totally wrong and I've already become a desensitised and hyper-critical viewer?
The story goes like this - suburban high-school teacher Mark Walberg is happily teaching away when suddenly shit starts to happen in a nearby city. No-one is quite sure what's going on but slowly reports start to emerge that people are dying. And not just dying, they're willing killing themselves. Is this another zombie movie you ask? No. Guess again. You'll never guess. Oh, go on. What do you think? Virus, dirty-bomb? No, guess again. That's all I'm going to say on that matter.
Whatever. Mayhem and violence ensue and pretty soon everyone, EVERYONE, is running about trying to get away from the birds... doh, I didn't mean birds, I meant whatever it is. (If I'd seen more Hitchcock films I could probably have gone on taking the piss out of the genre and inserting various options into the 'baddie' space for quite some time.)
Walberg, girlfriend, best friend and daughter hatch a plan to exit the city as soon as possible, board a train then find the 'evil' heading their way. They all run. A lot. Then some more. Hard work. Lots of people die all over the place. Theories abound as to what's caused the now world-wide massacre until suddenly, science teacher Marky Mark has a thought. It could be the... (shall'nt ruin it for you.)
The film makers have a good stab at injecting some emotional tension into the flick but frankly, it's a bit crap and therefore lost on me. All I really cared about in the end was whether Walberg was going to do battle with something supernatural like Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis got to in their Shyamalan films. I think I missed the point, or the point missed me.
Don't get me wrong, there were some memorable bits in the film. There's a funny scene when, having broken into a strangers house for refuge, Walberg is thinking out loud and then begins to start questioning a plastic house plant. (It will make sense when you see the film.) And it's suitably scary in parts. I jumped at least 3 inches out of my chair for one particular scene.
The real climax of the film is also pretty tense. At the end of the world, it does make you wonder whether you too would risk it all to be with the one you love.
There's an extremely pertinent point made about the disappearance of the bees (which is bloody true right now and could in fact mark the beginning of the end for us humans...) as well as intelligent comments about the poor state of our planet in general. And believe me, you too will end up wondering if, when the wind is blowing in your direction, they will get you in the end........
A 'could do better' film. Although, I sense that this is still an improvement on Shyamalan's last submission, the mermaid thingy which I avoided like the plague but was told I was right to do so and that it didn't make any sense and was generally a bit crap. This certainly had to be better than that? Comments please.
(Viewed 18/06/08)
The story goes like this - suburban high-school teacher Mark Walberg is happily teaching away when suddenly shit starts to happen in a nearby city. No-one is quite sure what's going on but slowly reports start to emerge that people are dying. And not just dying, they're willing killing themselves. Is this another zombie movie you ask? No. Guess again. You'll never guess. Oh, go on. What do you think? Virus, dirty-bomb? No, guess again. That's all I'm going to say on that matter.
Whatever. Mayhem and violence ensue and pretty soon everyone, EVERYONE, is running about trying to get away from the birds... doh, I didn't mean birds, I meant whatever it is. (If I'd seen more Hitchcock films I could probably have gone on taking the piss out of the genre and inserting various options into the 'baddie' space for quite some time.)
Walberg, girlfriend, best friend and daughter hatch a plan to exit the city as soon as possible, board a train then find the 'evil' heading their way. They all run. A lot. Then some more. Hard work. Lots of people die all over the place. Theories abound as to what's caused the now world-wide massacre until suddenly, science teacher Marky Mark has a thought. It could be the... (shall'nt ruin it for you.)
The film makers have a good stab at injecting some emotional tension into the flick but frankly, it's a bit crap and therefore lost on me. All I really cared about in the end was whether Walberg was going to do battle with something supernatural like Mel Gibson or Bruce Willis got to in their Shyamalan films. I think I missed the point, or the point missed me.
Don't get me wrong, there were some memorable bits in the film. There's a funny scene when, having broken into a strangers house for refuge, Walberg is thinking out loud and then begins to start questioning a plastic house plant. (It will make sense when you see the film.) And it's suitably scary in parts. I jumped at least 3 inches out of my chair for one particular scene.
The real climax of the film is also pretty tense. At the end of the world, it does make you wonder whether you too would risk it all to be with the one you love.
There's an extremely pertinent point made about the disappearance of the bees (which is bloody true right now and could in fact mark the beginning of the end for us humans...) as well as intelligent comments about the poor state of our planet in general. And believe me, you too will end up wondering if, when the wind is blowing in your direction, they will get you in the end........
A 'could do better' film. Although, I sense that this is still an improvement on Shyamalan's last submission, the mermaid thingy which I avoided like the plague but was told I was right to do so and that it didn't make any sense and was generally a bit crap. This certainly had to be better than that? Comments please.
(Viewed 18/06/08)
Smart People ~~
Whilst on a flying visit to London, I took the opportunity to go and see something which our local cinemas' (not one, but two in this small city) often fail to show. An 'independent' film. Unfortunately, for all it's merits, Smart People does nothing to prove that the big cinema's are wrong on not showing 'blockbusters' all of the frigging time. A real pity, on all fronts. But still, shame on you two of the biggest cinema chains in the UK. What's wrong with a bit of variety??? (And Smart People isn't even that much of an 'independent' (whatever that means when it's in inverted commas) film.)
Cutting to the chase. This is a flick about academically smart people who happen to be pretty dumb at normal life stuff like falling in love, relating to other people and cooking. Or so we are told here.
Dennis Quaid and Ellen Page are the stand out performances whilst Thomas Haden Church does a good impression of the character he played in 'Sideways'. Page is just lovely, lovely, lovely but wasn't given any really meaty lines to get her teeth into as the emotionally stunted and friendless, politically active teenager-daughter. Quaid just about keeps hold on the emotionally distant, work obsessed University Professor-father character, getting to grips with life after the death of his wife. The appearance of his down and out brother (Church) sends his character into quite a spin ultimately pushing him into an explosion of emotion enabling him to deal with his own personal issues.
Sarah Jessica Parker makes an appearance as the love interest, as an ex-student of Quaid's interested in helping him towards the path of sexual and emotional salvation. Again, Parker isn't given a good enough portion of the script and the character just isn't justified enough through the story-telling.
What begins as a potentially dark little comedy about a dysfunctional family on the verge of individual collapse ends so unsatisfyingly that way before the credits, I just didn't care. There are a few glimmers of what I thought the writer and director were trying to get at but overall, just not enough of the good stuff to sustain.
If you want to see what this film could have been like, go and see Michael Douglas act weird in 'Wonder Boys'.
(Viewed 25/05/08)
Cutting to the chase. This is a flick about academically smart people who happen to be pretty dumb at normal life stuff like falling in love, relating to other people and cooking. Or so we are told here.
Dennis Quaid and Ellen Page are the stand out performances whilst Thomas Haden Church does a good impression of the character he played in 'Sideways'. Page is just lovely, lovely, lovely but wasn't given any really meaty lines to get her teeth into as the emotionally stunted and friendless, politically active teenager-daughter. Quaid just about keeps hold on the emotionally distant, work obsessed University Professor-father character, getting to grips with life after the death of his wife. The appearance of his down and out brother (Church) sends his character into quite a spin ultimately pushing him into an explosion of emotion enabling him to deal with his own personal issues.
Sarah Jessica Parker makes an appearance as the love interest, as an ex-student of Quaid's interested in helping him towards the path of sexual and emotional salvation. Again, Parker isn't given a good enough portion of the script and the character just isn't justified enough through the story-telling.
What begins as a potentially dark little comedy about a dysfunctional family on the verge of individual collapse ends so unsatisfyingly that way before the credits, I just didn't care. There are a few glimmers of what I thought the writer and director were trying to get at but overall, just not enough of the good stuff to sustain.
If you want to see what this film could have been like, go and see Michael Douglas act weird in 'Wonder Boys'.
(Viewed 25/05/08)
Indiana Jones 4 ~~ (and a bit for nostalgia)
The best thing about this film was it wasn't as disappointing as we all thought it would be. So it's a winner all round.
Goodies, baddies, jumping about, the Fedora, bull-whip, Marion, sneaky tributes to Marcus Brody, jungles, natives with weapons, action, adventure, double crossing and aliens (what the...) all wrapped up with lots of archaeological goodness. What joy! Seriously though, aliens? Mind you, my viewing partner did point out that if I could accept the otherworldliness of the Ark or the mind numbingly OTT cup of Christ situation in the previous instalments, I could surely forgive aliens.?Not sure, really. I'll think on it.
I cannot find it within myself to say anything negative about this film. The Indiana Jones series almost defines my whole childhood and who would want to muddy all those good memories??? I am thankful everyday that I found my very own Indiana (complete with well-travelled hat) to complete my fantasies of having my very own Harrison Ford. Dreams can come true!!!
Ray Winstone popped up as a goodie/baddie/goodie. Fine. Cate Blancett (she who is wonderful in all things) unfortunately could have been anyone but if I were in her shoes, I wouldn't care because no matter how many prizes and Oscar's I'd won, I could always say I'd been in an Indiana Jones film! Karen Allen made a welcome return although she wasn't given enough lines poor lady whilst it was lovely to see Shia LaBeouf as the... With his character in mind, spin-off anyone???
(Viewed 31/05/08)
All in all, the fourth best Indie film in the series. Fun when it needed to be, quite scary in parts and lovely and sentimental at the end. Not bad after all these years.
Goodies, baddies, jumping about, the Fedora, bull-whip, Marion, sneaky tributes to Marcus Brody, jungles, natives with weapons, action, adventure, double crossing and aliens (what the...) all wrapped up with lots of archaeological goodness. What joy! Seriously though, aliens? Mind you, my viewing partner did point out that if I could accept the otherworldliness of the Ark or the mind numbingly OTT cup of Christ situation in the previous instalments, I could surely forgive aliens.?Not sure, really. I'll think on it.
I cannot find it within myself to say anything negative about this film. The Indiana Jones series almost defines my whole childhood and who would want to muddy all those good memories??? I am thankful everyday that I found my very own Indiana (complete with well-travelled hat) to complete my fantasies of having my very own Harrison Ford. Dreams can come true!!!
Ray Winstone popped up as a goodie/baddie/goodie. Fine. Cate Blancett (she who is wonderful in all things) unfortunately could have been anyone but if I were in her shoes, I wouldn't care because no matter how many prizes and Oscar's I'd won, I could always say I'd been in an Indiana Jones film! Karen Allen made a welcome return although she wasn't given enough lines poor lady whilst it was lovely to see Shia LaBeouf as the... With his character in mind, spin-off anyone???
(Viewed 31/05/08)
All in all, the fourth best Indie film in the series. Fun when it needed to be, quite scary in parts and lovely and sentimental at the end. Not bad after all these years.
In Bruges ~~~~
'In Bruges'... a funny little film, quite literally. It's a difficult one to slip neatly into any particular genre but I'll have a go. Bitter-sweet film noir buddy movie with a gangster-comedy twist.
The reason I like this film so much is because it kept me guessing both as to how it would end and how many below the belt, risqué bad jokes it could pack in. Picking on a midget??? Is that right??? Well yes, in this case... kind of... not sure... damn, I got sucked in!
Without giving it all away, here's the plot - two dodgy hit-men types are sent to Bruges. Bruges, I hear you cry, where the heck is that??? Well, Belgium. And gorgeous it is too. The two likely fellows haul up in a hotel waiting for a call from 'the boss' anticipating a 'hit'... little do they know...
The characters, played by Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, spend a good deal of their time bickering and arguing amongst themselves for the first half of the flick. Farrell hates 'history' and isn't interested in the architecture whilst Gleeson is making the best of a bad situation and tries to see the sights before the hit comes in. Farrell takes a while to settle down - he does the best impression of a twitchy man I've ever seen on screen just about keeping the comedy element pegged down enough to prevent it from falling into bizarre slap-stick territory. Gleeson is the steady, quiet man... and one has a feeling the quiet man has much to show.
All is well for the most part. They bumble around and meet a variety of strange locals including the aforementioned small person involved in a film shoot in the city. There's quite a lot of violence tucked away here and an awfully lot of darkness in the characters which is very evident. It makes one feel that this film isn't going to close on a high note and, whatdoyaknow, it doesn't.
By the middle of the film, we're introduced to a rather joyfully hammy Big Boss character played wickedly by Ralph Fiennes. He does a stirling job of portraying a rather old school 1940's/50's mafiosa boss, albeit from some part of south London. Once he arrives in Bruges, you know the pace is going to change... and it does. It all begins to verge on the side of slap-stick once the various villains start running around the city totting guns but all is forgiven for the extremely sentimental climax and heart rending character exploration and reveal at the end.
Quite an unusual film this. It's stuck in my mind months after viewing and I can't wait to see it again. Farrell is in his element in a non-Hollywood blockbuster and presents an all round more satisfying performance in the film. I hope he gets the hint. Gleeson is extremely subtle and brings so much more to the gentle giant character than most probably could. Fiennes is hammier than I thought he could be so thumbs up to him too.
My viewing partner and I were both very impressed with the wonderful actresses playing the local women who get embroiled in the mayhem - Clemence Poesy (Fleur Delacour in the last Harry Potter) and Thekla Reuten. Well done ladies.
It's not often a 'smaller film' is so impressive all round. Even if I had hated the film, I'd still want to visit Bruges so it's a winner either way you look.
(Date viewed - 21/05/08)
The reason I like this film so much is because it kept me guessing both as to how it would end and how many below the belt, risqué bad jokes it could pack in. Picking on a midget??? Is that right??? Well yes, in this case... kind of... not sure... damn, I got sucked in!
Without giving it all away, here's the plot - two dodgy hit-men types are sent to Bruges. Bruges, I hear you cry, where the heck is that??? Well, Belgium. And gorgeous it is too. The two likely fellows haul up in a hotel waiting for a call from 'the boss' anticipating a 'hit'... little do they know...
The characters, played by Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson, spend a good deal of their time bickering and arguing amongst themselves for the first half of the flick. Farrell hates 'history' and isn't interested in the architecture whilst Gleeson is making the best of a bad situation and tries to see the sights before the hit comes in. Farrell takes a while to settle down - he does the best impression of a twitchy man I've ever seen on screen just about keeping the comedy element pegged down enough to prevent it from falling into bizarre slap-stick territory. Gleeson is the steady, quiet man... and one has a feeling the quiet man has much to show.
All is well for the most part. They bumble around and meet a variety of strange locals including the aforementioned small person involved in a film shoot in the city. There's quite a lot of violence tucked away here and an awfully lot of darkness in the characters which is very evident. It makes one feel that this film isn't going to close on a high note and, whatdoyaknow, it doesn't.
By the middle of the film, we're introduced to a rather joyfully hammy Big Boss character played wickedly by Ralph Fiennes. He does a stirling job of portraying a rather old school 1940's/50's mafiosa boss, albeit from some part of south London. Once he arrives in Bruges, you know the pace is going to change... and it does. It all begins to verge on the side of slap-stick once the various villains start running around the city totting guns but all is forgiven for the extremely sentimental climax and heart rending character exploration and reveal at the end.
Quite an unusual film this. It's stuck in my mind months after viewing and I can't wait to see it again. Farrell is in his element in a non-Hollywood blockbuster and presents an all round more satisfying performance in the film. I hope he gets the hint. Gleeson is extremely subtle and brings so much more to the gentle giant character than most probably could. Fiennes is hammier than I thought he could be so thumbs up to him too.
My viewing partner and I were both very impressed with the wonderful actresses playing the local women who get embroiled in the mayhem - Clemence Poesy (Fleur Delacour in the last Harry Potter) and Thekla Reuten. Well done ladies.
It's not often a 'smaller film' is so impressive all round. Even if I had hated the film, I'd still want to visit Bruges so it's a winner either way you look.
(Date viewed - 21/05/08)
Sunday, 6 April 2008
The Orphanage ~~ ½
Without any knowledge, other than this being a ‘little horror film', I was pleasantly surprised by this Spanish story of mystery, love and longing. Firstly, I would say that this is not a horror film rather, this is a story of a couple and their little boy and the past which comes back to haunt them. The family move back into the old orphanage in which the mother Laura grew up in. Their adopted son, unknowing of his own heritage, is ill but lives in blissful ignorance playing happily with his imaginary friends. All seems well on the surface until one day, whilst on a walk to the local coastal caves, the little boy ‘meets’ a new imaginary friend. Laura is understandably concerned about this childish indulgence but resolves to encourage her son to seek friendship with the forthcoming children to their new foster home.
Whilst this story takes a while to unravel, the slow pace and the unassuming action does take hold of you. And by the time it does, things begin to get going. A mysterious woman appears at their home and clues as to the strange noises and little boys actions start to make sense. There is a great sense of unknown being played upon and children’s games point to the answers.
Things take an unfortunate turn for the family when the little boy goes missing. The parents, distraught and confused, turn to the police and then mystics. The history of the house and the children within is explored until Laura takes matters in to her own hands. Ultimately, she uncovers the truth of the situation and when she does, I’ll put money on the fact that a lump will appear in your throat!
The story, whilst believable to a point, takes an unexpected turn but the film makers aid you all the way. In a marvellous twist to the proceedings, what you see is what you get. The novelty of being presented with the whole truth in a film is rather wonderful. No tricks, no red herrings. And whilst the film gives insight into the Spanish sense of melancholy is seems to present a refreshing portrayal of mortality and love. An interesting rather than brilliant film, all the elements (cast, scenery, script etc) hold very well together resulting in a touching and interesting take on the haunted house genre of film. Not bad at all.
The Other Boleyn Girl ~~~
This is an interesting little film. More a fantastic TV series in whole, which isn’t to debase it at all but rather to attempt to put it into the right context of scope. It’s a fascinating portrayal of the Boleyn girls and their ambitious family in the court of Henry VIII. I think my reaction to the actual film itself is based more on the fact that I’m quite a Tudor history enthusiast, and therefore look to find detail of other characters other than those already famous and infamous, rather than to the fact that the film is quite unassuming. Familiarity breeds contempt so to speak.
And whilst this slice of historic life differs greatly to the one portrayed, for example, in the recent BBC series aptly titled ‘The Tudors’, beginning with the King’s obsession with Anne of the brood, doing little to include the relationship he had with her sister Mary, this film (from the recent ‘historic’ book) does go some way in extrapolating actual history whilst showing a slightly less ‘romantic’ view life in the royal household.
All the pieces fit together. The cast is great – Natalie Portman is Anne, the spirited daughter placed by her uncle and father to catch the King, Scarlett Johansson is Mary, the dutiful and respectful daughter caught up in the game whilst Eric Banner plays the King on the cusp of middle-age and infamous endeavour. Kristen Scott Thomas plays the mother of the girls and one of the only moral voices throughout the whole dubious proceedings. It is to her the audience looks once the actions of the men of the family begin to unravel and place the entire Boleyn clan in peril. Thomas’ performance was possibly the best of the collection. Both Portman and Johansson perform admirably with possibly the best English accents from our stateside cousins since either Gillian Anderson in ‘Bleak House’ or, dare I say it, Zellweger as Bridget Jones. Unfortunately, Banner wasn’t given enough screen time to make any real impact and maybe rightly so. It is not his story here.
What is interesting about this story is that what is presented gives possibly the truest depiction of politics and the role of high-class women in the 17th century. Think one big game. The women are undoubtedly the pawns and when applicable, also the porn. If you can’t produce a male heir, don’t even think about it. Queen Katherine hasn’t a chance in hell and everyone at court knows it. It might be that those with only a smidge of knowledge of that period of history feel the film offers a little more, the bonus attraction being in the guessing of what will happen to Anne and Mary. But for those in the know, it might prove to be a little disappointing, as it was for me.
It goes without saying that the sets and costumes were wonderful and I’ll even admit that the script wasn’t too bad. The musical score was appropriate, if a little OTT on occasion, and the remaining cast was very good. Something was missing though and I can’t quite put my finger on it. Certainly no ‘
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
No Country for Old Men ~~~~
Deserves the Oscar for best film... just. Interesting, thought provoking, nerve-racking and clever.
This is a film full of the unexpected. Having not read any reviews or synopses I truly did not know what to expect. Having seen this a few weeks before, my parents reported back that it had been exciting and violent but in the context of the many films released nowadays, it could have pointed in one of many directions. But they were right. Exciting it was. But violent? It certainly displayed much of the physical manifestation of the word but more than that, it showed the violence within man himself. (And I do mean men rather than women because the film is very masculine in most senses of the word and of the composition of the film.)
Tommy Lee Jones heads up an extremely robust and interesting cast. Realising the film relied much on Jones’ inclusion in the marketing of the movie, I was slightly perplexed as to the conspicuous lack of his appearance in the story but then, having let the film rumble around in my mind for quite some time, I realised that this was how it should be. Thinking about the title, having seen the film, I wondered what it was all about. Jones, being the local cop near to retirement, experiences the slowly unfolding story as we, the audience, do. His reactions to the violence and to the characters involved mirror ours and he voices the moral reactions we feel. His experiences of crime and people over the years add context to the stories he shares with other characters and law enforcement staff and we soon begin to feel that the world has changed. And rightly so. It has. The incredulity he feels towards the recently perpetrated crimes is our own. Mystified by the actions of the criminals, Jones guides us through the main story and certainly proves that it’s a young man’s game where only those sensible enough to exit the life-style are allowed to grow old.
Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin, supported by Woody Harrelson and Kelly Macdonald, offer spellbinding performances and I was totally taken in by their diverse characters. Brolin plays Llewellyn Moss, a working-class man seemingly discontent with his life. Out hunting one night he discovers a heinous scene in the desert, one which forces him to make a life altering decision. Once on this new and exciting path, Moss soon finds that he is more than the man he thought he was but unfortunately not enough of a psychopath, in the true sense of the word, to survive. He is no Anton Chigurh, the character played by Bardem, and the man now following him on the path to living hell and relentless fear and hatred. This becomes a cat and mouse game – a chase scene played out almost painfully for we surely know what the outcome may be.
The story follows the characters’ on a moral journey through the arid desert and into the over-crowded city, all tied up with the inevitable money and drugs. Violence and greed. Death and destiny. Relentlessly pursuing Moss, Chigurh is a hired hitman on his own mission. A body lacking soul – a man with his own reasoning and values. A man who has either chosen or been forced to absolve himself of responsibility. He holds his own rationality up to others and expects them to accept his values. He forces others to see the world through his own eyes and punishes them whether they struggle to live or accept their fate. He is a walking harbinger of death. But sent from whom? Is he the devil incarnate or mankind on trial? He makes you feel uncomfortable yet at the same time exposes us for who we really are. If you find yourself rejoicing in the simplicity of his ethics, you are not alone.
The simplest moral to take away with you would be ‘never take another man’s money’. The most complex? I’ll let you decide. It is very rare that a film can tick as many boxes as this does. Action, check. Depth, check. Politics, entertainment, great cinematography? All checks.
Brolin’s performance is quite a revelation. Although quite recently seen playing a very small part in another Jones film, ‘In the Valley of Elah’, his most memorable performance to me has always been that of the stick-in-the-mud, big brother in ‘The Goonies’. I can’t wait to see him in more. He is quite the leading man. Brooding, handsome, quiet and solid. As for Bardem, he excels in characters with a inner violence and distemper. He is quite a marvellous actor.
Overall, the Coen brothers are back on track with a well deserved Oscar winner of a film. This story will stay with you for a long time. I look forward to seeing it again and again because I truly believe that there is so much I missed. A big congratulations also to those who decided that in sound-track terms, less is more. I really appreciated the lack of musical score – I had nothing to audibly lead me through the film and as such, got much more from it. A definite contender for my own film of the year.
There Will be Blood ~~~~ ½
This is a humdinger of a film that not one everyone will like. For some it might be too hefty and for others, unfulfilling but as anyone settling down to a film starring Daniel Day-Lewis ought to know, it isn’t going to be Hollywood Movie Lite™. And it must be said, Day-Lewis is no doubt the true star of this film albeit a furtive, imploding and hefty one.
The story itself is quite simple. Set in
This film has so many aspects to it. So many ways it can be read. If betraying fellow men and sons isn’t enough then the nature of desperate men is uncovered in all its pitiful glory. One can use it as a commentary on the present oil crisis or the current problems with religious fundamentalism but one can also read it, with equal validity, as an exploration of the human heart and mind. Avaricious people beware. All that gold, it just ain’t worth it!
Friday, 15 February 2008
Juno ~~~~
This is a smart film and a funny film and a great antidote to the usual teen fodder.
Don't be misled by the idea that this just movie fluff. This could be one of the comedies, quirky as it is, of the year.
Teenager Juno gets pregnant by her high-school boyfriend unexpectedly. What to do? In her own wisdom she decides to keep the baby, stay in school and find adoptive parents for the prospective bundle of joy. So far, so American cheese-ball movie. (See 'Knocked Up' in comparison.) However, this film is far from what one might expect from our State-side cousins who, more often than not, do a remarkable impression that life is all roses and delight and that teenagers don't do grown up things - or rather they do and the Christian-right is placated with dodgy moral choices almost alien to us in the real world. There. My political comment is over. But, as I say this film, although on the surface following the predicable life choices re: bun in the oven etc, does all it can to make the issue of teen pregnancy and responsibility honest, open and extremely funny, touching and realistic. I think you get the gist of the story.
Where this film really comes into it's own is in almost all the elements a good film should consist of. Great script (not too smart arse as some critics have mentioned - why not be smart after all?), engaging actors, enjoyable yet subtle tunes throughout, great camera work and interesting story. Part of the humour in the film comes from Juno's developing relationship with the prospective adoptive parents who themselves have both individual and couple issues. Juno becomes almost a surrogate child/friend to the 'father' (smashing and underrated Jason Bateman) and the relationship takes an interesting twist as does that of the relationship with the desperate yet sympathetic mother, lovingly played by Jennifer Garner. Juno's parents are wonderful and quirky as are her best friends and townsfolk.
Without ruining the outcome, this is a smashing film. If you like 'Napoleon Dynamite' at all, this is a great compliment to it in many ways. It really is much more than a teen movie. The substance is far more interesting and daring than I had imagined and I am already looking forward to watching this little gem once again. A shame the lead actress missed out on the Oscar... but there's plenty of time for her to succeed in the future. Watch out!
Don't be misled by the idea that this just movie fluff. This could be one of the comedies, quirky as it is, of the year.
Teenager Juno gets pregnant by her high-school boyfriend unexpectedly. What to do? In her own wisdom she decides to keep the baby, stay in school and find adoptive parents for the prospective bundle of joy. So far, so American cheese-ball movie. (See 'Knocked Up' in comparison.) However, this film is far from what one might expect from our State-side cousins who, more often than not, do a remarkable impression that life is all roses and delight and that teenagers don't do grown up things - or rather they do and the Christian-right is placated with dodgy moral choices almost alien to us in the real world. There. My political comment is over. But, as I say this film, although on the surface following the predicable life choices re: bun in the oven etc, does all it can to make the issue of teen pregnancy and responsibility honest, open and extremely funny, touching and realistic. I think you get the gist of the story.
Where this film really comes into it's own is in almost all the elements a good film should consist of. Great script (not too smart arse as some critics have mentioned - why not be smart after all?), engaging actors, enjoyable yet subtle tunes throughout, great camera work and interesting story. Part of the humour in the film comes from Juno's developing relationship with the prospective adoptive parents who themselves have both individual and couple issues. Juno becomes almost a surrogate child/friend to the 'father' (smashing and underrated Jason Bateman) and the relationship takes an interesting twist as does that of the relationship with the desperate yet sympathetic mother, lovingly played by Jennifer Garner. Juno's parents are wonderful and quirky as are her best friends and townsfolk.
Without ruining the outcome, this is a smashing film. If you like 'Napoleon Dynamite' at all, this is a great compliment to it in many ways. It really is much more than a teen movie. The substance is far more interesting and daring than I had imagined and I am already looking forward to watching this little gem once again. A shame the lead actress missed out on the Oscar... but there's plenty of time for her to succeed in the future. Watch out!
Tuesday, 12 February 2008
Cloverfield ~~~~
This is a monster movie.
Very, very briefly (because I'm quite busy) this is a great piece of entertainment. I've been told of the handful of internet site ties-in's to this flick and the directer, JJ Abrams (of Lost fame) seems to have constructed quite a Cloverfield World....
It follows a group of youngish, very good looking New Yorkers whose party get rather rudely interrupted by a mysterious and friggin' huge monster. Nuff said. DO NOT SEE THIS FILM IF YOU GET MOTION SICKNESS. You have been warned! It's 100% hand-held camera business so pretty way out in the sick-cam stakes.
The actors do a sterling job but the hats are particularly off to the ladies who spend a great deal of time running about with little clothing and HUMONGOUS high heels on. Well done!
It's a bit slow paced at the beginning and I actually thought I might have ended up in the wrong cinema but rest assured, once the action begins you'll lose track of all time and wonder when the hell it'll all end!!!
It's a fun film, hits all the rights spots and is well worth a second watch. Rumour has it there is already a follow up on the way and I for one am already looking forward to it.
Monsters rule..... oh yes they do!!!!!!!! Go see this now on the big screen!!! (And the music rocks, too!
Very, very briefly (because I'm quite busy) this is a great piece of entertainment. I've been told of the handful of internet site ties-in's to this flick and the directer, JJ Abrams (of Lost fame) seems to have constructed quite a Cloverfield World....
It follows a group of youngish, very good looking New Yorkers whose party get rather rudely interrupted by a mysterious and friggin' huge monster. Nuff said. DO NOT SEE THIS FILM IF YOU GET MOTION SICKNESS. You have been warned! It's 100% hand-held camera business so pretty way out in the sick-cam stakes.
The actors do a sterling job but the hats are particularly off to the ladies who spend a great deal of time running about with little clothing and HUMONGOUS high heels on. Well done!
It's a bit slow paced at the beginning and I actually thought I might have ended up in the wrong cinema but rest assured, once the action begins you'll lose track of all time and wonder when the hell it'll all end!!!
It's a fun film, hits all the rights spots and is well worth a second watch. Rumour has it there is already a follow up on the way and I for one am already looking forward to it.
Monsters rule..... oh yes they do!!!!!!!! Go see this now on the big screen!!! (And the music rocks, too!
The Valley of Elah ~~~
Quite an impressive film all round. Great acting, excellent direction, stunning cinematography and above par script. Only draw back - the story. If you aren't interested in slow, but exciting journies of discovery (for both the characters and the viewer) then this won't be for you. Tommy Lee Jones and Charlize Theron (with Susan Sarandon on the side) put in pretty amazing performances in this slow paced but intriguing story of how futile and desperate modern army life can be. Half detective fiction, half social comment on how war tears families, and soldiers, apart this is the kind of film everyone should be watching. High quality, high concept but low maintenance. The kind of film you can take on face value or read into it whatever political comment you might like.
Without spoiling this at all, it follows a father trying to come to terms with the loss of a son but not only that, trying to uncover the mystery of what happened and why. Jones plays an ex-military dad on a mission to pull the authorities into the situation but finds himself responsible for uncovering the truth. Theron is pretty strong as the local cop up against her own plethora of misogynistic and dumb ass colleagues whilst becoming embroiled with, and in turn supporting, Jones' character.
This may not be everyone's cup of tea but amongst the recent slew of very mediocre movies recently, this shines stronger than most. Jones must surely win a few awards for this performance? It would only be fair for such an honest and human portrayal.
There is a rather interesting and clever analogy made throughout referencing the American flag - perhaps not so poignant for UK viewers but on reflection both significant and touching. And, most possibly, incredibly true. Please do go and see this. It's subtle yet quite powerful and emotionally resonant.
Without spoiling this at all, it follows a father trying to come to terms with the loss of a son but not only that, trying to uncover the mystery of what happened and why. Jones plays an ex-military dad on a mission to pull the authorities into the situation but finds himself responsible for uncovering the truth. Theron is pretty strong as the local cop up against her own plethora of misogynistic and dumb ass colleagues whilst becoming embroiled with, and in turn supporting, Jones' character.
This may not be everyone's cup of tea but amongst the recent slew of very mediocre movies recently, this shines stronger than most. Jones must surely win a few awards for this performance? It would only be fair for such an honest and human portrayal.
There is a rather interesting and clever analogy made throughout referencing the American flag - perhaps not so poignant for UK viewers but on reflection both significant and touching. And, most possibly, incredibly true. Please do go and see this. It's subtle yet quite powerful and emotionally resonant.
Sunday, 27 January 2008
Walk Hard - The Dewey Cox Story ~
I'm not sure I want to expand much on the comment which follows - this film is a stinker. It did not suit me at all. If you are at all interested in a piss-take pastiche of 'Walk the Line' then you'll love it. It's sex, drugs and rock and roll through the eyes of an imbecile. Following Dewey from childhood to old age, we see his experiences through the musical eras - a wandering rock star trying to improve on his early successes. His growing addictions see him losing his wife and later his own dignity. He meets the Beatles and Elvis, all depicted in both comedic and OTT fashion, and finally rises to his predicted grand status.
The best bits, if any, were appearances from Jack White, Jack Black, Jason Schwartzman, Justin Long, Eddie Veder of Pearl Jam fame and the wonderful Paul Rudd. John C Reilly, a great actor, was reduced to crap jokes and embarrassing caricature - which I realise is half of the supposed fun - but just did not work for me. Jenna Fischer was great as the misused second wife, I'd love to see her in more films.
Oh, I can't help it - just watch 'Walk the Line'. Judd Apatow, hot off the roll from 'Anchorman' (under-rated and better on repeated watching), 'Knocked Up' (excellent) and 'Superbad' (yet to see) has let himself down but I can appreciate how many people will love this flick. Key, if you're reading, tune in. I think this is one for you!
Anyhow, I'll leave it there. Can I just recommend 'Spinal Tap'?
I thank you.
The best bits, if any, were appearances from Jack White, Jack Black, Jason Schwartzman, Justin Long, Eddie Veder of Pearl Jam fame and the wonderful Paul Rudd. John C Reilly, a great actor, was reduced to crap jokes and embarrassing caricature - which I realise is half of the supposed fun - but just did not work for me. Jenna Fischer was great as the misused second wife, I'd love to see her in more films.
Oh, I can't help it - just watch 'Walk the Line'. Judd Apatow, hot off the roll from 'Anchorman' (under-rated and better on repeated watching), 'Knocked Up' (excellent) and 'Superbad' (yet to see) has let himself down but I can appreciate how many people will love this flick. Key, if you're reading, tune in. I think this is one for you!
Anyhow, I'll leave it there. Can I just recommend 'Spinal Tap'?
I thank you.
St. Trinian's ~~
So, true to my nature I could not resist a film involving both Colin Firth and Rupert Everett. In my commitment to British film, it is possible to see some stinker flicks but this, thankfully, was actually pretty good. If you are a 12 year old girl, you might possibly think this is the greatest film ever made... until you hit puberty and get a grip.
I'm going to assume everyone knows of the original St.Trinian's films of the 50's and 60's - riotous, cheeky and often blood-thirsty! - and go straight into how this flick fares. It's lovely to see Colin and Rupert working together again and it really seems to work, although the shared screen time here is pretty limited. Everett plays both the head mistress of the wild and wacky private girls school and also the father (who is also the brother of the head, Miss Fritten) of the newest pupil (or is that inmate???) who is unceremoniously dumped in the school. Miss Fritten is a woman of many layers - dig deep enough and you're certain to find quite a surprise.... Firth, on the other hand, plays an ambitious government minister set on shaping up the hell-hole school to impress the media. Unbeknownst to many, his character has a past with Miss Fritten...
Cutting to the chase... the girls in the school are supposed to be pretty wild and diverse. The cliques both split and unite the school - goths, swots, rich kids etc etc - whilst the head girl whips them all into shape. The premise is pretty simple. The school is set for closure unless someone comes up with a plan to make money quick. The teachers, whilst as weird and diverse as the kids, enlist the help of the girls and Russell Brand, as Flash Harry, organises them. I won't ruin the plan but needless to say, it's crazy...
The girls have a mission and everyone is enlisted. The new girl gets accepted and the plan goes ahead. At the same time, the government minister and the media are snooping about and the school has to be seen to be on its best behaviour. The potential here was pretty great for indulging the audience in madness and mayhem... except it wasn't reached. For a wild bunch of girls the last place you'd find them would be in the zoo as many of the original films girls might have been. These girls are actually quite well behaved and the action is very predictable. I just wanted MORE mayhem! And why not? It's not often films come out where girls are the focus and why shouldn't they be allowed to go wild??? I would have totally flipped for a more anarchic version of this 20 years ago!!! All a bit disappointing.
Other let downs included a real misuse of adult actors - the teachers were a most exciting bunch but thoroughly under scripted and under utilised. As were most of the girls. A good example would be in the use of twin sisters in the film. Rather than use them to be creepy and mad they plumbed for repetitive and dirty (with mud, that is!) The new girl and head girl were just about as good as it got and the 'make-over' scene was totally out of sync with the rest of the flick.
On the plus side, if this is the beginning of a new franchise things can only get better. The pay off here was in the relationship between Colin and Rupert. Those in the know would have picked up on the references made relating to films they had been in together in the past. Be prepared for a shocking, but funny, conclusion to their friendship. I also enjoyed the 'Britishness' of the film. Seeing the countryside and London in the summer is quite a perk. The script was pretty low par but the acting was of a high standard all round.
This would be a great film to watch at a kids party (although I'd limit the sugar intake of the girls before hand to reduce the risk of breakages in the almost guaranteed ensuing bonkers jump-around fest) or on a re-run on TV. I think, for nostalgic purposes, I'd rather sit through one of the originals although I never say no to Mr F or Mr E. It's probably a grower but I will admit that it's zest and rebelliousness are definitely a little bit infectious!
I'm going to assume everyone knows of the original St.Trinian's films of the 50's and 60's - riotous, cheeky and often blood-thirsty! - and go straight into how this flick fares. It's lovely to see Colin and Rupert working together again and it really seems to work, although the shared screen time here is pretty limited. Everett plays both the head mistress of the wild and wacky private girls school and also the father (who is also the brother of the head, Miss Fritten) of the newest pupil (or is that inmate???) who is unceremoniously dumped in the school. Miss Fritten is a woman of many layers - dig deep enough and you're certain to find quite a surprise.... Firth, on the other hand, plays an ambitious government minister set on shaping up the hell-hole school to impress the media. Unbeknownst to many, his character has a past with Miss Fritten...
Cutting to the chase... the girls in the school are supposed to be pretty wild and diverse. The cliques both split and unite the school - goths, swots, rich kids etc etc - whilst the head girl whips them all into shape. The premise is pretty simple. The school is set for closure unless someone comes up with a plan to make money quick. The teachers, whilst as weird and diverse as the kids, enlist the help of the girls and Russell Brand, as Flash Harry, organises them. I won't ruin the plan but needless to say, it's crazy...
The girls have a mission and everyone is enlisted. The new girl gets accepted and the plan goes ahead. At the same time, the government minister and the media are snooping about and the school has to be seen to be on its best behaviour. The potential here was pretty great for indulging the audience in madness and mayhem... except it wasn't reached. For a wild bunch of girls the last place you'd find them would be in the zoo as many of the original films girls might have been. These girls are actually quite well behaved and the action is very predictable. I just wanted MORE mayhem! And why not? It's not often films come out where girls are the focus and why shouldn't they be allowed to go wild??? I would have totally flipped for a more anarchic version of this 20 years ago!!! All a bit disappointing.
Other let downs included a real misuse of adult actors - the teachers were a most exciting bunch but thoroughly under scripted and under utilised. As were most of the girls. A good example would be in the use of twin sisters in the film. Rather than use them to be creepy and mad they plumbed for repetitive and dirty (with mud, that is!) The new girl and head girl were just about as good as it got and the 'make-over' scene was totally out of sync with the rest of the flick.
On the plus side, if this is the beginning of a new franchise things can only get better. The pay off here was in the relationship between Colin and Rupert. Those in the know would have picked up on the references made relating to films they had been in together in the past. Be prepared for a shocking, but funny, conclusion to their friendship. I also enjoyed the 'Britishness' of the film. Seeing the countryside and London in the summer is quite a perk. The script was pretty low par but the acting was of a high standard all round.
This would be a great film to watch at a kids party (although I'd limit the sugar intake of the girls before hand to reduce the risk of breakages in the almost guaranteed ensuing bonkers jump-around fest) or on a re-run on TV. I think, for nostalgic purposes, I'd rather sit through one of the originals although I never say no to Mr F or Mr E. It's probably a grower but I will admit that it's zest and rebelliousness are definitely a little bit infectious!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
