This is a strange one...
I sat in the cinema falling for it hook, line and sinker. I've read some reviews subsequent to seeing it that have decimated it and in the cold light of day I completely empathise. But I sat in the cinema tense and scared and unwilling to watch the screen.
The story and set up are basically the same as the first film. Weird things happening in a house, CCTV, locked off night shots, weird things caught on camera starting small and escalating to the finale. The events of this film are linked to those of the first in a way I have to say I quite liked. This time around the paranormal activity centres around a little toddler which is another idea I really liked. The baby is scared but doesn't know why. Or he isn't scared because he's too young to understand what is happening but we are scared for him. Pots fall, footsteps approach, walls are banged and the "dragging out of bed" scene from the first film is reprised but in a bigger way this time around as the sequel, whilst still being really small budget, nevertheless cost slightly more than the paltry $15,000 of the first. Make no mistake, this is the same film all over again and, loss of originality aside, if you enjoyed the first, I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy the second.
I re-read my review of the first film and I was full of praise for it, apart from the let-down ending, a problem that reoccurs in the sequel. What's interesting is that I haven't gone back to it as there simply isn't much story to tell. It's a one trick film that pulls off its trick very well. The sequel is exactly the same way and I can't imagine returning to it any time soon. I was scared in the cinema because ghost stories scare me and this is well done. Add to that a couple of good ideas and the film is definitely worth a look. Judging by the box office, I'm sure Paramount are already hard at work on Paranormal Activity 3. This could become their Saw franchise. Quite how far and for how long you can spin out films like this I don't know. But then this is Hollywood. And I'm sure there are plenty more characters who will place CCTV in their homes to capture their personal paranormal activity.
6/10
Wednesday 27 October 2010
RED (Retired & Extremely Dangerous) Review
Not the worst film ever but I started forgetting scenes almost as soon as they finished. The story isn't interesting and the action is fairly pedestrian. Sure it's nice to see older actors getting to kick ass but there is literally nothing else to the film.
Redundant & Extremely Derivative.
4/10
Redundant & Extremely Derivative.
4/10
Friday 22 October 2010
The Social Network Review
Every time a film comes out that purports to be “based on a true story” (or more worryingly, “inspired by true events” by which you can interpret “bearing zero relation to anything that has ever happened. Anywhere. Ever”) out come the sayers of nae protesting as to the factual inaccuracy of the project. This didn’t happen this way, that didn’t happen that way blah blah blah. Unless the errors are particularly egregious (“Hey, have you seen that new movie about 9/11? It’s great, the planes miss the buildings.”) I usually have little time for these complaints. Timelines are ALWAYS truncated in films, characters merged for the sake of dramatic expedience and events changed for dramatic purposes. Nine times out of ten, the film makers know what they are doing and the changes made are necessary to tell the story for the cinema. David Fincher is a director renowned for meticulous attention to detail so the idea that he has got as much of the story of the founding of Facebook wrong as is being claimed is surprising to say the least. Yet it does seem to be the case. The thing is, The Social Network is a really good film, intelligent, gripping, funny, superbly written, directed and acted. So what impact do these alleged inaccuracies have on one’s enjoyment of it? For me, pretty much none. Colour me callous!
Jessie Eisenberg is Mark Zuckerberg, a computer genius studying at Harvard who finds himself ostracised from the University’s most prestigious private clubs, clubs that he thinks hold the key to his future. Zuckerberg, at least the Zuckerberg depicted here, is abrupt, difficult and in no way constrained by society’s norms and conventions. He is also conniving and manipulative. The fact that the real Mark Zuckerberg declined to be involved isn’t massively surprising… Anyway two twin brothers, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, come to Zuckerberg with an idea for a Harvard based social networking website. Zuckerberg sees something in their idea and, also taking the opportunity to stick it to the kinds of people who have excluded him up to now, strings them along while he takes the best of what their concept has to offer and creates what would eventually become Facebook. His only friend Eduardo (new Spider-Man Andrew Garfield) becomes the fledgling company’s business manager but as Zuckerberg is wowed by Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) Eduardo finds himself increasingly sidelined and, in the end, utterly shafted by his friend and he, along with everyone else, attempts to sue Zuckerberg for their piece of the pie.
The film depicts the depositions given by everyone involved in the two lawsuits and we flash back and forth between their testimony and the events being described in the past. This lends the film a great ambiguity as we only ever receive subjective accounts of events from the Winklevoss brothers, Eduardo or Zuckerberg himself and can believe or disbelieve things as we see fit. This is something of a get out of jail free card but the exact events are completely shrouded in mystery so it makes sense that writer Aaron Sorkin (working from the novel The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich) should structure the film this way. But Sorkin and Fincher have taken the subject of the founding of Facebook and used it as a springboard for the things that interest them, the nature of the creative process, the implications of sites like Facebook and their notion of who the film’s central character is. There is always that nagging feeling that much of how Zuckerberg is depicted isn’t true such as his ineptitude with women for example; he apparently had a girlfriend at the time. This is no small thing when the final moments of the film tie this character beat into the story to wrap everything up. Don’t misunderstand, it’s a great moment and a great ending, but some may struggle to find its dramatic satisfaction in the midst of factual inaccuracies. Sorkin’s trademark snappy dialogue is present and accounted for but, one or two clunky moments aside (Zuckerberg moves to L.A. and happily ends up on the same street as Justin Timberlake. Seriously? The same street? That’s like in Star Trek movies where the character beams down to a planet the size of Pluto but happen to land in the exact spot where another character lives) it’s a fantastic script. David Fincher remains one of the most interesting directors working in Hollywood and with this and Zodiac, the demonic Benjamin Button has now been completely exorcised. The cast is uniformly excellent with Jesse Eisenberg finding great humour and surprising moments of pathos in the inscrutable Zuckerberg.
The Social Network is a great film, a fascinating story very well told. The biggest problem with it being factually inaccurate is that the story is so recent, beginning as it did merely seven years ago. What isn't in doubt is that something unsavoury happened and Zuckerberg was slap bang in the middle of it. My suspicion is that, while the actual events depicted may be incorrect or even made up, the point they are making is pretty close to the truth, or at least, the truth the film makers believe to be the case. A subjective point of view is the best thing a writer or director can offer a film and this should be true of so called true stories as it is of works of fiction. And ultimately the truth is always subjective anyway. Two people can offer "the truth" of a situation and end up giving wildly differing accounts which is, in part, what The Social Network is about. At the end of the day intelligent, thoughtful, gripping films are very thin on the ground and, if it’s literal truth you want, the cinema never has been and never should be the place to seek it out. Cinema is about drama. And The Social Network has that in spades.
8/10.
Jessie Eisenberg is Mark Zuckerberg, a computer genius studying at Harvard who finds himself ostracised from the University’s most prestigious private clubs, clubs that he thinks hold the key to his future. Zuckerberg, at least the Zuckerberg depicted here, is abrupt, difficult and in no way constrained by society’s norms and conventions. He is also conniving and manipulative. The fact that the real Mark Zuckerberg declined to be involved isn’t massively surprising… Anyway two twin brothers, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, come to Zuckerberg with an idea for a Harvard based social networking website. Zuckerberg sees something in their idea and, also taking the opportunity to stick it to the kinds of people who have excluded him up to now, strings them along while he takes the best of what their concept has to offer and creates what would eventually become Facebook. His only friend Eduardo (new Spider-Man Andrew Garfield) becomes the fledgling company’s business manager but as Zuckerberg is wowed by Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) Eduardo finds himself increasingly sidelined and, in the end, utterly shafted by his friend and he, along with everyone else, attempts to sue Zuckerberg for their piece of the pie.
The film depicts the depositions given by everyone involved in the two lawsuits and we flash back and forth between their testimony and the events being described in the past. This lends the film a great ambiguity as we only ever receive subjective accounts of events from the Winklevoss brothers, Eduardo or Zuckerberg himself and can believe or disbelieve things as we see fit. This is something of a get out of jail free card but the exact events are completely shrouded in mystery so it makes sense that writer Aaron Sorkin (working from the novel The Accidental Millionaires by Ben Mezrich) should structure the film this way. But Sorkin and Fincher have taken the subject of the founding of Facebook and used it as a springboard for the things that interest them, the nature of the creative process, the implications of sites like Facebook and their notion of who the film’s central character is. There is always that nagging feeling that much of how Zuckerberg is depicted isn’t true such as his ineptitude with women for example; he apparently had a girlfriend at the time. This is no small thing when the final moments of the film tie this character beat into the story to wrap everything up. Don’t misunderstand, it’s a great moment and a great ending, but some may struggle to find its dramatic satisfaction in the midst of factual inaccuracies. Sorkin’s trademark snappy dialogue is present and accounted for but, one or two clunky moments aside (Zuckerberg moves to L.A. and happily ends up on the same street as Justin Timberlake. Seriously? The same street? That’s like in Star Trek movies where the character beams down to a planet the size of Pluto but happen to land in the exact spot where another character lives) it’s a fantastic script. David Fincher remains one of the most interesting directors working in Hollywood and with this and Zodiac, the demonic Benjamin Button has now been completely exorcised. The cast is uniformly excellent with Jesse Eisenberg finding great humour and surprising moments of pathos in the inscrutable Zuckerberg.
The Social Network is a great film, a fascinating story very well told. The biggest problem with it being factually inaccurate is that the story is so recent, beginning as it did merely seven years ago. What isn't in doubt is that something unsavoury happened and Zuckerberg was slap bang in the middle of it. My suspicion is that, while the actual events depicted may be incorrect or even made up, the point they are making is pretty close to the truth, or at least, the truth the film makers believe to be the case. A subjective point of view is the best thing a writer or director can offer a film and this should be true of so called true stories as it is of works of fiction. And ultimately the truth is always subjective anyway. Two people can offer "the truth" of a situation and end up giving wildly differing accounts which is, in part, what The Social Network is about. At the end of the day intelligent, thoughtful, gripping films are very thin on the ground and, if it’s literal truth you want, the cinema never has been and never should be the place to seek it out. Cinema is about drama. And The Social Network has that in spades.
8/10.
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps Review
Money, apparently, never sleeps. So my suggestion is that it watches Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and that should send it off into a nice, restful slumber.
I remember when I first watched the trailers thinking, I have no idea what the story of this film is and my suspicion was that the film didn't either. That suspicion was confirmed upon watching it. The return of a much loved character (either hero or, in this case, villain) is not enough to hang an entire film on, as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull demonstrated in 2008. (There is no fourth film) Also, if you want to examine real world events in the light of the original film then great, but make the decision to do that. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps doesn't know if it's a character drama, examination of the financial crisis, corporate thriller or family drama. It mainly opts for the last one in scene after turgid scene of the most drama free drama I've seen in a long time.
I'm not a massive Oliver Stone fan, even his best films hit you with all the subtlety of a kick to the balls. But his earlier films contain passion, anger, outrage and conviction in abundance and there is simply no way around it, he has lost his bite. W, World Trade Centre (I'm not spelling it "er") the catastrophic Alexander and now Wall Street, these are films lacking any of the urgency of, say, Platoon, Born On The Fourth Of July, JFK or Nixon. Even if you think any or all of those films are misguided, at the very least they are about something; they have something to say. The best thing you can say about Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is that it's nice to see Michael Douglas onscreen again, even if his screen time is way too limited. In the end the film is just soul-crushingly, stupifyingly dull.
2/10
I remember when I first watched the trailers thinking, I have no idea what the story of this film is and my suspicion was that the film didn't either. That suspicion was confirmed upon watching it. The return of a much loved character (either hero or, in this case, villain) is not enough to hang an entire film on, as Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull demonstrated in 2008. (There is no fourth film) Also, if you want to examine real world events in the light of the original film then great, but make the decision to do that. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps doesn't know if it's a character drama, examination of the financial crisis, corporate thriller or family drama. It mainly opts for the last one in scene after turgid scene of the most drama free drama I've seen in a long time.
I'm not a massive Oliver Stone fan, even his best films hit you with all the subtlety of a kick to the balls. But his earlier films contain passion, anger, outrage and conviction in abundance and there is simply no way around it, he has lost his bite. W, World Trade Centre (I'm not spelling it "er") the catastrophic Alexander and now Wall Street, these are films lacking any of the urgency of, say, Platoon, Born On The Fourth Of July, JFK or Nixon. Even if you think any or all of those films are misguided, at the very least they are about something; they have something to say. The best thing you can say about Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is that it's nice to see Michael Douglas onscreen again, even if his screen time is way too limited. In the end the film is just soul-crushingly, stupifyingly dull.
2/10
Thursday 7 October 2010
Buried Review
Like Phone Booth and, to a lesser extent, Panic Room before it, Buried is a thriller that belongs in the somewhat gimmicky sub-category of thriller in a confined setting. Buried is surely the pinnacle of the genre as the whole film occurs in a coffin. 90 minutes in a coffin is a tough ask for a film and, to its credit, Buried pulls it off but to very little consequence.
Ryan Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, a truck driver working in Iraq whose convoy is ambushed and who wakes up, well, buried. He is six feet under in a wooden box with a mobile phone, lighter, fluorescent lights and his anti anxiety tablets. As he tries to desperately contact the outside world the “why” of his situation slowly comes together. Sand, snakes and assorted unhelpful people on the other end of the line work desperately to maintain the tension as his situation worsens and time begins to run out for Paul.
Director Rodrigo Cortes works his socks off trying to keep the film visually interesting. Setting a film entirely in a coffin is an interesting experiment but could have been a total chore to sit through and it’s to Cortes’ credit that it isn’t. But I couldn’t have cared less about the character and there really was no tension in the film at all, even as the script kept piling on the twists and turns and obstacles for Conroy to overcome. One can only imagine the panic one would experience in real life waking up in that situation, but as Paul uses his mobile phone to create a way out for himself, he ends up screaming at people in scenes that venture way too close to repetition for comfort. It’s not Reynolds’ fault as he really does sell the situation and its desperation in what one imagines must have been a bitch of a shoot. It’s the script that lets everyone down as it makes Conroy yell and shout and generally fail to convey the gravity of his situation. It’s not all bad, one or two moments work reasonably well, the idea that, even buried in a coffin, the biggest hurdle you face is being put on hold is well done and creates surprising levity. But it's not really enough and I never once experienced the kind of claustrophobia the film wanted me to.
Buried is worth watching, if only as a curiosity. But I was never tense and never really cared. The biggest thing I took from it was that it is actually possible to make a film set in a coffin visually interesting. Kudos for that I guess.
5.5/10
Ryan Reynolds plays Paul Conroy, a truck driver working in Iraq whose convoy is ambushed and who wakes up, well, buried. He is six feet under in a wooden box with a mobile phone, lighter, fluorescent lights and his anti anxiety tablets. As he tries to desperately contact the outside world the “why” of his situation slowly comes together. Sand, snakes and assorted unhelpful people on the other end of the line work desperately to maintain the tension as his situation worsens and time begins to run out for Paul.
Director Rodrigo Cortes works his socks off trying to keep the film visually interesting. Setting a film entirely in a coffin is an interesting experiment but could have been a total chore to sit through and it’s to Cortes’ credit that it isn’t. But I couldn’t have cared less about the character and there really was no tension in the film at all, even as the script kept piling on the twists and turns and obstacles for Conroy to overcome. One can only imagine the panic one would experience in real life waking up in that situation, but as Paul uses his mobile phone to create a way out for himself, he ends up screaming at people in scenes that venture way too close to repetition for comfort. It’s not Reynolds’ fault as he really does sell the situation and its desperation in what one imagines must have been a bitch of a shoot. It’s the script that lets everyone down as it makes Conroy yell and shout and generally fail to convey the gravity of his situation. It’s not all bad, one or two moments work reasonably well, the idea that, even buried in a coffin, the biggest hurdle you face is being put on hold is well done and creates surprising levity. But it's not really enough and I never once experienced the kind of claustrophobia the film wanted me to.
Buried is worth watching, if only as a curiosity. But I was never tense and never really cared. The biggest thing I took from it was that it is actually possible to make a film set in a coffin visually interesting. Kudos for that I guess.
5.5/10
World's Greatest Dad Review
This just in! Robin Williams is credible again!
World’s Greatest Dad is a pitch black comedy that barely puts a foot wrong. It boasts a great script by writer/director Bobcat Goldthwait (Zed from the Police Academy films, he of the “funny” voice), restrained direction and a great central performance from Williams. Seriously, Police Academy’s Zed directing Patch Adams in a good film?!? Has the world gone mad?!?
Williams plays teacher and failed writer Lance Clayton. Lance is also father to his sex obsessed, crude, misogynistic, life-hating and generally stupid son Kyle with whom he repeatedly and abortively tries to bond. When Kyle accidentally kills himself by auto-erotic asphyxiation, Lance alters the scene to make it look like suicide. He fakes a suicide note that ends up going around the school and profoundly affecting students and teachers alike and suddenly Lance’s writing has gained the audience he has always wanted… Things escalate from there as Lance descends deeper and deeper into his lie and Kyle ends up with a legacy that is hilariously flawed and unearned.
What’s great about World’s Greatest Dad is its willingness to follow through on where its concept can take it, the script absolutely unafraid to explore its central character’s manipulation and cashing in of his son’s death. The film takes its time getting to Kyle’s death and you watch Lance get trod on by his son, his son’s only friend, girlfriend, fellow teachers and principal of the school in which he teaches. He never complains, even as he knows people are taking the piss. This means that, as you watch him capitalise on the faked suicide, you’re still on his side. He has never complained, he’s basically a good guy, his son was a total nightmare, why shouldn’t he go out for himself? Williams is completely game, matching the script’s desire to push boundaries. People’s reactions to the death are dealt with mercilessly, from the students in search of meaning, to the principal conveniently forgetting he wanted to put Kyle in a special needs school, to the Oprah-like talk show host offering her viewers a heart rending story, everyone is a target of Goldthwaite’s razor sharp satire. Running jokes are pushed to the max but never stretched to breaking point, the Bruce Hornsby running joke in particular paying off in one of the film’s funniest moments.
World’s Greatest Dad is that rarest of film, one that has the courage of its convictions. It’s out on limited release but it really is worth catching, if only as a reminder that, with the right material, Robin Williams is a great comedy actor.
“Thank you Bruce Hornsby” might just be the best line of the year so far.
8/10
World’s Greatest Dad is a pitch black comedy that barely puts a foot wrong. It boasts a great script by writer/director Bobcat Goldthwait (Zed from the Police Academy films, he of the “funny” voice), restrained direction and a great central performance from Williams. Seriously, Police Academy’s Zed directing Patch Adams in a good film?!? Has the world gone mad?!?
Williams plays teacher and failed writer Lance Clayton. Lance is also father to his sex obsessed, crude, misogynistic, life-hating and generally stupid son Kyle with whom he repeatedly and abortively tries to bond. When Kyle accidentally kills himself by auto-erotic asphyxiation, Lance alters the scene to make it look like suicide. He fakes a suicide note that ends up going around the school and profoundly affecting students and teachers alike and suddenly Lance’s writing has gained the audience he has always wanted… Things escalate from there as Lance descends deeper and deeper into his lie and Kyle ends up with a legacy that is hilariously flawed and unearned.
What’s great about World’s Greatest Dad is its willingness to follow through on where its concept can take it, the script absolutely unafraid to explore its central character’s manipulation and cashing in of his son’s death. The film takes its time getting to Kyle’s death and you watch Lance get trod on by his son, his son’s only friend, girlfriend, fellow teachers and principal of the school in which he teaches. He never complains, even as he knows people are taking the piss. This means that, as you watch him capitalise on the faked suicide, you’re still on his side. He has never complained, he’s basically a good guy, his son was a total nightmare, why shouldn’t he go out for himself? Williams is completely game, matching the script’s desire to push boundaries. People’s reactions to the death are dealt with mercilessly, from the students in search of meaning, to the principal conveniently forgetting he wanted to put Kyle in a special needs school, to the Oprah-like talk show host offering her viewers a heart rending story, everyone is a target of Goldthwaite’s razor sharp satire. Running jokes are pushed to the max but never stretched to breaking point, the Bruce Hornsby running joke in particular paying off in one of the film’s funniest moments.
World’s Greatest Dad is that rarest of film, one that has the courage of its convictions. It’s out on limited release but it really is worth catching, if only as a reminder that, with the right material, Robin Williams is a great comedy actor.
“Thank you Bruce Hornsby” might just be the best line of the year so far.
8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)