Paranormal Activity arrives with a massive weight of expectation, a weight that it cannot quite bear, especially in the final few moments where, not really knowing what to do, it drops the ball pretty badly. This wasn't the original ending, apparently various endings have been in flux for a while, but more on that later. For the most part Paranormal Activity is very effective, tense, sparse and very scary.
The story is well known by now. Micah and Katie are a normal couple living in a normal, suburban house. As the film starts, the pair have been experiencing strange disturbances in the house so Micah has bought a camera to document what's happening and that footage is what makes up the film. It's the "found footage" genre of horror film that goes all the way back to Cannibal Holocaust and, most famously, The Blair Witch Project. Paranormal Activity's trump card is that now-famous, locked off shot in the bedroom, wherein Micah and Katie have gone to bed for the night and the camera films them as they sleep. It plays on very base, primal fears to great effect as we watch increasingly creepy events occur around people at their most vulnerable. This is one of those "how has this not been done before" ideas and writer/director Oren Peli squeezes as much tension from it as he can.
What's great about the film is the way it uses what are ostensibly haunted house cliches, banging doors, televisions and lights coming on of their own accord, misplaced objects, and makes them work tremendously. Why they work comes down to two things. Firstly, it's not a haunted house movie. Without spoiling anything, the presence in the house is not a ghost and its objective is much more personal than simply haunting a building. As well as writing himself out of the "why don't they just leave the house" plot hole, this ups the threat and horror in even the most mundane of scares. Secondly, these things work because of that single, sustained shot. Its lighting and composition make you, the viewer, scrutinise every corner of the frame, every shadow and movement, and because of its stillness, any event that happens, no matter how small, has enormous impact. Peli knows that by having the central concept that he does and by putting time and effort into how that shot is composed, he has done 80% of the work and is now free to play with our fears and expectations. The other asset of good horror is the soundtrack and, as much as Paranormal Activity relies on simple visual scares, so bangs and bumps coming from somewhere within the house provide many of the jumps and help sustain the tension. Indeed, the footsteps of the unseen entity approaching the bedroom become increasingly ominous and frightening as we understand more of what it wants.
The two actors, using their own names in the film, are perfectly fine. Micah goes from scepticism to desperation as he tries to be the "man of the house", looking after his girlfriend and sorting out the problem. This notion of the masculine need to control and be in control is interesting and watching it play out adds some character depth to the film. This need manifests in him almost antagonising the entity at times which eventually grates on the nerves and, as he is doing it with the woman he supposedly loves pleading with him to stop, he actually becomes somewhat unsympathetic. The climax of this is when he uses a Ouija Board. Early on, Katie invites a psychic to the house to help them and Micah mentions a ouija board. "Do NOT use a ouija board" the psychic tells him in no uncertain terms. Of course at that moment, we absolutely know he will use one and guess what?! This works to mixed effect. Character wise, it works to turn you off Micah. There is then an overt scare with the ouija board which, for me, is the least effective in the film. However, when the entity communicates with Micah, it gives him a name and the pay-off when he discovers who the name belongs to and then further when we discover what the entity was telling him by giving him that name, is truly disturbing and one of the best moments of the film.
Which brings us to the ending. Had I not been so tense throughout, I would have had a bad feeling that the film might blow it right at the end. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens. Peli has apparently experimented with different endings at different screenings. Descriptions of those endings are freely available online and I'm sure they'll end up on the DVD. Pretty much any of them sound better than the one we're presented with. When Paramount bought the film, they made a few adjustments, most of which are okay, but this ending is also theirs and, by basically being nothing more than a cheap, unearned shock, it goes against the slow build and emphasis on atmosphere and sustained tension that the film has worked so hard to maintain up to that point. It doesn't ruin the film but it is a definite let down after everything that has come before.
All the trailers have shown members of the audience screaming in terror and the film arrives in the U.K. marketed as "one of the scariest films of all time." Is it THAT good? Probably not. But it's frightening, tension filled and without question the scariest film this year. If you're a fan of Saw (one through six) or the Hostel films, then maybe this is not for you. But if you like your horror psychological, subtle and insidious in a way that makes you question your assumption that those strange noises you've been hearing are just the pipes rattling, then Paranormal Activity is a must see.
7.5/10
Saturday 28 November 2009
Tuesday 24 November 2009
The Twilight Saga: New Moon: Why I Won't Be Reviewing It: Colon:
God, even that title is annoying.
Okay here's the deal. Yes I KNOW it's the biggest film of the moment. Yes I KNOW as a reviewer I'm supposed to watch everything, regardless of my own tastes and biases. Yes I KNOW they're all really buff and that's as good a reason as any to watch it.
Whoops! Eh, typo...
But I haven't seen the first in this "saga" and I can't bring myself to watch the second. I'm sorry, it looks insufferable. If you've seen it and you like it, send us an email and tell me why I'm wrong and why I should watch it. Otherwise you can listen to Mark Kermode give it a good review.
I hope my Editor-In-Chief doesn't fire me...
Okay here's the deal. Yes I KNOW it's the biggest film of the moment. Yes I KNOW as a reviewer I'm supposed to watch everything, regardless of my own tastes and biases. Yes I KNOW they're all really buff and that's as good a reason as any to watch it.
Whoops! Eh, typo...
But I haven't seen the first in this "saga" and I can't bring myself to watch the second. I'm sorry, it looks insufferable. If you've seen it and you like it, send us an email and tell me why I'm wrong and why I should watch it. Otherwise you can listen to Mark Kermode give it a good review.
I hope my Editor-In-Chief doesn't fire me...
Monday 23 November 2009
A Serious Man Review
Those Coen Brothers are a slippery pair. I've deliberately held off writing this review to let their latest film, A Serious Man, sink in a bit. My favourite of their films is Miller's Crossing with Fargo, No Country For Old Men and Raising Arizona all tied for second. Most of their films are good, very good or at the very least have something of merit in them. Indeed The Coen Brothers are uniquely consistent film makers and have been across a prolonged career. There is a particular category of Coen Brothers film that is somewhat enigmatic, Barton Fink, The Man Who Wasn't There and now A Serious Man. I liked the film considerably more than Barton Fink or Man Who Wasn't There but it definitely shares a kinship with those two films.
Michael Stuhlbarg plays Larry Gopnik, a physics professor with a wife who wants to divorce him because she has got together with an amazingly pompous friend Sy Ableman, a son Danny who is less interested in school than he is in their television reception and getting stoned, a daughter Sarah who steals money from him to pay for a nose job, an unemployable brother Arthur (Spin City's Richard Kind) who has a cyst that needs to be regularly drained and who has taken up permanent residence on their couch and a student trying to bribe him for a better grade. As Larry's life slowly disintegrates around him, he asks the question, why. He doesn't get many answers. And neither do we.
And maybe that's the point. Bad things happen to good people and there is no order to it, there is no God who has it in for you, even if your Jewish heritage is telling you otherwise. Of course, if your Jewish heritage is correct and there is a God and you are a good person, why would He have it in for you? Larry goes to visit three rabbi for answers, each of whom is useless in their own particular way, and, with everything that's happening to test Larry, the film could be seen as a re-telling of the story of Job. Is the film actually about the so-called "Jewish curse"? The ending could certainly be read in that way. Or perhaps the point is simply to make people debate endlessly as to what exactly the point is. The Coens are pranksters and the fact that they generate this kind of conversation is as enjoyable to them as the story they are telling, which is not to ignore the fact that there is much in the film to debate. What further complicates A Serious Man is the fact that Larry spends its whole running time saying, "I haven't done anything" as if this were a defence against the bad things coming his way. He HASN'T done anything. Apart from consulting the rabbis, he continues to do nothing, even as God/fate/life/an ancient curse (seen in a wonderful prologue) throws more and more crap at him, and even when he does see the rabbis, he is completely unresponsive to their inability to provide the help he needs. The fact that he seeks help from others in the first place, rather than help himself, is telling and in the end one has to assume that his complacency is at least partially if not totally complicit in his downward spiral.
It's this angle that makes the character of Larry such an interesting one, and one of the Coen's best creations. What's great is that, even taking his lack of initiative as his biggest flaw, you don't lose sympathy with him. This is due in no small part to the fantastic performance of Michael Stuhlbarg who manages to retain dignity and humour in the character, even when you the audience (and apparently fate itself) are screaming at him to act, to do something, anything. This is true in a number of scenes, none moreso than the moment where Sy Ableman confronts Larry and tries to placate him with a bottle of wine. This is an incredibly tough line to walk and the Coens do it very, very well. Rarely does Larry succumb to the loss of control he's experiencing and, when he does, it's mainly in his dreams, a fantastic device that allows us into his psyche and to know he's suffering without having to endure the hand-wringing and histrionics of a lesser film. Despite the litany of disasters falling Larry's way, A Serious Man is also a very warm film, possibly their warmest to date. Many people have criticised the Coens for a somewhat misanthropic approach to making films, a criticism I totally disagree with. Amidst the horror of Fargo is the kind hearted cop Marge Gunderson, appalled by the senseless violence all around her. The beating heart of No Country For Old Men is not the opportunistic Llewelyn Moss or psycopathic Anton Chigurh but Tommy Lee Jones' Sherriff Ed Tom Bell. Miller's Crossing comes down to the loyalty Tom Regan (Gabriel Byrne) has for his mentor Leo and the chaos of Raising Arizona is perpetuated by Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter's simple and heartfelt yearning to have a family of their own. You can't have the good without the bad and just because you're not afraid to depict the bad and to make it very bad, doesn't mean you have it in for the possibility of good in people. With A Serious Man, they have taken their "good character" and put him centre stage. The question is why is he made to suffer and the answer is... well, that is entirely up to you.
This is their most low-key film since The Man Who Wasn't There, completely without fuss and refreshingly free of the glut of Hollywood a-listers they crammed into Burn After Reading. Those people troubled by the abrupt ending of No Country For Old Men are going to REALLY dislike this film. I found the ending touching, heartbreaking and, in a strange sort of way, it helped make sense of the story and bring everything together. This is not my favourite Coen Brothers film but I really enjoyed it and I have a sneaking suspicion it's going to grow on me even more. I'll be very interested to go back to it when it's on DVD and I wouldn't be surprised if I give it a higher score.
On that point, the fact that it's getting the same score as 2012 probably destroys any credibility I can ever have as a film critic. Let's just say that different films can be good in different ways. No? Hello? Anyone there? Come back! I haven't done anything!!
7/10
Michael Stuhlbarg plays Larry Gopnik, a physics professor with a wife who wants to divorce him because she has got together with an amazingly pompous friend Sy Ableman, a son Danny who is less interested in school than he is in their television reception and getting stoned, a daughter Sarah who steals money from him to pay for a nose job, an unemployable brother Arthur (Spin City's Richard Kind) who has a cyst that needs to be regularly drained and who has taken up permanent residence on their couch and a student trying to bribe him for a better grade. As Larry's life slowly disintegrates around him, he asks the question, why. He doesn't get many answers. And neither do we.
And maybe that's the point. Bad things happen to good people and there is no order to it, there is no God who has it in for you, even if your Jewish heritage is telling you otherwise. Of course, if your Jewish heritage is correct and there is a God and you are a good person, why would He have it in for you? Larry goes to visit three rabbi for answers, each of whom is useless in their own particular way, and, with everything that's happening to test Larry, the film could be seen as a re-telling of the story of Job. Is the film actually about the so-called "Jewish curse"? The ending could certainly be read in that way. Or perhaps the point is simply to make people debate endlessly as to what exactly the point is. The Coens are pranksters and the fact that they generate this kind of conversation is as enjoyable to them as the story they are telling, which is not to ignore the fact that there is much in the film to debate. What further complicates A Serious Man is the fact that Larry spends its whole running time saying, "I haven't done anything" as if this were a defence against the bad things coming his way. He HASN'T done anything. Apart from consulting the rabbis, he continues to do nothing, even as God/fate/life/an ancient curse (seen in a wonderful prologue) throws more and more crap at him, and even when he does see the rabbis, he is completely unresponsive to their inability to provide the help he needs. The fact that he seeks help from others in the first place, rather than help himself, is telling and in the end one has to assume that his complacency is at least partially if not totally complicit in his downward spiral.
It's this angle that makes the character of Larry such an interesting one, and one of the Coen's best creations. What's great is that, even taking his lack of initiative as his biggest flaw, you don't lose sympathy with him. This is due in no small part to the fantastic performance of Michael Stuhlbarg who manages to retain dignity and humour in the character, even when you the audience (and apparently fate itself) are screaming at him to act, to do something, anything. This is true in a number of scenes, none moreso than the moment where Sy Ableman confronts Larry and tries to placate him with a bottle of wine. This is an incredibly tough line to walk and the Coens do it very, very well. Rarely does Larry succumb to the loss of control he's experiencing and, when he does, it's mainly in his dreams, a fantastic device that allows us into his psyche and to know he's suffering without having to endure the hand-wringing and histrionics of a lesser film. Despite the litany of disasters falling Larry's way, A Serious Man is also a very warm film, possibly their warmest to date. Many people have criticised the Coens for a somewhat misanthropic approach to making films, a criticism I totally disagree with. Amidst the horror of Fargo is the kind hearted cop Marge Gunderson, appalled by the senseless violence all around her. The beating heart of No Country For Old Men is not the opportunistic Llewelyn Moss or psycopathic Anton Chigurh but Tommy Lee Jones' Sherriff Ed Tom Bell. Miller's Crossing comes down to the loyalty Tom Regan (Gabriel Byrne) has for his mentor Leo and the chaos of Raising Arizona is perpetuated by Nicolas Cage and Holly Hunter's simple and heartfelt yearning to have a family of their own. You can't have the good without the bad and just because you're not afraid to depict the bad and to make it very bad, doesn't mean you have it in for the possibility of good in people. With A Serious Man, they have taken their "good character" and put him centre stage. The question is why is he made to suffer and the answer is... well, that is entirely up to you.
This is their most low-key film since The Man Who Wasn't There, completely without fuss and refreshingly free of the glut of Hollywood a-listers they crammed into Burn After Reading. Those people troubled by the abrupt ending of No Country For Old Men are going to REALLY dislike this film. I found the ending touching, heartbreaking and, in a strange sort of way, it helped make sense of the story and bring everything together. This is not my favourite Coen Brothers film but I really enjoyed it and I have a sneaking suspicion it's going to grow on me even more. I'll be very interested to go back to it when it's on DVD and I wouldn't be surprised if I give it a higher score.
On that point, the fact that it's getting the same score as 2012 probably destroys any credibility I can ever have as a film critic. Let's just say that different films can be good in different ways. No? Hello? Anyone there? Come back! I haven't done anything!!
7/10
Monday 16 November 2009
2012 Review
Surely I can't give 2012 a good review. Can I? I mean it's terrible. TERRIBLE. The characters are non existant, all notions of story have packed up and gone home and so much of the film is filled with saggy, soggy, drippy melodrama. Also, it's two and a half hours long. But it's a piece of depraved genius. At one point California is being destroyed in an earthquake that looks like it measures about a 350 on the richter scale and John Cusack outruns it in a limo. A LIMO! I can't help but feel that the sheer brilliance of that might have won me over.
The story, such as it is, concerns solar flares that are causing the Earth's crust to heat up and melt. This is the "science." Ah, science. Is there nothing you can't explain? This in turn causes uber-earthquakes that drag whole cities into the sea, mega-tsunamis that swallow up the Himalayas and volcanoes that erupt in Hiroshima-dwarfing nuclear explosions. The advertising campaign was built around the idea that this was all predicted by the Mayans but the film realises this is a waste of time and quickly dispenses with it altogether. I could talk more about the story, failed writer John Cusack struggling to reunite his family or conscientious Government scientist ("scientist") Chiwetel Ejifor trying to maintain his humanity amidst the terrible decisions being made around him, but what's the point? It's turgid, dreadful and clearly not the reason why anyone is going to see 2012.
Mark Kermode, in his scathing review of the film, talked about how it's another example of cynical Hollywood bean counters coming up with a film, the bottom line of which is the bottom line. This is possibly true of the studio and the executives greenlighting the film but I don't think it's true of writer/director (auteur if you will) Roland Emmerich. This is not a cynical film in the way that, say, Transformers or in particular Transformers 2 is. Emmerich is clearly in love with disaster movies and this is his magnus opus. I believe he genuinely cares that you're having a good time and this is the main reason that you stay onside with the film. He is now the undisputed king of the "man running away from looming disaster" set piece. John Cusack spends much of the film running/driving/flying away from earthquakes/volcanoes/floods. At one point he and his family are in an airplane that's screaming down a runway as the runway falls away into the Earth behind them. There is no threat, tension, logic or reason in it but you can almost see the glee on Emmerich's face as he comes up with stuff that he knows is outrageous but which he can't resist and he suspects you won't be able to resist either. He has the big action, the big cast and the ubiquitous dog in peril. It's worth mentioning that, while these sequences themselves are insane, he directs them superbly and, while the complete abandonment of plausibility might baffle, you always know exactly where you are within a given moment. This might seem like faint praise but watch Transformers 2 for an action film that has no clue how to direct its action. Also, to his credit, Emmerich is smart enough to cast credible actors who help sell this stuff. Chiwetel Ejiofor is one of Britain's best actors and it's great to see him get to take centre stage in a major Hollywood movie. John Cusack is dependably good, as is Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover and Tom McCarthy, director of the brilliant The Station Agent. (We'll ignore Thandie Newton) The film definately drags in the middle (our heroes have to get from California to China) but by the time you reach the last act with its arks and tsunamis, which could almost be a film in itself, you're right back with it.
Disaster movies have to be silly. We know this because they've always been silly. Check out the posturing of McQueen and Newman in The Towering Inferno or the frankly bizarre relationship between Ernest Borgnine and his ex-prostitute wife Stella Stevens (as well as Gene Hackman's seemingly knitted on hair) in The Poseidon Adventure if you don't believe me. In my mind, there is no difference between the 1970s disaster films and 2012. Would Irwin Allen have made a film like this had the technology been available to him? Of course he would. Modern special effects have freed up a personality that knows no restraint and the result is 2012. Simultaneously appalling and brilliant then, I have to say that the brilliance wins out. Just.
7/10
The story, such as it is, concerns solar flares that are causing the Earth's crust to heat up and melt. This is the "science." Ah, science. Is there nothing you can't explain? This in turn causes uber-earthquakes that drag whole cities into the sea, mega-tsunamis that swallow up the Himalayas and volcanoes that erupt in Hiroshima-dwarfing nuclear explosions. The advertising campaign was built around the idea that this was all predicted by the Mayans but the film realises this is a waste of time and quickly dispenses with it altogether. I could talk more about the story, failed writer John Cusack struggling to reunite his family or conscientious Government scientist ("scientist") Chiwetel Ejifor trying to maintain his humanity amidst the terrible decisions being made around him, but what's the point? It's turgid, dreadful and clearly not the reason why anyone is going to see 2012.
Mark Kermode, in his scathing review of the film, talked about how it's another example of cynical Hollywood bean counters coming up with a film, the bottom line of which is the bottom line. This is possibly true of the studio and the executives greenlighting the film but I don't think it's true of writer/director (auteur if you will) Roland Emmerich. This is not a cynical film in the way that, say, Transformers or in particular Transformers 2 is. Emmerich is clearly in love with disaster movies and this is his magnus opus. I believe he genuinely cares that you're having a good time and this is the main reason that you stay onside with the film. He is now the undisputed king of the "man running away from looming disaster" set piece. John Cusack spends much of the film running/driving/flying away from earthquakes/volcanoes/floods. At one point he and his family are in an airplane that's screaming down a runway as the runway falls away into the Earth behind them. There is no threat, tension, logic or reason in it but you can almost see the glee on Emmerich's face as he comes up with stuff that he knows is outrageous but which he can't resist and he suspects you won't be able to resist either. He has the big action, the big cast and the ubiquitous dog in peril. It's worth mentioning that, while these sequences themselves are insane, he directs them superbly and, while the complete abandonment of plausibility might baffle, you always know exactly where you are within a given moment. This might seem like faint praise but watch Transformers 2 for an action film that has no clue how to direct its action. Also, to his credit, Emmerich is smart enough to cast credible actors who help sell this stuff. Chiwetel Ejiofor is one of Britain's best actors and it's great to see him get to take centre stage in a major Hollywood movie. John Cusack is dependably good, as is Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover and Tom McCarthy, director of the brilliant The Station Agent. (We'll ignore Thandie Newton) The film definately drags in the middle (our heroes have to get from California to China) but by the time you reach the last act with its arks and tsunamis, which could almost be a film in itself, you're right back with it.
Disaster movies have to be silly. We know this because they've always been silly. Check out the posturing of McQueen and Newman in The Towering Inferno or the frankly bizarre relationship between Ernest Borgnine and his ex-prostitute wife Stella Stevens (as well as Gene Hackman's seemingly knitted on hair) in The Poseidon Adventure if you don't believe me. In my mind, there is no difference between the 1970s disaster films and 2012. Would Irwin Allen have made a film like this had the technology been available to him? Of course he would. Modern special effects have freed up a personality that knows no restraint and the result is 2012. Simultaneously appalling and brilliant then, I have to say that the brilliance wins out. Just.
7/10
Harry Brown Review
Why are British films always so bleak and dour? There is an extended scene in Harry Brown wherein Michael Caine (the eponymous Brown) visits two local gun and drug dealers on the pretext of buying a gun. This scene is grim to start with and gets progressivley more so, culminating in the video playing in the background of the two men having sex with the drugged out woman they keep on the couch. I have no reason to doubt that horror like this goes on in certain parts of the city but, just because you fill your film with the most awful things you can think of or have heard actually happened, doesn't mean you're necessarily saying anything interesting or important about them. And in the end, this is the problem that Harry Brown can't escape.
Michael Caine is Harry Brown, a retired ex-marine, recently widowed, living on an estate that is over run with crime and youth violence. When his chess partner and friend Len is viciously killed by a gang, Harry decides that enough is enough and goes about exacting some measure of justice. I mean revenge. Wait, which is it? Stories like these can be very problematic in this regard and this film, with its dubious politics and mixed messages, is no exception. Violence is awful. Except when it's justified. Stabbing a pensioner is horrific but wrapping barbed wire around a hoodie's neck is perfectly acceptable. Violence begets violence we're told but Harry Brown's murderous rampage has nothing but positive consequences. It's yet another film that demonizes every young person with his hood up and portrays the council estate as some kind of zoo for the depraved. Are some estates like this? Are there violent youths? Street violence? Of course the answer to these questions is yes but the simple fact is that we know this already. What else have you got to say? And the plain truth is that the film has nothing new to say. It's revenge fantasy with pretensions, nothing more.
There is something undeniably iconic about seeing Michael Caine in a buttoned up, black overcoat, staring into the camera. At 78, he seems to be still going strong and his place as one of the movie greats is assured. But, as much as I enjoy watching him, I never quite believe him in roles like this. I've always found him at his best in comedy, something he does much too little of. The film has been getting generally good reviews but I really believe this is because of the presence of Michael Caine. Harry Brown is the debut film of director Daniel Barber and there is undeniable confidence in much of how he directs the film. A big problem however is that scenes are pushed way past the point of interest, the scene I mentioned at the begining with Caine confronting the drug dealers for example, or a ludicrously extended section where every member of the gang is interviewed by the police. I suspect Barber thinks he is building tension in these scenes but they end up falling very flat. Supporting characters are very short-changed and any time Caine isn't on the screen, the film loses the only card it has to play.
Every year some new version of the "ordinary man takes the law into his own hands" film gets made. This year has seen no fewer than three with Clint's Gran Torino, Caine's Harry Brown and Gerard Butler in Law Abiding Citizen coming up in a couple of weeks. Harry Brown has been drawing comparisons with Gran Torino, comparisons I'm sure Daniel Barber is pleased with. I saw an interview with him in which he said that he would hate to think that his film would be compared to Death Wish, Michael Winner's 1970s exploitation thriller with Charles Bronson. If you ask me, Death Wish is the better film.
3/10
Michael Caine is Harry Brown, a retired ex-marine, recently widowed, living on an estate that is over run with crime and youth violence. When his chess partner and friend Len is viciously killed by a gang, Harry decides that enough is enough and goes about exacting some measure of justice. I mean revenge. Wait, which is it? Stories like these can be very problematic in this regard and this film, with its dubious politics and mixed messages, is no exception. Violence is awful. Except when it's justified. Stabbing a pensioner is horrific but wrapping barbed wire around a hoodie's neck is perfectly acceptable. Violence begets violence we're told but Harry Brown's murderous rampage has nothing but positive consequences. It's yet another film that demonizes every young person with his hood up and portrays the council estate as some kind of zoo for the depraved. Are some estates like this? Are there violent youths? Street violence? Of course the answer to these questions is yes but the simple fact is that we know this already. What else have you got to say? And the plain truth is that the film has nothing new to say. It's revenge fantasy with pretensions, nothing more.
There is something undeniably iconic about seeing Michael Caine in a buttoned up, black overcoat, staring into the camera. At 78, he seems to be still going strong and his place as one of the movie greats is assured. But, as much as I enjoy watching him, I never quite believe him in roles like this. I've always found him at his best in comedy, something he does much too little of. The film has been getting generally good reviews but I really believe this is because of the presence of Michael Caine. Harry Brown is the debut film of director Daniel Barber and there is undeniable confidence in much of how he directs the film. A big problem however is that scenes are pushed way past the point of interest, the scene I mentioned at the begining with Caine confronting the drug dealers for example, or a ludicrously extended section where every member of the gang is interviewed by the police. I suspect Barber thinks he is building tension in these scenes but they end up falling very flat. Supporting characters are very short-changed and any time Caine isn't on the screen, the film loses the only card it has to play.
Every year some new version of the "ordinary man takes the law into his own hands" film gets made. This year has seen no fewer than three with Clint's Gran Torino, Caine's Harry Brown and Gerard Butler in Law Abiding Citizen coming up in a couple of weeks. Harry Brown has been drawing comparisons with Gran Torino, comparisons I'm sure Daniel Barber is pleased with. I saw an interview with him in which he said that he would hate to think that his film would be compared to Death Wish, Michael Winner's 1970s exploitation thriller with Charles Bronson. If you ask me, Death Wish is the better film.
3/10
Jennifer's Body Review
I hate Juno. Juno is the worst kind of film in that, everyone who has seen it will tell you how good it is, and it’s not good. Not at all. Writer Diablo Cody has a fantastic central idea, a teenager carrying a pregnancy through high school, an idea that could really resonate and go somewhere interesting, especially in these times of Creationism and abstinence. But she absolutely squanders it. The script is immature, there are no consequences to any of Juno’s actions and the whole thing becomes a highly irritating, flippant, kooky love story with a soundtrack of perfectly placed, just released eight minutes ago, indie songs to sledgehammer home every emotionally contrived moment. Cody clearly understands what it’s like to be an American teenager and is able to convincingly sell that world. So it’s no surprise that Jennifer’s Body, Cody’s next produced script, once again portrays the American teenage angst and its natural home, the high school, in a manner that is at once completely convincing and painfully familiar. Jennifer’s Body doesn’t have that great central idea which, in a way, actually works in its favour because there is little to spoil. What it has in abundance is all the irritating stuff. It isn’t even really a horror film, even though it has been marketed as such. It’s a high school film with a demon. And I really don’t like high school films. Can you see where this is going?
Megan Fox is Jennifer, the object of every teenage boy’s hormonally fuelled desire. Mama Mia’s Amanda Seyfried is Needy, her best friend. Out at a bar one night, Jennifer is taken by a struggling band who will do anything to get famous, including sacrificing a virgin to Satan. Except that Jennifer is no virgin and so she ends up inhabited by the demon, feasting on the young boys at the school to stay alive. She is literally a man-eater. Get it? Needy is the only one who knows the truth and it’s up to her to stop the killings that ensue. It’s a neat idea to take the high school archetypes and use them for horror purposes and Cody certainly has a nice way with finding small character moments that ring true. Director Karen Kusama does an okay job and the two girls are both convincing. But it’s not funny, it’s not frightening and once again I found much of Cody’s writing very grating. People have knocked her dialogue for being stylised which is a ridiculous criticism. Dialogue shouldn’t be conversational in my opinion, it should have structure and purpose, like the overall story, and many writers, including two of my favourites, the Coen Brothers and David Mamet, write highly stylised dialogue. The question is how one responds to that style. That response is of course always subjective but, for me, I find Cody’s characters very annoying. “You’re so jello. You’re lime green jello and you can’t admit it to yourself.” Lines like this come thick and fast and make me want to tear my hair out, I don’t care how authentic they are to American teen-speak. It’s the Quentin Tarantino school of writing, where every character talks in hip, “quotable” but ultimately inane sound bites. And just because the lead singer of the band remarks that the only way to get noticed is to appear on a “crap soundtrack”, referencing the problem I mentioned about Juno, doesn’t mean you’re negating that problem. Moreover, in jokes are cheap and unfunny and Cody is guilty of employing them.
I realise this review has become a bit of a tirade against Diablo Cody but she is one of the few writers who, so far at least, manages to be highly visible in the finished film. And good for her. Such a feat is rare for a Hollywood writer. I have nothing against her personally and she can clearly structure a script and tell a story. But it’s style over substance and if that comes from Diablo Cody or Michael Bay or anyone else, it’s problematic. There is a current backlash against Cody, part of the reason for the film’s poor show at the box office Stateside. Again, I want to be as fair as I can be, and this backlash is unjustified and unfair. The people tearing her down now are the same ones that lauded her when Juno first appeared and their objections are pretty much worthless as a result. At least I’m consistent. I hated Juno from the start and I hate Jennifer’s Body now too. I was bored, irritated and if I hadn’t been writing this review I’d have left half way through. Diablo Cody does her thing and I guess that’s great for her and for whoever is interested. It’s not for me.
2/10
Megan Fox is Jennifer, the object of every teenage boy’s hormonally fuelled desire. Mama Mia’s Amanda Seyfried is Needy, her best friend. Out at a bar one night, Jennifer is taken by a struggling band who will do anything to get famous, including sacrificing a virgin to Satan. Except that Jennifer is no virgin and so she ends up inhabited by the demon, feasting on the young boys at the school to stay alive. She is literally a man-eater. Get it? Needy is the only one who knows the truth and it’s up to her to stop the killings that ensue. It’s a neat idea to take the high school archetypes and use them for horror purposes and Cody certainly has a nice way with finding small character moments that ring true. Director Karen Kusama does an okay job and the two girls are both convincing. But it’s not funny, it’s not frightening and once again I found much of Cody’s writing very grating. People have knocked her dialogue for being stylised which is a ridiculous criticism. Dialogue shouldn’t be conversational in my opinion, it should have structure and purpose, like the overall story, and many writers, including two of my favourites, the Coen Brothers and David Mamet, write highly stylised dialogue. The question is how one responds to that style. That response is of course always subjective but, for me, I find Cody’s characters very annoying. “You’re so jello. You’re lime green jello and you can’t admit it to yourself.” Lines like this come thick and fast and make me want to tear my hair out, I don’t care how authentic they are to American teen-speak. It’s the Quentin Tarantino school of writing, where every character talks in hip, “quotable” but ultimately inane sound bites. And just because the lead singer of the band remarks that the only way to get noticed is to appear on a “crap soundtrack”, referencing the problem I mentioned about Juno, doesn’t mean you’re negating that problem. Moreover, in jokes are cheap and unfunny and Cody is guilty of employing them.
I realise this review has become a bit of a tirade against Diablo Cody but she is one of the few writers who, so far at least, manages to be highly visible in the finished film. And good for her. Such a feat is rare for a Hollywood writer. I have nothing against her personally and she can clearly structure a script and tell a story. But it’s style over substance and if that comes from Diablo Cody or Michael Bay or anyone else, it’s problematic. There is a current backlash against Cody, part of the reason for the film’s poor show at the box office Stateside. Again, I want to be as fair as I can be, and this backlash is unjustified and unfair. The people tearing her down now are the same ones that lauded her when Juno first appeared and their objections are pretty much worthless as a result. At least I’m consistent. I hated Juno from the start and I hate Jennifer’s Body now too. I was bored, irritated and if I hadn’t been writing this review I’d have left half way through. Diablo Cody does her thing and I guess that’s great for her and for whoever is interested. It’s not for me.
2/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)