I think I was expecting an expanded episode of the rather great American sci-fi series ‘Fringe’, where mysterious ‘watchers’ pop up and keep tabs on humans making sure they stick to ‘the plan’. In one sense I got that but in another I got an altogether lighter and more accessible rom-com-ish adventure.
Weird.
First point up. I heart Matt Damon. Now I do. Years ago I really didn’t and yes, I was heavily influenced by the terribly vulgar but amusing ‘Team America’ gang. “Matt Damonnnnnnnn”. Then came Bourne. Then came all the other good stuff he keeps delivering. He’s very believable and unlike other great actors, Big Russ Crowe, George Clooney and Brad of the Pitt to name but a few, I always forget it’s him. In a good way. What I mean is, for such a big star, Damon manages to ‘be’ his characters. I see them, not him. Which is a good thing.
Secondly, as much as I love Emily Blunt I wish her lovely plumy English accent wasn’t now parked quite as centrally as it is in the mid-Atlantic. Bit annoying but presumably a result of living in the US for the work. Correct me if I’m wrong. She is a great actress though and when she smiles, her whole face changes and sucks you in to her. Quite charming really.
Thirdly, although very sweet and quite unique, the whole film was a bit too ‘lite’ for me.
Story goes a bit like this… boy meets girl, they fall in love, stars and love hearts twinkle and bubble all over the place but the powers that be, namely the ‘Adjustment Bureau’, soon find out and try to put a stop to them being together. Are they angels, demons, aliens or God? Whatever. They don’t like it and it isn’t in the plan. Everyone’s got a day job to do so they do all they can to break them up and when they finally lose control of the situation, the couple try to beat them at their own spooky, space shifting games. Ugh? Essentially Damon is destined for greatness in politics and Blunt is set to be the greatest dancer in the USA so you see, you can’t have it all, can you?
There’s lots of humour in this film, more than I had expected, and it lent itself pretty nicely to keeping everything quite buoyant and pacey. The whole cast is pretty spot on with the exception of one of the Bureau members being a fella from the TV series ‘Mad Men’. Not that he was bad, far from it, but it was incredibly distracting to have him in the flick dressed exactly as he is in the series – trilby and mac, anyone?
The one major issue I had with the film, and it lingered long after having seen it, was that there was absolutely no menace. No frights. No real tension throughout, and for a wannabe ‘thriller’, that was a bit of a problem. Everything was lovely and ‘nice’. I could have done with a lot more thrill and happily traded it for a lot less lovey-dovey stuff. Hard women, or what?!?
‘The Adjustment Bureau’ could easily have planted its feet a little more firmly in the rom-com arena or the sci-fi camp but ultimately seemed to fudged it by trying to straddle both genres. Unique but ultimately a little bit of a bore. Perversely, I would recommend this film as I think there may be more to it than one first viewing. It looked good, sounded good, felt good. Just could have been a bit rougher.
A star spot I have to mention was that Jennifer Ehle pops up as a barmaid. How odd.
Anyway, what did I learn from this little tale? Well, Emily’s a much better dancer than me, Matt should probably run for President and there is no God. Only destiny. Lovely.
Viewed: 9th March 2011
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Paul ~~~
Loving crafted and well scripted Alien-buddy movie starring Britain’s best exports Simon Frost and Nick Pegg, those loveable fella’s that brought us the very funny and totally unique ‘Hot Fuzz’ and ‘Shaun of the Dead’.
Let’s get it out of the way… Paul is indeed an alien. I think the trailers for this film kinda ruined what could have been a great surprise gag but nevertheless, Paul, voiced rather nicely by Seth Rogen, pops up pretty soon in the film so no real spoiler alert needed.
So, Graeme and Clive, two geeky bezzy mates hire an RV and hit the American road in search of UFOs, sci-fi conventions and a bit of adventure. And naturally, they meet Paul, the alien. After a rocky start, the Brits accept Paul’s presence and do all they can to protect him against prying eyes and the law… yes, Paul is being chased by the boys in blue as well as some red-necks and eventually Bible-bashers. Oh, what larks!
I decided pretty soon on to throw myself into the very silly but smartly funny story and let it all wash over me. Highlights included the brilliantly comic actress Kristen Wiig, as a creationist trailer park owner, and the lovely Jason Bateman as yet another guy on the trio’s trail.
The eye for detail was really lovely – the CGI animated Paul looked great, the script was intelligent and the attempt at bringing in a discussion concerning creationism and evolution was pretty good. Can aliens exist if there is a god? Discuss.
I understand that a lot of money was thrown at this film and on the one hand this verion of ‘Paul’ may never have been made without it. On the other, having such finances and expectation attached to ‘Paul’, and it being an ‘American’ flick, definitely led to the watering down of the usually more ‘British’, and focused, sense of humour Pegg, Frost et al deliver.
Overall, I really quite enjoyed ‘Paul’. It was funny, endearing, knowing, exciting and well paced. It’s not often an intelligent and accessible comedy comes along that will appeal to most people but I think on this occasion the ‘Spaced’ gang did good. And on that note, if you haven’t already done so, I advise you to watch ‘Spaced’ – both series with lots of tea and biscuits to hand. Fancy a bourbon?
One thing I have to get off my chest though, why was Pegg wearing a wig? Bizarre and very distracting. Why do it?
I look forward to the next Frost/Pegg presentation. Thanks lads, it’s nice to have a laugh one in a while…
Viewed: 2nd March 2011
Let’s get it out of the way… Paul is indeed an alien. I think the trailers for this film kinda ruined what could have been a great surprise gag but nevertheless, Paul, voiced rather nicely by Seth Rogen, pops up pretty soon in the film so no real spoiler alert needed.
So, Graeme and Clive, two geeky bezzy mates hire an RV and hit the American road in search of UFOs, sci-fi conventions and a bit of adventure. And naturally, they meet Paul, the alien. After a rocky start, the Brits accept Paul’s presence and do all they can to protect him against prying eyes and the law… yes, Paul is being chased by the boys in blue as well as some red-necks and eventually Bible-bashers. Oh, what larks!
I decided pretty soon on to throw myself into the very silly but smartly funny story and let it all wash over me. Highlights included the brilliantly comic actress Kristen Wiig, as a creationist trailer park owner, and the lovely Jason Bateman as yet another guy on the trio’s trail.
The eye for detail was really lovely – the CGI animated Paul looked great, the script was intelligent and the attempt at bringing in a discussion concerning creationism and evolution was pretty good. Can aliens exist if there is a god? Discuss.
I understand that a lot of money was thrown at this film and on the one hand this verion of ‘Paul’ may never have been made without it. On the other, having such finances and expectation attached to ‘Paul’, and it being an ‘American’ flick, definitely led to the watering down of the usually more ‘British’, and focused, sense of humour Pegg, Frost et al deliver.
Overall, I really quite enjoyed ‘Paul’. It was funny, endearing, knowing, exciting and well paced. It’s not often an intelligent and accessible comedy comes along that will appeal to most people but I think on this occasion the ‘Spaced’ gang did good. And on that note, if you haven’t already done so, I advise you to watch ‘Spaced’ – both series with lots of tea and biscuits to hand. Fancy a bourbon?
One thing I have to get off my chest though, why was Pegg wearing a wig? Bizarre and very distracting. Why do it?
I look forward to the next Frost/Pegg presentation. Thanks lads, it’s nice to have a laugh one in a while…
Viewed: 2nd March 2011
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
True Grit ~~~ 1/2
I’m a part-time Coen brothers film fan. Some I like (No County for Old Men), some I don’t (Burn After Reading) but either way, I seem to be able to see what they were trying to get at.
With ‘True Grit’, and bearing in mind I haven’t seen the original 1969 John Wayne version, I think I know what they wanted to do. I saw their vision in my mind’s eye but not through my actual eyes. I hope that makes some sense?
At the outset, it’s a great story. 14 year old Mattie Ross wants to avenge her father’s murder by the alcohol fuelled, no-gooder Tom Chaney. She sets out to exact justice on him but needs help. Travelling to the town in which all the action has taken place, and without her widowed, and possibly ineffectual, mother, Mattie hunts down the best man for the job. Given the choice between the Texas Ranger LaBoeuf, played wonderfully by Matt Damon as a curmudgeonly but experienced outlaw hunter and the infamous lawman Rooster Cogburn played very ably by Jeff Bridges on best mumbling and grizzled form, she chooses the latter and goes about getting him prepared for a journey into ‘Injun’ territory.
Mattie herself is quite a character. Exact, clipped and decisive she’s a girl with a mission and nothing, bar actual kidnap or snakes, is going to stop her. Whether I actually liked the character or not, is a tricky thing. She is the heart of the story, both literally and actually, and compared to the dusty, drunk but experienced men, she is light relief however, the very nature of her bossy, bible-quoting and hard-edged character does little to make the viewer warm to her. Hailee Steinfeld is very watchable and sure to be star of the future but in this role, quite difficult to love. Respect, yes, love? No. Nevertheless, the trio end up on the baddies trail and cause havoc as they ride.
It’s all pretty exciting and bloody but something seemed to be missing. There’s plenty of trueness going on but not as much ‘grit’ as I’d hoped. Damon’s LaBoeuf is played a tad too buffoony at times, but I actually liked that. Bridges’ Cogburn is barely comprehensible throughout – the more sozzled he is the better his slur! Ra, rar, arar, rarar... that's part of the script as delivered by Bridges' wonderfully pissed Rooster Cogburn. Again, perhaps a little too much effort went into this aspect of the character, but I enjoyed it.
The scenery of the Wild West goes rather unnoticed, which is a real shame. Whilst the towns and building scenery are replicated pretty realistically for the period, the focus remains on the characters which makes sense but it would have been nice to have had the ‘fourth character’, of the great outdoors, more at the forefront.
What I always love about Coen brothers’ films is their sense of humour. Throughout ‘True Grit’ the audience does get a good dollop of laughs. I think what may have been missing was the true ‘grit’ to balance it all out.
The story was slightly ruined by an opening which included the older Mattie narrating the story. Not only did this skew my expectation of her character’s future throughout the film but also impacted on my overall feelings towards her. It would have been better not to have included these scenes and to have allowed the audience to develop their own theory as to what the ending might be.
Overall, True Grit is a very enjoyable but slightly flawed coming of age / end of an era tale of altruism and human bonding. More often than not, people need each other. Not only to help them through difficult times but for the sake of their own sanity and spirit. ‘True Grit’ made it clear to me that both reasons are true but proved equally as much that one cannot be sentimental, one must go on alone.
I look forward to seeing this understated but essentially successful dusty gem again in the near future. I love westerns!
23rd February 2011
With ‘True Grit’, and bearing in mind I haven’t seen the original 1969 John Wayne version, I think I know what they wanted to do. I saw their vision in my mind’s eye but not through my actual eyes. I hope that makes some sense?
At the outset, it’s a great story. 14 year old Mattie Ross wants to avenge her father’s murder by the alcohol fuelled, no-gooder Tom Chaney. She sets out to exact justice on him but needs help. Travelling to the town in which all the action has taken place, and without her widowed, and possibly ineffectual, mother, Mattie hunts down the best man for the job. Given the choice between the Texas Ranger LaBoeuf, played wonderfully by Matt Damon as a curmudgeonly but experienced outlaw hunter and the infamous lawman Rooster Cogburn played very ably by Jeff Bridges on best mumbling and grizzled form, she chooses the latter and goes about getting him prepared for a journey into ‘Injun’ territory.
Mattie herself is quite a character. Exact, clipped and decisive she’s a girl with a mission and nothing, bar actual kidnap or snakes, is going to stop her. Whether I actually liked the character or not, is a tricky thing. She is the heart of the story, both literally and actually, and compared to the dusty, drunk but experienced men, she is light relief however, the very nature of her bossy, bible-quoting and hard-edged character does little to make the viewer warm to her. Hailee Steinfeld is very watchable and sure to be star of the future but in this role, quite difficult to love. Respect, yes, love? No. Nevertheless, the trio end up on the baddies trail and cause havoc as they ride.
It’s all pretty exciting and bloody but something seemed to be missing. There’s plenty of trueness going on but not as much ‘grit’ as I’d hoped. Damon’s LaBoeuf is played a tad too buffoony at times, but I actually liked that. Bridges’ Cogburn is barely comprehensible throughout – the more sozzled he is the better his slur! Ra, rar, arar, rarar... that's part of the script as delivered by Bridges' wonderfully pissed Rooster Cogburn. Again, perhaps a little too much effort went into this aspect of the character, but I enjoyed it.
The scenery of the Wild West goes rather unnoticed, which is a real shame. Whilst the towns and building scenery are replicated pretty realistically for the period, the focus remains on the characters which makes sense but it would have been nice to have had the ‘fourth character’, of the great outdoors, more at the forefront.
What I always love about Coen brothers’ films is their sense of humour. Throughout ‘True Grit’ the audience does get a good dollop of laughs. I think what may have been missing was the true ‘grit’ to balance it all out.
The story was slightly ruined by an opening which included the older Mattie narrating the story. Not only did this skew my expectation of her character’s future throughout the film but also impacted on my overall feelings towards her. It would have been better not to have included these scenes and to have allowed the audience to develop their own theory as to what the ending might be.
Overall, True Grit is a very enjoyable but slightly flawed coming of age / end of an era tale of altruism and human bonding. More often than not, people need each other. Not only to help them through difficult times but for the sake of their own sanity and spirit. ‘True Grit’ made it clear to me that both reasons are true but proved equally as much that one cannot be sentimental, one must go on alone.
I look forward to seeing this understated but essentially successful dusty gem again in the near future. I love westerns!
23rd February 2011
Never Let Me Go ~~1/2
Ultimately disappointing quasi-sci-fi imagining of the lives and loves of three school friends who grow up in an alternate world in which society expects the ultimate sacrifice from a chosen few. Too vague? Well, I can’t be expected to ruin the story for you but I will say this…
Carey Mulligan (Kathy), Keira Knightly (Ruth) and Andrew Garfield (Tommy), as the grown up versions of their characters, are brilliant, but I expected no less, whilst the younger actors portraying the friends were pretty brilliant, too. Especially the young Kathy - watch out for Izzy Meikle-Small in the future…
This is a weird little story which draws on the multiple themes of love, loss, fate, expectation, duty and the idea of selflessly giving away parts of yourself to others, including your heart.
Growing up together in a seemingly ‘normal’ boarding school during the 1980’s, the three young characters are presented through both the eyes and narration of Kathy, a rather pragmatic but inquisitive loner. Her story-telling throughout is depressingly astute and accepting, no matter what is happening to her, and in this alternative universe, I suppose one should expect no less. However, once I truly picked up on what lay ahead for the students of the school, her narration jarred significantly with my own experiences and expectations. I found it very difficult to accept Kathy’s acquiescence towards her future fate. And I think, for me, therein lies the problem regarding general ‘enjoyment’ of the whole film.
Although I had really been looking forward to this film for what seemed an eternity, from initial trailer way back when to actually sitting in the cinema experiencing it, I was totally confounded by the way in which the writer delivered the story to us. Whilst I accept that, at its heart, the story is a simple one about love, destiny and friendship, which is fine and dandy, I just could not suspend my disbelief for long enough to really enjoy the film properly.
What I did find heart-breaking, and what really annoyed me, was that between the grown up trio, and their very evident love-triangle, not one of the two really in love did a bloody thing about it! It became quite apparent in the early stages of two of the characters relationship that the third party was indeed acting selfishly. Ultimately though, this act is punishable by something quite gruesome and I found this to be quite satisfying! Bitch! But do not fear, true love is always rewarded.
I’m not sure if I was meant to pick up on it or not, but everything about the film seemed to be very ‘brown’. The costumes, landscape and even the interiors were very gloomy and dull. I was expecting throughout that this tonal adoption would change with the passing of the 1970’s and 80’s, but I was wrong. Perhaps the production team were going for ‘natural’ but, to me, it just felt rather drab and desolate. Maybe this is was the aim?
Part of me thinks I should see this film again. Keira does a great job of being haughty and ill. Andrew really will be a big star and is quite spellbinding in a rather peculiarly stutteringly and ‘deep’ way whilst Carey is steady and warm. I can’t wait to see her in something else where she gets to let her hair down a bit. On the other hand, I might just be depressed and irritated all over again…
The more I think about this film, the angrier I get. I really can’t place the source of my irritation. If anything, it might be my interpretation of the sheer lack of control and free will the characters possess which makes me fume or maybe my heart has been sucked out by errant ballerinas or cowboys or superheros from all the other films I’ve been enjoying recently? I just really didn’t care - I must truly be a husk of a human being otherwise I might actually have given a damn about the characters? Answers on a postcard to…
16th February 2011
Carey Mulligan (Kathy), Keira Knightly (Ruth) and Andrew Garfield (Tommy), as the grown up versions of their characters, are brilliant, but I expected no less, whilst the younger actors portraying the friends were pretty brilliant, too. Especially the young Kathy - watch out for Izzy Meikle-Small in the future…
This is a weird little story which draws on the multiple themes of love, loss, fate, expectation, duty and the idea of selflessly giving away parts of yourself to others, including your heart.
Growing up together in a seemingly ‘normal’ boarding school during the 1980’s, the three young characters are presented through both the eyes and narration of Kathy, a rather pragmatic but inquisitive loner. Her story-telling throughout is depressingly astute and accepting, no matter what is happening to her, and in this alternative universe, I suppose one should expect no less. However, once I truly picked up on what lay ahead for the students of the school, her narration jarred significantly with my own experiences and expectations. I found it very difficult to accept Kathy’s acquiescence towards her future fate. And I think, for me, therein lies the problem regarding general ‘enjoyment’ of the whole film.
Although I had really been looking forward to this film for what seemed an eternity, from initial trailer way back when to actually sitting in the cinema experiencing it, I was totally confounded by the way in which the writer delivered the story to us. Whilst I accept that, at its heart, the story is a simple one about love, destiny and friendship, which is fine and dandy, I just could not suspend my disbelief for long enough to really enjoy the film properly.
What I did find heart-breaking, and what really annoyed me, was that between the grown up trio, and their very evident love-triangle, not one of the two really in love did a bloody thing about it! It became quite apparent in the early stages of two of the characters relationship that the third party was indeed acting selfishly. Ultimately though, this act is punishable by something quite gruesome and I found this to be quite satisfying! Bitch! But do not fear, true love is always rewarded.
I’m not sure if I was meant to pick up on it or not, but everything about the film seemed to be very ‘brown’. The costumes, landscape and even the interiors were very gloomy and dull. I was expecting throughout that this tonal adoption would change with the passing of the 1970’s and 80’s, but I was wrong. Perhaps the production team were going for ‘natural’ but, to me, it just felt rather drab and desolate. Maybe this is was the aim?
Part of me thinks I should see this film again. Keira does a great job of being haughty and ill. Andrew really will be a big star and is quite spellbinding in a rather peculiarly stutteringly and ‘deep’ way whilst Carey is steady and warm. I can’t wait to see her in something else where she gets to let her hair down a bit. On the other hand, I might just be depressed and irritated all over again…
The more I think about this film, the angrier I get. I really can’t place the source of my irritation. If anything, it might be my interpretation of the sheer lack of control and free will the characters possess which makes me fume or maybe my heart has been sucked out by errant ballerinas or cowboys or superheros from all the other films I’ve been enjoying recently? I just really didn’t care - I must truly be a husk of a human being otherwise I might actually have given a damn about the characters? Answers on a postcard to…
16th February 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
