You wait months for a post and then they all come together.
I've just realised I've seen a few films that I never reviewed. Some have probably already left the cinema (making the review useful for the DVD release perhaps? No? Fuck yourself!) It's something of a cheat I know but here is a very brief roundup of the films of the last few weeks.
A PROPHET
Best film of the year so far, a gripping, tense thriller that demands your full attention for its considerable running time but rewards you with an adult story that respects your intelligence. Boasting a phenomenol central performance, you watch Malik enter prison a wet behind the ears petty crook and finish the film a criminal boss. Playing alongside this is the decline of the current boss who seems to be played by celebrity TV chef Anthony Wirral Thompson. Despite this minor distraction, A Prophet is a cracking film that's well worth watching... on DVD...
8.5/10
SHUTTER ISLAND
Oh I just don't know... I listened to Mark Kermode's review and he liked it and I understand why but I'm really not sure. It's okay but the ending is so visible, so transparent that I sat there for 2 hours waiting for it to come rather than be engaged by a good story. It's a great setting, a great time period, well acted and Scorsese is clearly having fun behind the camera. I have a problem with much of Denis Lehane's writing and Shutter Island is no exception. In a weird way, it almost isn't pulpy or shlocky enough. That's the territory it's in and seems to be going for but it also feels like it wants to be a legitimate thriller too. I'm just not sure.
5/10
I LOVE YOU PHILIP MORRIS
Low expectations may have helped with this one but I really quite enjoyed I Love You Philip Morris. Jim Carrey is Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor doesn't completely destroy his scenes which, after a run of terrible performances, is a victory. I don't believe either of them are gay and I don't believe them as a couple which should be major stumbling blocks but weirdly I found I was able to go with the film. Also, the film features some pretty egregious gay stereotyping, the best example of which being when Jim Carrey first comes out and we see him dressed in a ludicrous outfit, mincing down the street, latino lover in tow, walking his Paris Hilton-esque dog. As a gay guy, watching scenes like this in films is usually pretty disheartening but I actually don't think the film is being malicious. The story is so ridiculous, so hard to believe (despite being true) that the film makers have gone incredibly broad in their tone so as to sell it to audiences and the the representations of the gay characters is just another example of this. This over the top tone is actually a good ploy and for the most part works. The only down side is a loss of depth of character, so we never really know what drives Carrey to do the outrageous things he does. But the film is very, very funny and has a few surprisingly touching moments.
6.5/10
GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
I'm sure you've all read the book and will be completely unphazed by what I'm about to say but I haven't read the book and so I was really taken aback by how harsh, dark and, well, lurid and mysoginistic the story is. Are we allowed to be mysoginistic again? When did that happen? Whenever you see everyone reading the same book on the tube it's always something very reader-friendly. But this pulls no punches. The story is reasonably engaging, although it goes on for a good 20 minutes after the story has reached its natural conclusion, you can't have better bad guys than the nazis and it confirms one of my longest held beliefs which is that lesbians are terrifying!!! Worth a look but I can't imagine ever going back to it.
5.5/10
A SINGLE MAN
Watching this I thought it's okay but, like a crap soufle, A Single Man disintegrated with one prod of examination. Hmmm.... maybe cooking metaphors aren't for me. Any film that takes gay characters and their relationships seriously is to be applauded but that doesn't necessarily make a good film and I really feel that A Single Man has nowhere near as much depth or significance as it thinks it does. It boasts great performances that lift the film but the fact that every scene is shot like a perfume ad serves to undercut the drama at every turn. Style over substance.
4.5/10
GREEN ZONE
Shit I've seen alot of films I haven't reviewed...
Green Zone was touted as Bourne In Iraq and it kind of is but is no worse off because of it. Paul Greengrass is famous for tearing up the script and with Green Zone he hasn't just torn up the script he has torn up the book the script was based on. Gone is the journalistic polemic of Imperial Life In The Emerald City and in its place is a fast paced thriller that boasts all of Greengrass' "shaky cam" work mixed with his political interests. It's a tough mix but he gets it right and, as the pace of the film never flags, neither do the political points of intrigue and interest. Damon is Damon and is absolutely fine. Brendan Gleeson is a welcome presence in any film, even though he REALLY can't do accents but the star here is Greengrass. Engaging, exciting, just a good, solid thriller.
7/10
And I think that's it. I'll never go so long without reviewing again!
Also, in box office news, I just read that Uma Thurman's new film Motherhood grossed a staggering £88 in England last weekend. Congratulations to all concerned.
Friday, 9 April 2010
Life's Just Too Short
This weekend sees the release of Drew Barrymore's directorial debut.
Just take a second and consider that sentence.
Somebody somewhere in the world woke up one morning and thought to themselves, "I know what should happen. Drew Barrymore should direct a film." This person then gave Drew Barrymore the money to direct a film. This is the world we live in. A world where Avatar makes $2.7 billion ($2.7 BILLION) and Drew Barrymore is allowed to direct films. The film in question is called Whip It and stars Ellen Page of Juno fame (Breathe Garreth, just breathe. Just keep telling yourself, it's only a film. Juno is only a film) and seems to be a coming of age/finding yourself movie set in the world of Roller Derbys.
This does not sound like a good film.
Also out this week is Shelter which is some sort of horror film starring Julianne Moore and Jonathan Rhys Meyers who is as stunningly handsome as he is completely incapable of conveying even the simplest emotions. Which isn't great when your job is to convey a range of emotions, some simple, some complex, sometimes both at the same time. I like to think I'm pretty au fait with film releases and I have never in my life heard of this film.
That is not a good sign.
Also out this week is I Am Love which boasts the most insufferable trailer I've seen in about 5 years. I cannot think of another word I could use that would better describe my reaction upon seeing that trailer ahead of Kick Ass last week. Insufferable.
This is not a good word to use when describing a film trailer.
The point of all this is to say that I won't be going to the cinema this weekend because, as the title of this post makes clear...
Just take a second and consider that sentence.
Somebody somewhere in the world woke up one morning and thought to themselves, "I know what should happen. Drew Barrymore should direct a film." This person then gave Drew Barrymore the money to direct a film. This is the world we live in. A world where Avatar makes $2.7 billion ($2.7 BILLION) and Drew Barrymore is allowed to direct films. The film in question is called Whip It and stars Ellen Page of Juno fame (Breathe Garreth, just breathe. Just keep telling yourself, it's only a film. Juno is only a film) and seems to be a coming of age/finding yourself movie set in the world of Roller Derbys.
This does not sound like a good film.
Also out this week is Shelter which is some sort of horror film starring Julianne Moore and Jonathan Rhys Meyers who is as stunningly handsome as he is completely incapable of conveying even the simplest emotions. Which isn't great when your job is to convey a range of emotions, some simple, some complex, sometimes both at the same time. I like to think I'm pretty au fait with film releases and I have never in my life heard of this film.
That is not a good sign.
Also out this week is I Am Love which boasts the most insufferable trailer I've seen in about 5 years. I cannot think of another word I could use that would better describe my reaction upon seeing that trailer ahead of Kick Ass last week. Insufferable.
This is not a good word to use when describing a film trailer.
The point of all this is to say that I won't be going to the cinema this weekend because, as the title of this post makes clear...
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Clash Of The Fucking Titans Review (expect swearing)
What the fuck is up with Liam Neeson's armour in Clash Of The Titans?!?
It's glittery and shiny!! GLITTERY AND SHINY!!! He's fucking Zeus, the king of the fucking Gods, not the Tin Man's retarded cousin. He's wearing the campest, most ridiculous looking costume I've seen in a film since John Boorman had the bright idea to dress Sean Connery in a ponytail, thigh high boots and a red nappy in Zardoz.
http://waxturds.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/zardoz.jpg
I say it again.
What the fuck is up with Liam Neeson's armour?!
It's like the director and costume designer are taking the absolute piss out of him. "You won't believe what Neeson's wearing. Ssshhh here he comes!!" CLANK CLANK CLANK as Neeson lumbers onto set, "Ah, I don't mean to complain but am I seriously going to wear this?" The sheer stupidity of his look renders each moment where he's meant to be thundering away as Zeus unintentionally hilarious. He even has shiny metal gloves! I can't get over it.
I have no intention of wasting my time or yours talking about the film in any serious, meaningful way. It's thuddingly dull, cumbersome, crap, fucking annoying and Sam Worthington proves yet again that he is a blank void that no script or director has yet been able to fill with anything useful. Instead I want to talk about Liam Neeson's costume and Ralph Feinnes' hilariously distracting turn as Hades. Oh it's a VERY long time since Schindler's List, isn't it boys? Feinnes sounds like a cross between Lawrence Olivier and James Mason and, for such a good actor, turns in a performance so staggeringly bad it ends up being absolutely priceless. Is everyone on drugs? What the fuck is up with this film?
I'd love to tell you that the whole film is so bad it's good but without Neeson in the gay Mount Olympus scenes (that include respected actor Danny Huston turning up for 2 shots and one line of dialogue. Cutting room floor perhaps?) and Feinnes swooping around talking about "the kraaaaaken" it would be utterly unbearable. As it is it's crushingly, soul destroyingly dull and all the bits you remember being good from the original, Medusa, Pegasus, the Kraken, crossing the river Styx, are turned to stone thanks to a by-the-numbers script, dreadful acting and terrible directing. Much of the CGI is so bad as to appear unfinished with Medusa in particular looking like she was created by a 12 year old on his Amstrad.
But in the end I left the cinema saying only one thing. What the fuck was up with Neeson's costume?!?
1.5/10 raised to 3/10 thanks to the Neeson/Feinnes double whammy of misjudged lunacy.
It's glittery and shiny!! GLITTERY AND SHINY!!! He's fucking Zeus, the king of the fucking Gods, not the Tin Man's retarded cousin. He's wearing the campest, most ridiculous looking costume I've seen in a film since John Boorman had the bright idea to dress Sean Connery in a ponytail, thigh high boots and a red nappy in Zardoz.
http://waxturds.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/zardoz.jpg
I say it again.
What the fuck is up with Liam Neeson's armour?!
It's like the director and costume designer are taking the absolute piss out of him. "You won't believe what Neeson's wearing. Ssshhh here he comes!!" CLANK CLANK CLANK as Neeson lumbers onto set, "Ah, I don't mean to complain but am I seriously going to wear this?" The sheer stupidity of his look renders each moment where he's meant to be thundering away as Zeus unintentionally hilarious. He even has shiny metal gloves! I can't get over it.
I have no intention of wasting my time or yours talking about the film in any serious, meaningful way. It's thuddingly dull, cumbersome, crap, fucking annoying and Sam Worthington proves yet again that he is a blank void that no script or director has yet been able to fill with anything useful. Instead I want to talk about Liam Neeson's costume and Ralph Feinnes' hilariously distracting turn as Hades. Oh it's a VERY long time since Schindler's List, isn't it boys? Feinnes sounds like a cross between Lawrence Olivier and James Mason and, for such a good actor, turns in a performance so staggeringly bad it ends up being absolutely priceless. Is everyone on drugs? What the fuck is up with this film?
I'd love to tell you that the whole film is so bad it's good but without Neeson in the gay Mount Olympus scenes (that include respected actor Danny Huston turning up for 2 shots and one line of dialogue. Cutting room floor perhaps?) and Feinnes swooping around talking about "the kraaaaaken" it would be utterly unbearable. As it is it's crushingly, soul destroyingly dull and all the bits you remember being good from the original, Medusa, Pegasus, the Kraken, crossing the river Styx, are turned to stone thanks to a by-the-numbers script, dreadful acting and terrible directing. Much of the CGI is so bad as to appear unfinished with Medusa in particular looking like she was created by a 12 year old on his Amstrad.
But in the end I left the cinema saying only one thing. What the fuck was up with Neeson's costume?!?
1.5/10 raised to 3/10 thanks to the Neeson/Feinnes double whammy of misjudged lunacy.
Kick-Ass Review
Long time no post! Watching lots of bad films ALL the time puts one off sitting down to review them. I'm not sure I could do this professionally. So it's with some pleasure that the first review in a long time is a good one.
Kick Ass really surprised me. I went in expecting to dislike it seeing as it's comprised of many elements I normally hate, glorified violence, "cool" "quotable" dialogue, comic book/graphic novel adaptation, the Matthew Vaughn element. Maybe low expectations helped but for whatever reason I thoroughly enjoyed Kick Ass.
The story concerns Dave Lizewski (Nowhere Boy's Aaron Johnson sporting a great American accent) a comic book loving loner whose only super power in his own words is his "invisibility to girls." Dave questions what it would be like to be a superhero for real and wonders why no one has done it before. He goes online, finds a bright green diving costume, and, armed with a pair of nunchucks, starts to fight crime. His first attempt is disastrous and he ends up beaten, stabbed and hit with a car. His injuries result in problems with his nerve endings which mean a higher threshold to pain. Which is just as well as he never really gets any better as a superhero throughout the whole film. The idea of the character of Kick Ass having his ass repeatedly kicked is one of many great running jokes in the film. On his second attempt he discovers that he isn't the only person with this idea. Damon Macready (a fantastic Nicolas Cage. Yes you read that right. A fantastic Nicolas Cage) an ex-cop with a personal vendetta against crime boss Frank D'Amico (current rent-a-villain Mark Strong) has turned himself into the Batman like Big Daddy and has trained his daughter Mindy to become Hit Girl. More on her later... Kick Ass, Big Daddy and Hit Girl join forces to fight crime in a whole manner of knife wielding, bone crunching, profanity laden sequences.
The thing you notice with Kick Ass is its pace. The story moves along, the action is varied and well spaced out, the humour is more or less consistent and coming in at under 2 hours (running time being my new most important criteria for how much I enjoy a film) the film (more or less) doesn't outstay its welcome. The writing (by director Vaughn and Jane Goldman) is smart and the performances are excellent. Johnson is terrific in the lead, unafraid to look the fool or take a beating and when he starts enjoying his youtube fame with his alter ego and lands the girl you feel genuinely happy for him. The film ends up being stolen by Cage who is fun and enjoyable for the first time in what feels like decades, his tics and mannerisms perfectly suited to the heightened world of the film. His vocal cadence as Big Daddy, trying to make himself sound more like a superhero (and clearly channeling Adam West in the process) is hilarious. The violence is very strong and will be viewed by many as reprehensible and immoral. I am no fan of violence for violence's sake but the film manages to be fun, entertaining and genuinely funny. I also think the film is cleverer than I thought it would be and is subversive in a way that really surprised me (and in a way that, for me, Watchmen, a film that covers similar ground, isn't) which is why I could stomach the violence.
Which brings us nicely onto Hit Girl... The first time we see twelve year old Mindy she is being shot at by her Dad who is teaching her what the impact of a bullet feels like and why it's nothing to be scared of. It's a brilliant scene, reminiscent of how a parent might teach their child that riding a bike is nothing to be scared of either. The first time we see her alter ego Hit Girl she skewers a villain with a blade that's about a foot longer than she is and says to the room full of henchmen the following line of dialogue.
"Okay you cunts. Let's see what you can do now"
Clearly you're on shaky ground here and I think many people's enjoyment of the film will depend on how they respond to that character. Personally, I think this comes back to the film's intentions and, while I'm not trying to pretend the film doesn't want you to laugh at this notion and also to find it very cool the way she dispatches bad guys in her many fights, shoots outs and other action scenes, I repeat my opinion that I think the film is cleverer than its surface might have you believe. You DO end up viewing her as an adult and this is brought to the surface in a great joke near the end when a teenager, watching Hit Girl's exploits on the internet comments on how hot she is and he friend replies, "Dude, she's like, 11." This idea of the near sexualisation of violence, the almost fetishisation (if that's a word...) of comic book characters and the violence they mete out is put into an interesting light by making the character a 12 year old girl. I think however that alot of people will be put off by the surface notion of what's happening which is fair enough too. I also think it's a question of tone and the fact that Hit Girl's first fight is put to the Banana Splits theme reveals the kind of world we're operating in.
On a more superficial note the action is superbly done. I can't imagine the film's budget was particularly high, certainly not by the standards of most comic book adaptations anyway, but it never feels cheap or skimped upon. Moreover, the action is varied so you're never bored and brilliantly choreographed and directed by Matthew Vaughn. I've said it before, but watch Transformers 2 for a film that has no clue how to depict its action scenes. Every fight and shoot out in Kick Ass is choreographed, shot and edited so I know exactly where I am at any given moment, making the action all the more thrilling and enjoyable for that.
Raging Bull it ain't then but for a fun, funny piece of entertainment you could do alot worse than see Kick Ass.
7.5/10
Kick Ass really surprised me. I went in expecting to dislike it seeing as it's comprised of many elements I normally hate, glorified violence, "cool" "quotable" dialogue, comic book/graphic novel adaptation, the Matthew Vaughn element. Maybe low expectations helped but for whatever reason I thoroughly enjoyed Kick Ass.
The story concerns Dave Lizewski (Nowhere Boy's Aaron Johnson sporting a great American accent) a comic book loving loner whose only super power in his own words is his "invisibility to girls." Dave questions what it would be like to be a superhero for real and wonders why no one has done it before. He goes online, finds a bright green diving costume, and, armed with a pair of nunchucks, starts to fight crime. His first attempt is disastrous and he ends up beaten, stabbed and hit with a car. His injuries result in problems with his nerve endings which mean a higher threshold to pain. Which is just as well as he never really gets any better as a superhero throughout the whole film. The idea of the character of Kick Ass having his ass repeatedly kicked is one of many great running jokes in the film. On his second attempt he discovers that he isn't the only person with this idea. Damon Macready (a fantastic Nicolas Cage. Yes you read that right. A fantastic Nicolas Cage) an ex-cop with a personal vendetta against crime boss Frank D'Amico (current rent-a-villain Mark Strong) has turned himself into the Batman like Big Daddy and has trained his daughter Mindy to become Hit Girl. More on her later... Kick Ass, Big Daddy and Hit Girl join forces to fight crime in a whole manner of knife wielding, bone crunching, profanity laden sequences.
The thing you notice with Kick Ass is its pace. The story moves along, the action is varied and well spaced out, the humour is more or less consistent and coming in at under 2 hours (running time being my new most important criteria for how much I enjoy a film) the film (more or less) doesn't outstay its welcome. The writing (by director Vaughn and Jane Goldman) is smart and the performances are excellent. Johnson is terrific in the lead, unafraid to look the fool or take a beating and when he starts enjoying his youtube fame with his alter ego and lands the girl you feel genuinely happy for him. The film ends up being stolen by Cage who is fun and enjoyable for the first time in what feels like decades, his tics and mannerisms perfectly suited to the heightened world of the film. His vocal cadence as Big Daddy, trying to make himself sound more like a superhero (and clearly channeling Adam West in the process) is hilarious. The violence is very strong and will be viewed by many as reprehensible and immoral. I am no fan of violence for violence's sake but the film manages to be fun, entertaining and genuinely funny. I also think the film is cleverer than I thought it would be and is subversive in a way that really surprised me (and in a way that, for me, Watchmen, a film that covers similar ground, isn't) which is why I could stomach the violence.
Which brings us nicely onto Hit Girl... The first time we see twelve year old Mindy she is being shot at by her Dad who is teaching her what the impact of a bullet feels like and why it's nothing to be scared of. It's a brilliant scene, reminiscent of how a parent might teach their child that riding a bike is nothing to be scared of either. The first time we see her alter ego Hit Girl she skewers a villain with a blade that's about a foot longer than she is and says to the room full of henchmen the following line of dialogue.
"Okay you cunts. Let's see what you can do now"
Clearly you're on shaky ground here and I think many people's enjoyment of the film will depend on how they respond to that character. Personally, I think this comes back to the film's intentions and, while I'm not trying to pretend the film doesn't want you to laugh at this notion and also to find it very cool the way she dispatches bad guys in her many fights, shoots outs and other action scenes, I repeat my opinion that I think the film is cleverer than its surface might have you believe. You DO end up viewing her as an adult and this is brought to the surface in a great joke near the end when a teenager, watching Hit Girl's exploits on the internet comments on how hot she is and he friend replies, "Dude, she's like, 11." This idea of the near sexualisation of violence, the almost fetishisation (if that's a word...) of comic book characters and the violence they mete out is put into an interesting light by making the character a 12 year old girl. I think however that alot of people will be put off by the surface notion of what's happening which is fair enough too. I also think it's a question of tone and the fact that Hit Girl's first fight is put to the Banana Splits theme reveals the kind of world we're operating in.
On a more superficial note the action is superbly done. I can't imagine the film's budget was particularly high, certainly not by the standards of most comic book adaptations anyway, but it never feels cheap or skimped upon. Moreover, the action is varied so you're never bored and brilliantly choreographed and directed by Matthew Vaughn. I've said it before, but watch Transformers 2 for a film that has no clue how to depict its action scenes. Every fight and shoot out in Kick Ass is choreographed, shot and edited so I know exactly where I am at any given moment, making the action all the more thrilling and enjoyable for that.
Raging Bull it ain't then but for a fun, funny piece of entertainment you could do alot worse than see Kick Ass.
7.5/10
Monday, 22 February 2010
Crazy Heart Review
Crazy Heart reminded me of The Wrestler, a film I really wanted to love, really wanted to be moved by. In the end I liked it, mainly due to a great central performance by Jeff Bridges, but I wasn't wowed by it in the way I wanted to be.
Bridges plays Bad Blake, a washed up country and western singer who knew the big time but who now drives his battered old pick-up truck from tiny gig to tiny gig, and spends much of his time being sick as he slowly drinks himself to death. In a small town playing such a gig he meets Jean, a reporter who wants to interview him for the local magazine. This sets Bad on a long and uneasy path to redemption as he strikes up a relationship with Jean, becomes a surrogate father to her son and rediscovers his love and passion, not only for music, but for life in general.
The main reason to see Crazy Heart is for the central performance by Bridges. This is a character who carries alot of sadness and regret and it's written all over Bridges' face, even as he uses his charm to win over those people he encounters, particularly Jean. You get a real sense that this is a guy who has lived, that this is not a character created for the 2 hour duration of the film, but a person who was around before the film started and will be when it ends. What's great about the film is the way it uses very small moments to convey its emotions. There is no great revelation, no hysterics (either in the script or in Bridges' performance) and most of what happens with and to Blake feels true and real. Blake was a mentor to country and western sensation Tommy Sweet (a strange cameo from Colin Farrell) but it's now Sweet who plays to sold out arenas while Blake plays to two dozen people in a bowling alley. Tommy is loyal to his old mentor and offers to have him open for him at his latest concert. There is a wonderful moment when, as Blake plays his signature song, Tommy comes out on stage to join in and the crowd goes wild. It should be a great moment of two excellent musicians together on stage but, even though Sweet never takes any pleasure from the situation or rubs Blake's face in it (and indeed publicly defers to Blake onstage), you can see that Blake knows that he is there only by Tommy's charity and those enormous cheers reverborating around the arena are not for him. It's one of many small moments that are wonderfully written and executed and, again, superbly played by Bridges.
So why do they not all add up to a truly great film? Part of the problem lies in a personal dislike for Maggie Gyllenhaal who plays Jean. She does what she does and is never bad per se but I never really believe her and, to be perfectly honest, she kind of annoys me. For this reason I couldn't really invest in the central relationship and, while I understand that she has had it hard and is desperate for love and he has had it hard and wants to connect and, as I said, certainly has much charm and charisma despite his problems, I'm always somewhat dubious of movie relationships like this where the (much) younger woman falls for the older man. They look wrong together somehow and, despite her single mum status, Gyllenhaal simply lacks the gravitas and sense of "worldliness" to make me believe that Blake would fall for her for reasons other than that she is a nice, pretty girl in a small town or, indeed, she for him. At a certain point in the film her character makes a decision that ends up being the crux for Blake wanting to change his ways. While the scene itself is well done and well played it was one moment that didn't ring true for me because, I simply didn't believe that she would do it and, if I went with it, I would lose all sympathy for the character.
Any film that eschews trite, contrived, "Hollywood" drama, particularly at this time of year when films like that are rife (I'm looking at you Clint Eastwood) and instead goes for something more real and necessarily low key is to be admired and director Scott Cooper certainly earns much benefit of the doubt on those grounds alone. But one must judge the film onscreen and, while it was good and enjoyable and generally well acted, ultimately I walked out of the cinema in no danger of needing to dry my eyes. Jeff Bridges is the favourite to pick up the Best Actor Oscar in a couple of weeks and I certainly wouldn't begrudge it to him, for this film as well as for the cumulative value of much of his work up to this point which, let's be honest, is how many an Oscar winner has won their award. Hoo-ha! There is much to enjoy in Crazy Heart but, at the end of the day it really is one of those films I wanted to like more than I really did .
6/10
Bridges plays Bad Blake, a washed up country and western singer who knew the big time but who now drives his battered old pick-up truck from tiny gig to tiny gig, and spends much of his time being sick as he slowly drinks himself to death. In a small town playing such a gig he meets Jean, a reporter who wants to interview him for the local magazine. This sets Bad on a long and uneasy path to redemption as he strikes up a relationship with Jean, becomes a surrogate father to her son and rediscovers his love and passion, not only for music, but for life in general.
The main reason to see Crazy Heart is for the central performance by Bridges. This is a character who carries alot of sadness and regret and it's written all over Bridges' face, even as he uses his charm to win over those people he encounters, particularly Jean. You get a real sense that this is a guy who has lived, that this is not a character created for the 2 hour duration of the film, but a person who was around before the film started and will be when it ends. What's great about the film is the way it uses very small moments to convey its emotions. There is no great revelation, no hysterics (either in the script or in Bridges' performance) and most of what happens with and to Blake feels true and real. Blake was a mentor to country and western sensation Tommy Sweet (a strange cameo from Colin Farrell) but it's now Sweet who plays to sold out arenas while Blake plays to two dozen people in a bowling alley. Tommy is loyal to his old mentor and offers to have him open for him at his latest concert. There is a wonderful moment when, as Blake plays his signature song, Tommy comes out on stage to join in and the crowd goes wild. It should be a great moment of two excellent musicians together on stage but, even though Sweet never takes any pleasure from the situation or rubs Blake's face in it (and indeed publicly defers to Blake onstage), you can see that Blake knows that he is there only by Tommy's charity and those enormous cheers reverborating around the arena are not for him. It's one of many small moments that are wonderfully written and executed and, again, superbly played by Bridges.
So why do they not all add up to a truly great film? Part of the problem lies in a personal dislike for Maggie Gyllenhaal who plays Jean. She does what she does and is never bad per se but I never really believe her and, to be perfectly honest, she kind of annoys me. For this reason I couldn't really invest in the central relationship and, while I understand that she has had it hard and is desperate for love and he has had it hard and wants to connect and, as I said, certainly has much charm and charisma despite his problems, I'm always somewhat dubious of movie relationships like this where the (much) younger woman falls for the older man. They look wrong together somehow and, despite her single mum status, Gyllenhaal simply lacks the gravitas and sense of "worldliness" to make me believe that Blake would fall for her for reasons other than that she is a nice, pretty girl in a small town or, indeed, she for him. At a certain point in the film her character makes a decision that ends up being the crux for Blake wanting to change his ways. While the scene itself is well done and well played it was one moment that didn't ring true for me because, I simply didn't believe that she would do it and, if I went with it, I would lose all sympathy for the character.
Any film that eschews trite, contrived, "Hollywood" drama, particularly at this time of year when films like that are rife (I'm looking at you Clint Eastwood) and instead goes for something more real and necessarily low key is to be admired and director Scott Cooper certainly earns much benefit of the doubt on those grounds alone. But one must judge the film onscreen and, while it was good and enjoyable and generally well acted, ultimately I walked out of the cinema in no danger of needing to dry my eyes. Jeff Bridges is the favourite to pick up the Best Actor Oscar in a couple of weeks and I certainly wouldn't begrudge it to him, for this film as well as for the cumulative value of much of his work up to this point which, let's be honest, is how many an Oscar winner has won their award. Hoo-ha! There is much to enjoy in Crazy Heart but, at the end of the day it really is one of those films I wanted to like more than I really did .
6/10
Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Invictus Review
Would you like cheese with your film? How about extra cheese? How about a giant dollop of cheese served with some thickly cut ham?
80 year old Clint Eastwood (Seriously Clint, you've nothing to prove, spend some time with the family) has turned the Oscar bait movie into an art form. Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby (I have to say I do really like that film), Flags of our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, Changeling and Gran Torino were all made with that golden trophy in mind and released in the latter part of the year to keep the films fresh in the minds of the Academy members, most of whom are as old as the director who made them. With Invictus however, Eastwood has surely made his oscar bait masterpiece, a film dripping worthiness, oozing earnestnees from every pore.
Somewhat predictably we get Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela (personally I would have much rathered Chris Rock), released from prison and elected president of a country still torn apart by the evil that was apartheid. Their national rugby team The Springboks, led by captain Matt Damon, are supported predominantly by the whites and are losing badly. When South Africa is chosen to host the 1995 Rugby World Cup, Mandela sees an opportunity to heal the country and unite it through sport. So he meets Damon, impresses upon him the importance of victory, turns up at a meeting of the national rugby organisation who are voting to get rid of the name and colours of the Springboks to change their mind, learns the sport, learns the players' names and generally helps ensure the people get behind the team as, against all the odds, they make it to the final. (Spoiler: They win.)
Is it just me? Am I just too cynical of films now? I don't think I am. Here is a run down of just a few of the highlights of Invictus. The moment when Matt Damon visits Mandela's old cell and sees the ghost of Mandela superimposed into the shot. Didn't something similar happen in Rocky Balboa? The moment when what sounds like a boy band comes on the soundtrack and starts singing "I'm colourblind" in what must be the worst music cue I'm ever heard in a film. The moment when black hands and white hands together clasp the World Cup. The moment when the black housekeeper realises her white employers have got her a ticket for the world cup final and she turns to the camera giving a smile of such pride... This film is about as subtle as a kick to the nads and it's a shame because it's a real life "too good to be true" story that could have been genuinely inspirational. But Eastwood can't help but ladle more and more icky sentimentality into every last moment, rendering the whole affair naff and corny and oh God I'm picturing the housekeeper's smile again...
Freeman and Damon are fine in roles that, particularly in Damon's case, are really very passive but it all comes back to the cheese. Honking, stinking cheese clogging up the screen.
I've actually got nothing else to say about this film.
I'm colourbliiiiind...
3.5/10
80 year old Clint Eastwood (Seriously Clint, you've nothing to prove, spend some time with the family) has turned the Oscar bait movie into an art form. Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby (I have to say I do really like that film), Flags of our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, Changeling and Gran Torino were all made with that golden trophy in mind and released in the latter part of the year to keep the films fresh in the minds of the Academy members, most of whom are as old as the director who made them. With Invictus however, Eastwood has surely made his oscar bait masterpiece, a film dripping worthiness, oozing earnestnees from every pore.
Somewhat predictably we get Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela (personally I would have much rathered Chris Rock), released from prison and elected president of a country still torn apart by the evil that was apartheid. Their national rugby team The Springboks, led by captain Matt Damon, are supported predominantly by the whites and are losing badly. When South Africa is chosen to host the 1995 Rugby World Cup, Mandela sees an opportunity to heal the country and unite it through sport. So he meets Damon, impresses upon him the importance of victory, turns up at a meeting of the national rugby organisation who are voting to get rid of the name and colours of the Springboks to change their mind, learns the sport, learns the players' names and generally helps ensure the people get behind the team as, against all the odds, they make it to the final. (Spoiler: They win.)
Is it just me? Am I just too cynical of films now? I don't think I am. Here is a run down of just a few of the highlights of Invictus. The moment when Matt Damon visits Mandela's old cell and sees the ghost of Mandela superimposed into the shot. Didn't something similar happen in Rocky Balboa? The moment when what sounds like a boy band comes on the soundtrack and starts singing "I'm colourblind" in what must be the worst music cue I'm ever heard in a film. The moment when black hands and white hands together clasp the World Cup. The moment when the black housekeeper realises her white employers have got her a ticket for the world cup final and she turns to the camera giving a smile of such pride... This film is about as subtle as a kick to the nads and it's a shame because it's a real life "too good to be true" story that could have been genuinely inspirational. But Eastwood can't help but ladle more and more icky sentimentality into every last moment, rendering the whole affair naff and corny and oh God I'm picturing the housekeeper's smile again...
Freeman and Damon are fine in roles that, particularly in Damon's case, are really very passive but it all comes back to the cheese. Honking, stinking cheese clogging up the screen.
I've actually got nothing else to say about this film.
I'm colourbliiiiind...
3.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)