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!”
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
