The Coen Brothers are on such a streak of form right now. True, Burn After Reading isn't brilliant but "not brilliant" from the Coens still tends to be better than many directors at their best. No Country For Old Men was a triumph, A Serious Man fantastic and now with True Grit they've delivered a superb western and a great film full stop.
The true grit of the title belongs to Mattie Ross (newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) a tough as nails and hugely intelligent young girl who hires drunk, disorderly but deadly US Marshall Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to avenge her Father's death by killing the man that did it (Josh Brolin). Joining the hunt is Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Matt Damon), something of a buffoon but who nevertheless displays courage and heart as the film progresses, causing Mattie to wonder if she didn't perhaps hire the wrong man in the first place.
The film is a coming of age story as much as it is a revenge story and it contains so much of what the Coens do best, pitch perfect tone (even as scenes go from dark to funny to tense and back to dark again) fantastic dialogue, economical story-telling and iconic performances. This film boasts what is absolutely a career best turn from Jeff Bridges. Yes everyone loves The Dude and yes he won his awards for the inferior Crazy Heart last year, but Bridges' Cogburn is simply phenomenol. We get the sense of him being a good man but the love of his life is whiskey and whiskey is everywhere to be found. He is at times hilariously uncoordinated, falling off his horse etc, and at times menacingly dark and is utterly compelling both ways. He is matched by Haliee Stenfeld who has an incredibly tricky job of convincing as plucky and tough without losing sight of her age or tipping into parody and at the same time revealing just enough vulnerability to let us see her change throughout the film. She is absolutely excellent and is certainly a talent to watch for the future. Matt Damon too is excellent. His character is that goofy type of character The Coens like to write but Damon always grounds him in something believable so he fits in completely with the rest of the film.
The other star of True Grit is Coens' regular cinematographer Roger Deakins, surely about to receive his long overdue Oscar next week. The film is beautifully shot, from the small scenes in cabins or by campfires to the stunning vistas one expects from a Western. True Grit is one of those films where you believe the characters have been around long before we meet them at the beginning of the part of their lives the movie depicts. With Cogburn in particular, and not just because he is the eldest, you absolutely get the sense of a man who has lived a life, not a character created for the purpose of telling a story. True Grit is elegant, tense, funny and truly a film you can just get lost inside of. In short, it's everything The Coens, at their best, have been delivering their whole career.
8.5/10
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
The Fighter Review
The Fighter is one of the heavy hitters at this year's awards season, receiving a number of Oscar nominations including Best Film and Director for David O Russell. For my money it is by far the most generic of the nominated films I've seen so far. The King's Speech is pretty safe and unlikely to offend anyone but its story is unique and interesting. Black Swan is, depending on who you talk to, deranged genius or camp hysteria. Either way it certainly isn't formulaic. True Grit is an elegant masterpiece, Inception imaginative and filled with ideas. And in the middle of it all sits The Fighter. Washed up boxer seeking one last shot, family dragging him down but he needs them at the same time... all the cliches are present and accounted for. Yet there is no denying the film has class and is well acted and directed. I think my only issue is all the awards attention the film is receiving which, in an unusually strong year, makes its by the numbers story stand out all the more.
Mark Wahlberg plays Micky Ward, a welterweight who has never reached the boxing heights he dreamed of. Christian Bale is his brother Dicky, an ex-fighter himself who once knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard but who is now addicted to crack. Dicky is Mickey's trainer, when he rememebrs to turn up, and his terrifying Mother (an excellent Melissa Leo) acts as his manager. They are, of course, completely mismanaging him, as evidenced early on when Mickey is coerced into a disasterous fight proper management would never have let him be a part of. Mickey's girlfriend Charlene (Amy Adams) urges him to ditch the family but, as the film progresses, it becomes possible that Mickey needs his family, in particular his wayward brother, more than anyone realises.
There really isn't a huge amount to say about The Fighter. It does what it does and does it very well. Christian Bale is pretty much guaranteed his Oscar this year and, in truth, there is little denying it to him. He completely sells his addiction in every scene, the way he clings to his one moment of glory is sad without ever becoming pathetic or cloying and what's great about the performance is the way Bale manages to present Dicky as basically a good guy without ever shying away from the fact that he is a total screw up. When we first meet him he has a film crew following him apparently to chart his return to boxing. The reveal of what the film is actually about, as well as the way it pays off, is genuinely affecting. Bale demands your attention whenever he is onscreen and, in truth, I wonder if most of the success of the film isn't due to his performance, the best he has been in a very long time. Wahlberg is Wahlberg and doesn't derail the film, finding a quiet centre in the maelstrom that surrounds him. I was concerned early on that Amy Adams, an actress I really like, was miscast. But after a slightly shaky start she settles into her role as the tough talking bar worker who has Mickey's best interests at heart. The scenes with the rest of the family, his ferocious Mother and gaggle of frightening sisters, were somewhat cartoonish for me. I felt them over the top and ultimately didn't really believe them. What I did like though was the way the family was the film's focus. There is actually very little boxing in The Fighter (but in a nice directorial touch what fights there are O Russell films as if they're TV broadcasts) and this is to its credit as it really did make me care about the relationship between the two brothers.
I'm actually warming to the film as I type this. I was never bored, there are many genuinely funny moments and Christian Bale is standout. It's just that I'd seen it all before so many times, I found it difficult to get really enthused about the film's strengths. In that respect, it reminded me of The Town, fantastically made but way too familiar. I should say though that The Fighter is considerably better. Ultimately there is much to enjoy in the film. Just don't expect any surprises.
6.5/10
Mark Wahlberg plays Micky Ward, a welterweight who has never reached the boxing heights he dreamed of. Christian Bale is his brother Dicky, an ex-fighter himself who once knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard but who is now addicted to crack. Dicky is Mickey's trainer, when he rememebrs to turn up, and his terrifying Mother (an excellent Melissa Leo) acts as his manager. They are, of course, completely mismanaging him, as evidenced early on when Mickey is coerced into a disasterous fight proper management would never have let him be a part of. Mickey's girlfriend Charlene (Amy Adams) urges him to ditch the family but, as the film progresses, it becomes possible that Mickey needs his family, in particular his wayward brother, more than anyone realises.
There really isn't a huge amount to say about The Fighter. It does what it does and does it very well. Christian Bale is pretty much guaranteed his Oscar this year and, in truth, there is little denying it to him. He completely sells his addiction in every scene, the way he clings to his one moment of glory is sad without ever becoming pathetic or cloying and what's great about the performance is the way Bale manages to present Dicky as basically a good guy without ever shying away from the fact that he is a total screw up. When we first meet him he has a film crew following him apparently to chart his return to boxing. The reveal of what the film is actually about, as well as the way it pays off, is genuinely affecting. Bale demands your attention whenever he is onscreen and, in truth, I wonder if most of the success of the film isn't due to his performance, the best he has been in a very long time. Wahlberg is Wahlberg and doesn't derail the film, finding a quiet centre in the maelstrom that surrounds him. I was concerned early on that Amy Adams, an actress I really like, was miscast. But after a slightly shaky start she settles into her role as the tough talking bar worker who has Mickey's best interests at heart. The scenes with the rest of the family, his ferocious Mother and gaggle of frightening sisters, were somewhat cartoonish for me. I felt them over the top and ultimately didn't really believe them. What I did like though was the way the family was the film's focus. There is actually very little boxing in The Fighter (but in a nice directorial touch what fights there are O Russell films as if they're TV broadcasts) and this is to its credit as it really did make me care about the relationship between the two brothers.
I'm actually warming to the film as I type this. I was never bored, there are many genuinely funny moments and Christian Bale is standout. It's just that I'd seen it all before so many times, I found it difficult to get really enthused about the film's strengths. In that respect, it reminded me of The Town, fantastically made but way too familiar. I should say though that The Fighter is considerably better. Ultimately there is much to enjoy in the film. Just don't expect any surprises.
6.5/10
Sunday, 30 January 2011
Barney's Version Review
I'll watch Paul Giamatti in pretty much anything. Well, I walked out of Shoot 'Em Up and I didn't see Fred Claus. But whatever, he's one of my favourite actors who absolutely sells me on whatever it is he's playing. That's just as true of his portrayal of Barney Panofsky in Barney's Version as it is of any of the other characters he has played and this is what creates the problem. The character is such an idiot, such a dick in a lot of ways, that I ended up rooting for anyone and everyone else in the film. When I could be bothered to concentrate. Barney's Version is long, tangental and unfocused with a number of plot strands that don't really go anywhere. If it wasn't for Paul Giamatti I'd have probably given up on it.
The film takes us through Barney's life as the producer of a dubious television soap opera (now in its 30th season we're told near the beginning) two disasterous marriages, a third marriage to the love of his life that he single handedly destroys, the fact that he may or may not have committed murder and his eventual mental decline. There are good bits, a few good scenes, some genuinely funny moments, most of which involve Dustin Hoffman who almost steals the show as Barney's lothario, straight talking Dad and, as I said, Paul Giamatti is always reliable and doesn't disappoint here. But I couldn't get over that central problem. I had zero sympathy for the guy. I've seen a number of reviews describe Barney as a "lovable rogue" or some variation on that theme but that, for me, is incredibly euphamistic to the point of it not being true. I didn't like him, I was asked to care about him and I simply couldn't. The film makes a few attempts to redeem him near the end but they are way too little too late and the film ends up being a waste of a great actor giving a great performance.
4/10
The film takes us through Barney's life as the producer of a dubious television soap opera (now in its 30th season we're told near the beginning) two disasterous marriages, a third marriage to the love of his life that he single handedly destroys, the fact that he may or may not have committed murder and his eventual mental decline. There are good bits, a few good scenes, some genuinely funny moments, most of which involve Dustin Hoffman who almost steals the show as Barney's lothario, straight talking Dad and, as I said, Paul Giamatti is always reliable and doesn't disappoint here. But I couldn't get over that central problem. I had zero sympathy for the guy. I've seen a number of reviews describe Barney as a "lovable rogue" or some variation on that theme but that, for me, is incredibly euphamistic to the point of it not being true. I didn't like him, I was asked to care about him and I simply couldn't. The film makes a few attempts to redeem him near the end but they are way too little too late and the film ends up being a waste of a great actor giving a great performance.
4/10
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Black Swan Review
Can it be that only 19 days into 2011, I've already seen the best film I'm going to see all year? Black Swan is an astonishing film, frightening, tense, unsettling and disturbing and it catapults itself into my top 5 cinema experiences of all time. It just means eleven and a half months of films that simply don't measure up...
Natalie Portman plays Nina, a ballerina desperate to ascend in the company she dances for. Aging Prima Ballerina Beth (Winona Ryder) is about to leave the company and company director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) seeks his new Swan Queen who, to perform Swan Lake, must be able to dance both sides of the role, the pure, innocent White Swan and the evil doppelganger, the Black Swan. Nina is all technique but is controlled and tightly wound. She excels at the White Swan but cannot tap into those darker aspects of herself in order to convince as the Black Swan. That is how the film starts and over the next couple of hours we experience Nina's psychological and physical breakdown and transformation into the eponymous Black Swan.
From minute one, Black Swan unsettles you and it retains a tone and atmosphere throughout its entire running time that pins you to your seat and simply won't let you move. What's absolutely fascinating about the film is that it's covering very similar territory to writer/director Darren Aronofsky's last film, The Wrestler. Both films examine a very specific, very niche world. Both films examine, sometimes in eye watering detail, exactly what the participants of that world suffer for their sport/art and we see how uncompromising both can be in the way the wrestlers/dancers end up destroyed by their respective vocations. Just as we watched Randy "The Ram" Robinson cut himself with a concealed razor blade to make the audience think he is genuinely hurt in the ring, so we watch Nina tape up her bleeding, battered feet and squeeze them into what on the outside are dainty ballet shoes, as well as watching her physio "pop" limbs back into place. Much of Black Swan occurs in grimy corridors, train carriages, tiny rooms, intimate in exactly the same way The Wrestler was. What's incredible though is that, rather than examining thse things in the form of a character drama, he now examines them in the form of a psychological horror film; a body horror in the tradition of early David Cronenberg and a descent into madness as compelling as The Innocents, Psycho or any of the greats of that subgenre of horror.
I really can't overstate how well this combination of genres works. The natural horror of what a ballet dancer puts herself through morphing into the body horror of her mental descent is utterly compelling. It walks that fine line of actually being comical but never loses its grip on what it's doing. So much of the film can be read in multiple ways and it's to the film's credit that you are as engrossed in Nina's situation as you are. 80% of the film is shot in either over the shoulder shots or big close ups, and the whole film feels like it's invading Nina's psychological as well as physical space as a result. The net effect is to completely unsettle, as well as leave us in no doubt that we are experiencing this film purely from her point of view. Regular Aronofsky collaborators Matthew Libatique and Clint Mansell contribute enormously, as they always do, their photography and music respectively adding massively to the overall tone and atmosphere of the piece.
In terms of performances, there really isn't a weak link. The film rests on Natalie Portman's delicate shoulders and her performance is utterly fearless. Her slow breakdown is completely believable and, as "big" as this film goes, her performance never felt overwrought or hysterical. The most interesting character after Nina for me was her Mother, played brilliantly by Barbara Hershey. This relationship throws back to Carrie as Piper Laurie's religious fanatic sought to closit and undermine her telekinetic daughter. But this character is way more interesting because of the way her motives are so ambiguous. She was a ballerina who, she tells us, gave it all up to raise her daughter. But we have no way of knowing how true that is. Maybe she's as over protective as she is because she knows the psychological toll the role of the Swan Queen takes. Maybe she suffered the same and its left her unhinged, crying to herself, painting those strange pictures in her room. Or maybe she's just a Mother and it's experiencing her through Nina's eyes that warps our view of her. Barbara Hershey plays it such that most interpretations of her are valid. Vincent Cassel is suitably sleazy as the company director, opening Nina up to her raw sexuality, possibly to get the best show he can, possibly for his own gratification, but, strangely, also finding moments of compassion in the small looks and glances he gives his "little princess." Mila Kunis also has a difficult job as Lily the company dancer and understudy to Nina who may be trying to steal the role away from Nina, or who may not even exist at all. As Nina seeks to find her black swan, it's possible that she externalises her own inner darkness into an imagined persona. Again, Kunis plays it such that a case can be made for either interpretation.
Black Swan is an incredible mix of horror film, art film and thriller. It is unlike anything I've seen in a very long time and, true I only saw it last night, but I can't stop thinking about it and I know it's going to stay with me for a very long time. It's a film that will mostly be overlooked by the awards season and that's absolutely to its credit. This is a dark, strange, compulsive and, let me say it again, unsettling film that demands to be seen in the cinema. Not for everyone perhaps but it was certainly for me.
19 days in and 2011 has peaked... It was good while it lasted.
9.5/10
Natalie Portman plays Nina, a ballerina desperate to ascend in the company she dances for. Aging Prima Ballerina Beth (Winona Ryder) is about to leave the company and company director Thomas (Vincent Cassel) seeks his new Swan Queen who, to perform Swan Lake, must be able to dance both sides of the role, the pure, innocent White Swan and the evil doppelganger, the Black Swan. Nina is all technique but is controlled and tightly wound. She excels at the White Swan but cannot tap into those darker aspects of herself in order to convince as the Black Swan. That is how the film starts and over the next couple of hours we experience Nina's psychological and physical breakdown and transformation into the eponymous Black Swan.
From minute one, Black Swan unsettles you and it retains a tone and atmosphere throughout its entire running time that pins you to your seat and simply won't let you move. What's absolutely fascinating about the film is that it's covering very similar territory to writer/director Darren Aronofsky's last film, The Wrestler. Both films examine a very specific, very niche world. Both films examine, sometimes in eye watering detail, exactly what the participants of that world suffer for their sport/art and we see how uncompromising both can be in the way the wrestlers/dancers end up destroyed by their respective vocations. Just as we watched Randy "The Ram" Robinson cut himself with a concealed razor blade to make the audience think he is genuinely hurt in the ring, so we watch Nina tape up her bleeding, battered feet and squeeze them into what on the outside are dainty ballet shoes, as well as watching her physio "pop" limbs back into place. Much of Black Swan occurs in grimy corridors, train carriages, tiny rooms, intimate in exactly the same way The Wrestler was. What's incredible though is that, rather than examining thse things in the form of a character drama, he now examines them in the form of a psychological horror film; a body horror in the tradition of early David Cronenberg and a descent into madness as compelling as The Innocents, Psycho or any of the greats of that subgenre of horror.
I really can't overstate how well this combination of genres works. The natural horror of what a ballet dancer puts herself through morphing into the body horror of her mental descent is utterly compelling. It walks that fine line of actually being comical but never loses its grip on what it's doing. So much of the film can be read in multiple ways and it's to the film's credit that you are as engrossed in Nina's situation as you are. 80% of the film is shot in either over the shoulder shots or big close ups, and the whole film feels like it's invading Nina's psychological as well as physical space as a result. The net effect is to completely unsettle, as well as leave us in no doubt that we are experiencing this film purely from her point of view. Regular Aronofsky collaborators Matthew Libatique and Clint Mansell contribute enormously, as they always do, their photography and music respectively adding massively to the overall tone and atmosphere of the piece.
In terms of performances, there really isn't a weak link. The film rests on Natalie Portman's delicate shoulders and her performance is utterly fearless. Her slow breakdown is completely believable and, as "big" as this film goes, her performance never felt overwrought or hysterical. The most interesting character after Nina for me was her Mother, played brilliantly by Barbara Hershey. This relationship throws back to Carrie as Piper Laurie's religious fanatic sought to closit and undermine her telekinetic daughter. But this character is way more interesting because of the way her motives are so ambiguous. She was a ballerina who, she tells us, gave it all up to raise her daughter. But we have no way of knowing how true that is. Maybe she's as over protective as she is because she knows the psychological toll the role of the Swan Queen takes. Maybe she suffered the same and its left her unhinged, crying to herself, painting those strange pictures in her room. Or maybe she's just a Mother and it's experiencing her through Nina's eyes that warps our view of her. Barbara Hershey plays it such that most interpretations of her are valid. Vincent Cassel is suitably sleazy as the company director, opening Nina up to her raw sexuality, possibly to get the best show he can, possibly for his own gratification, but, strangely, also finding moments of compassion in the small looks and glances he gives his "little princess." Mila Kunis also has a difficult job as Lily the company dancer and understudy to Nina who may be trying to steal the role away from Nina, or who may not even exist at all. As Nina seeks to find her black swan, it's possible that she externalises her own inner darkness into an imagined persona. Again, Kunis plays it such that a case can be made for either interpretation.
Black Swan is an incredible mix of horror film, art film and thriller. It is unlike anything I've seen in a very long time and, true I only saw it last night, but I can't stop thinking about it and I know it's going to stay with me for a very long time. It's a film that will mostly be overlooked by the awards season and that's absolutely to its credit. This is a dark, strange, compulsive and, let me say it again, unsettling film that demands to be seen in the cinema. Not for everyone perhaps but it was certainly for me.
19 days in and 2011 has peaked... It was good while it lasted.
9.5/10
Thursday, 13 January 2011
127 Hours Review
There was a part of me watching 127 Hours that struggled to sympathise with its protagonist Aron Ralston. "It'll take more than a 6 day desperate fight for survival with your arm trapped underneath a boulder culminating in you cutting that arm off, to impress me" I said to myself as I munched my popcorn and guzzled my coke zero. True, the most dangerous thing I'd done that week was to walk 50 yards down from the clearly marked zebra crossing only to then cross the road anyway, laughing in the face of danger and oncoming traffic as I thought to myself, Aron WHO? In all seriousness though, the problem is that, at the start of the film Aron is presented as, well, a bit of a dick. He doesn't tell anyone where he's going when he sets off into the Utah wilderness. Why not? Because he's Aron Ralston and he doesn't need to, that's why not. Pestering phonecalls from his family? No time for those! Clearly this is the deliberate set up for the "spiritual journey" our character will go on in the course of his crisis but it's a risky ploy as the danger is in alienating the audience. One assumes this is the way the real Ralston was in real life but since when have the movies let the truth get in the way of a good story? It's therefore credit to co-screenwriter and director Danny Boyle, as well as the charm and likability of James Franco, that the film is as engaging as it is.
Boyle the director, employs many of his now familiar techniques (odd camera angles, split-screen, thumping soundtrack) to infuse the film with energy and vibrancy. This works in the early scenes as we watch Ralston bask in the adventure of the outdoors as well as after he falls into the rock crevice and becomes trapped where these techniques distract us from the static, single location. Whilst immobile, Ralston uses every bit of his common sense and knowledge of the outdoors to extricate himself from what instantly appears to be a hopeless situation. The best thing about the film for me was the way, what are normally small things, take on massive, life or death consequences in the context of Aron's predicament. Frequently we enter our protagonist's head and watch him think back to regrets he has about his past as well as to consider a future he may never have. This kind of thing can often feel like filler but in this it genuinely works to up the emotional stakes of the film. By the time he makes the impossible decision to amputate the trapped arm and free himself, you absolutely feel not only his desperation, but also his sheer willpower, mental strength and desire to live. The amputation scene is predictably grim but not gratuitous. Danny Boyle has never been one to shy away from any violence in his stories and this could have been close to unwatchable. Instead convincing sound effects, tremendous acting from James Franco and a few choice shots, sell the horror of what he is forced to do.
I have an odd relationship with Danny Boyle's films. I tend to admire them more than I genuinely like them. 127 Hours continues this trend insofar as I can't imagine returning to it very often but I enjoyed it way more than I thought I would and it's definitely worth your time.
7/10
Boyle the director, employs many of his now familiar techniques (odd camera angles, split-screen, thumping soundtrack) to infuse the film with energy and vibrancy. This works in the early scenes as we watch Ralston bask in the adventure of the outdoors as well as after he falls into the rock crevice and becomes trapped where these techniques distract us from the static, single location. Whilst immobile, Ralston uses every bit of his common sense and knowledge of the outdoors to extricate himself from what instantly appears to be a hopeless situation. The best thing about the film for me was the way, what are normally small things, take on massive, life or death consequences in the context of Aron's predicament. Frequently we enter our protagonist's head and watch him think back to regrets he has about his past as well as to consider a future he may never have. This kind of thing can often feel like filler but in this it genuinely works to up the emotional stakes of the film. By the time he makes the impossible decision to amputate the trapped arm and free himself, you absolutely feel not only his desperation, but also his sheer willpower, mental strength and desire to live. The amputation scene is predictably grim but not gratuitous. Danny Boyle has never been one to shy away from any violence in his stories and this could have been close to unwatchable. Instead convincing sound effects, tremendous acting from James Franco and a few choice shots, sell the horror of what he is forced to do.
I have an odd relationship with Danny Boyle's films. I tend to admire them more than I genuinely like them. 127 Hours continues this trend insofar as I can't imagine returning to it very often but I enjoyed it way more than I thought I would and it's definitely worth your time.
7/10
Tuesday, 11 January 2011
The King's Speech Review
I'll admit I can sometimes have it in for a film before I see it. I like to think that, once in the cinema, I can have my mind changed if the film is genuinely good; Kick Ass is a good example of a film I fully expected to hate and that won me over. It's not that I expected to hate The King's Speech, it's just that it seemed like the kind of Oscar-bait movie the months of December and January tend to serve up, films professing their own worthiness whilst acutally not doing too much of anything. Imagine my surprise when The King's Speech turned out to be a highly engaging, witty, wonderfully written and acted movie.
It's 1925 and Albert, Duke of York (a career best Colin Firth) tries to deliver a speech to the Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium but is thwarted by his terrible stammer. His wife Elizabeth, the future Queen Mother (played with a fantastically light touch by Helena Bonham Carter) seeks help from Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) whose unorthodox methods of treatment have made his reputation preceed him. This relationship forms the cornerstone of the film as Lionel attempts to break down deep seated fears and insecurities within "Bertie" as Lionel insists on calling the future King, as well as treating the mechanics of the speech impediment. Their relationship develops alongside an incredibly tumultous period in royal history, and indeed British history generally, as King George V (Michael Gambon) dies and is succeeded by Albert's older brother David (a slightly over the top Guy Pearce) who is enamoured by American divorcee Wallis Simpson. When David abdicates to marry Mrs Simpson, Albert assumes the throne, putting enormous pressure on Logue's ability to cure the reluctant king of his affliction. This pressure climaxes when Britain declares war on Germany and Albert, now King George VI (but still Bertie to his family and Logue) must deliver the nation's first wartime address.
Imagine Rocky but instead of boxing it's speech therapy and instead of a nobody from Philly it's a reluctant King and you have The King's Speech. Actually that's incredibly unfair to David Seidler's intelligent screenplay (based upon his play) great acting from the leads and spot on direction from Tom Hooper. The film makes you genuinely care about the fate of the new King. You are absolutely rooting for him to knock the speech out of the park and, as he speaks into the microphone, Logue all but conducts him, utilising every trick and technique they have practiced to get him through this most important moment of his life so far. It's a truly fantastic sequence and provides a genuinely heartlifting finale without resorting to sentimentality. The history of the piece is fascinating and details such as the encroaching nature of the newly invented radio upon the Royals, adds life, texture and believability to the world of the film.
Geoffrey Rush has long been one of my favourite actors and this is one of his best performances. His desire to "better himself" is perfectly judged, his warmth and humanity genuine and never cloying. His strange treatment methods never lapse into the contrived (as can so often be the way with films like this when there's a "wacky doctor" "going against the establishment") and his amusingly bad attempts at performing Shakespeare never lapse into parody due to his obvious love for the Bard. The revelation though is Colin Firth. A dependable actor, he has never particularly stood out for me. He was good in last year's A Single Man but was let down by the film. Here, the writing and directing support him every step of the way, and he creates a character of humour, intelligence, pain and bravery. You feel everything he feels without him playing obvious "repression" or, at the other end of the spectrum, lapsing into hysterics. Like everything else in the film, it's perfectly judged and he has set himself up as the man to beat at this year's Oscars.
The film isn't breaking new ground and it definitely is the kind of "awards bait" movie I mentioned at the start of this review. But they are the worst things you can say about it. Subtle, warm, funny and heartwarming, The King's Speech is that rarest of things; a great story well told.
8/10
It's 1925 and Albert, Duke of York (a career best Colin Firth) tries to deliver a speech to the Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium but is thwarted by his terrible stammer. His wife Elizabeth, the future Queen Mother (played with a fantastically light touch by Helena Bonham Carter) seeks help from Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) whose unorthodox methods of treatment have made his reputation preceed him. This relationship forms the cornerstone of the film as Lionel attempts to break down deep seated fears and insecurities within "Bertie" as Lionel insists on calling the future King, as well as treating the mechanics of the speech impediment. Their relationship develops alongside an incredibly tumultous period in royal history, and indeed British history generally, as King George V (Michael Gambon) dies and is succeeded by Albert's older brother David (a slightly over the top Guy Pearce) who is enamoured by American divorcee Wallis Simpson. When David abdicates to marry Mrs Simpson, Albert assumes the throne, putting enormous pressure on Logue's ability to cure the reluctant king of his affliction. This pressure climaxes when Britain declares war on Germany and Albert, now King George VI (but still Bertie to his family and Logue) must deliver the nation's first wartime address.
Imagine Rocky but instead of boxing it's speech therapy and instead of a nobody from Philly it's a reluctant King and you have The King's Speech. Actually that's incredibly unfair to David Seidler's intelligent screenplay (based upon his play) great acting from the leads and spot on direction from Tom Hooper. The film makes you genuinely care about the fate of the new King. You are absolutely rooting for him to knock the speech out of the park and, as he speaks into the microphone, Logue all but conducts him, utilising every trick and technique they have practiced to get him through this most important moment of his life so far. It's a truly fantastic sequence and provides a genuinely heartlifting finale without resorting to sentimentality. The history of the piece is fascinating and details such as the encroaching nature of the newly invented radio upon the Royals, adds life, texture and believability to the world of the film.
Geoffrey Rush has long been one of my favourite actors and this is one of his best performances. His desire to "better himself" is perfectly judged, his warmth and humanity genuine and never cloying. His strange treatment methods never lapse into the contrived (as can so often be the way with films like this when there's a "wacky doctor" "going against the establishment") and his amusingly bad attempts at performing Shakespeare never lapse into parody due to his obvious love for the Bard. The revelation though is Colin Firth. A dependable actor, he has never particularly stood out for me. He was good in last year's A Single Man but was let down by the film. Here, the writing and directing support him every step of the way, and he creates a character of humour, intelligence, pain and bravery. You feel everything he feels without him playing obvious "repression" or, at the other end of the spectrum, lapsing into hysterics. Like everything else in the film, it's perfectly judged and he has set himself up as the man to beat at this year's Oscars.
The film isn't breaking new ground and it definitely is the kind of "awards bait" movie I mentioned at the start of this review. But they are the worst things you can say about it. Subtle, warm, funny and heartwarming, The King's Speech is that rarest of things; a great story well told.
8/10
The End Of 2010 (But Not In A Roland Emmerich Way...)
It's been a while hasn't it?
A lean couple of months kept me out of the cinema but here's a very quick catch up before we get to the new year.
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
This is one of those films where there is loads of hype and I just don't get it. A great cast make it just about okay but when even someone as good as Julianne Moore can't make her character convincing, you know there was trouble on the page before anyone stood in front of or behind a camera. Unconvincing is in fact the best word I can think of to describe this film.
4/10
SKYLINE
Dear God...
1/10
TRON LEGACY
A friend of mine described it as "dramatically redundant" a phrase I quite like. A fancy light show with an admittedly great soundtrack. My advice? Buy the soundtrack.
And that literally was it! 2010 was not a great year at the movies. The highlights were there, Inception, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, but they were few and far between. So, 11 days in, what is 2011 serving up so far?
A lean couple of months kept me out of the cinema but here's a very quick catch up before we get to the new year.
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
This is one of those films where there is loads of hype and I just don't get it. A great cast make it just about okay but when even someone as good as Julianne Moore can't make her character convincing, you know there was trouble on the page before anyone stood in front of or behind a camera. Unconvincing is in fact the best word I can think of to describe this film.
4/10
SKYLINE
Dear God...
1/10
TRON LEGACY
A friend of mine described it as "dramatically redundant" a phrase I quite like. A fancy light show with an admittedly great soundtrack. My advice? Buy the soundtrack.
And that literally was it! 2010 was not a great year at the movies. The highlights were there, Inception, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, but they were few and far between. So, 11 days in, what is 2011 serving up so far?
Friday, 26 November 2010
Unstoppable Review
The case for and against Unstoppable. Let’s hear the prosecution make the case against.
Zero character/character development.
Direlogue.
The usual clichés (Everyman saves the day, the suits in charge care only about the money etc etc etc)
Zero story.
Logic be damned. (“Inspired by true events” apparently and I would imagine the key word there is “inspired.”)
And the defence.
A one million tonne runaway train. Let me repeat that. A one million tonne runaway train.
Large popcorn and coke. (I’d love to tell you I was hungry or I needed it, I’d even love to tell you it was comfort food. It was none of the above. This film required, nae DEMANDED a large popcorn and a large coke.)
Denzel Washington running across the top of the train manually slamming on the brakes carriage by carriage. Let me repeat that. Denzel Washington running across the top of the train manually slamming on the brakes carriage by carriage.
The “Stanton Curve.” (“It’s going too fast!!! It’s gonna fly off the tracks!!!”)
90 minute running time.
The defence rests.
And indeed, the defence wins. Every fibre in my being is screaming at me that this film is rubbish but damn it if I wasn’t on the edge of my seat falling for it hook, line and sinker. It’s 2012 all over again except that this one wraps itself up in 90 minutes. This is Tony Scott’s most fun film in years, which in reality isn’t saying much, but it’s loud, silly, exciting, doesn’t outstay its welcome and ends up being a lot of fun. One particular shot contains two trains, two helicopters, a fleet of cars and a guy hanging in mid air! It's vehicular porn of the most gratuitous kind and you'll never watch the film again but it really is a blast. What's also nice is that the train has weight and feels "real" with CGI apparently used sparingly and to enhance rather than create from scratch. Denzel and Chris Pine rise above their backstories and trite characters and the final moment of the film is brilliantly bad.
Maybe I was just in the mood or looking forward to the weekend… Or maybe sometimes all you need is a runaway train.
7/10
Zero character/character development.
Direlogue.
The usual clichés (Everyman saves the day, the suits in charge care only about the money etc etc etc)
Zero story.
Logic be damned. (“Inspired by true events” apparently and I would imagine the key word there is “inspired.”)
And the defence.
A one million tonne runaway train. Let me repeat that. A one million tonne runaway train.
Large popcorn and coke. (I’d love to tell you I was hungry or I needed it, I’d even love to tell you it was comfort food. It was none of the above. This film required, nae DEMANDED a large popcorn and a large coke.)
Denzel Washington running across the top of the train manually slamming on the brakes carriage by carriage. Let me repeat that. Denzel Washington running across the top of the train manually slamming on the brakes carriage by carriage.
The “Stanton Curve.” (“It’s going too fast!!! It’s gonna fly off the tracks!!!”)
90 minute running time.
The defence rests.
And indeed, the defence wins. Every fibre in my being is screaming at me that this film is rubbish but damn it if I wasn’t on the edge of my seat falling for it hook, line and sinker. It’s 2012 all over again except that this one wraps itself up in 90 minutes. This is Tony Scott’s most fun film in years, which in reality isn’t saying much, but it’s loud, silly, exciting, doesn’t outstay its welcome and ends up being a lot of fun. One particular shot contains two trains, two helicopters, a fleet of cars and a guy hanging in mid air! It's vehicular porn of the most gratuitous kind and you'll never watch the film again but it really is a blast. What's also nice is that the train has weight and feels "real" with CGI apparently used sparingly and to enhance rather than create from scratch. Denzel and Chris Pine rise above their backstories and trite characters and the final moment of the film is brilliantly bad.
Maybe I was just in the mood or looking forward to the weekend… Or maybe sometimes all you need is a runaway train.
7/10
Thursday, 25 November 2010
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Part 1 Review
Deathly dull.
It’s 2 ½ hours of exposition and wandering around forests. Voldemort as played by Ralph Feinnes continues to impress, the sets are amazing, the cast a who’s who of British talent but it’s scene after interminable scene of expository “And it was Clarence Wigglebump who gave the Menageriegoop to Felicity Witherbottom” type dialogue. In forests. For 2 ½ hours.
Breaking into the Ministry Of Magic and an animated story within the story near the end are probably the high points of the film, Harry’s dance with Hermione the low point. Clearly there is respect for the world and characters JK Rowling has created but this is in part the problem for me; slavishly adapting the books results in incredibly sluggish films, and, for all the talk of doom and gloom and sense of foreboding in the tone of the film, there is remarkably little urgency to the proceedings. I really didn’t feel any threat whatsoever and the sub-Lord Of The Rings style attempt to make the horcrux physically impact upon Harry, Hermione and Ron is very unconvincing and leads to a laughably bad moment where, for no reason I could discern other than it was a moment of contrived, cheap drama, Ron fights with Harry and disappears for a while. Only to re-appear a little while later and then just carry on.
I so wish I cared about Harry Potter. It’s clearly the most significant moment in pop culture in a very long time. If you think about it, it’s difficult to remember life without Hogwarts and Dumbledore and Voldemort and the other weird and wonderful creations in Rowling’s universe. But these films are 2 hours of nothing with a flurry of activity at the end and Deathly Hallows Part 1 is the most dull of all.
Still, the knitwear is good though.
3.5/10
It’s 2 ½ hours of exposition and wandering around forests. Voldemort as played by Ralph Feinnes continues to impress, the sets are amazing, the cast a who’s who of British talent but it’s scene after interminable scene of expository “And it was Clarence Wigglebump who gave the Menageriegoop to Felicity Witherbottom” type dialogue. In forests. For 2 ½ hours.
Breaking into the Ministry Of Magic and an animated story within the story near the end are probably the high points of the film, Harry’s dance with Hermione the low point. Clearly there is respect for the world and characters JK Rowling has created but this is in part the problem for me; slavishly adapting the books results in incredibly sluggish films, and, for all the talk of doom and gloom and sense of foreboding in the tone of the film, there is remarkably little urgency to the proceedings. I really didn’t feel any threat whatsoever and the sub-Lord Of The Rings style attempt to make the horcrux physically impact upon Harry, Hermione and Ron is very unconvincing and leads to a laughably bad moment where, for no reason I could discern other than it was a moment of contrived, cheap drama, Ron fights with Harry and disappears for a while. Only to re-appear a little while later and then just carry on.
I so wish I cared about Harry Potter. It’s clearly the most significant moment in pop culture in a very long time. If you think about it, it’s difficult to remember life without Hogwarts and Dumbledore and Voldemort and the other weird and wonderful creations in Rowling’s universe. But these films are 2 hours of nothing with a flurry of activity at the end and Deathly Hallows Part 1 is the most dull of all.
Still, the knitwear is good though.
3.5/10
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Let Me In Review
It’s such a strange thing. Let Me In arrives as the American remake of Let The Right One In, barely two years after the original film was released. Director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) clearly has great respect for the original version but that respect results in him following the original almost to the letter and so his remake struggles to assert its own identity or justify its own existence in any meaningful way. So far so predictable. But Let Me In turns out to be a very good film, way better than expected, and what’s interesting is that, those moments where Reeves dares to be different, to add his own touches or moments, the film really flies. This makes you wonder what might the film have been if he had had the courage to go his own way even further.
If you’ve seen Let The Right One In then story wise you’re in for no surprises. Owen (The Road’s Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a lonely outsider, bullied at school, harbouring revenge fantasies against his bullies, and living with his recently separated (and, in this version, highly religious) Mother. Into his apartment block moves Abby (Hit Girl herself, Chloe Grace Moretz) and her apparent Father (the always excellent Richard Jenkins). Chloe is, of course, a vampire and Jenkins is her helper, going out at night to kill for blood to keep her alive. The story progresses, sometimes scene for scene, as the original film and we watch Owen experience his first love, the relationship between he and Abby being the focus of the film and that which drives it towards its fantastic last act.
One of the best things in the original film was the performances and Moretz and Smit-McPhee are both excellent in the remake. There is a palpable sadness in both children, both for very different reasons of course, and this lingers over the whole film. Reeves makes the choice to remove some elements and, for the most part, they are not missed. The now infamous “cat scene” is mercifully gone. What might just be the most famous shot from the first film is also missing. You’ll know it when you don’t see it. Owen’s Mother always appears out of focus or out of frame and it’s a visually interesting touch that underscores the nature of that relationship. The most successful changes are small moments that deserve to be seen without being spoiled beforehand, though I will say that a failed attempt by Richard Jenkins to capture a victim for Abby to feed on results in a sequence arguably more tense than anything in the original. Not all the changes work, CGI Abby being the worst offender, and its similarity to the original means the whole “what’s the point” question looms large over its entire running time. Most of the last act is completely intact, including the most famous scene, and the impact is diminished by virtue of it being so similar.
Ultimately Let Me In is a good film, atmospheric, deliberately paced, well acted and well written and directed and, as such, deserves to be seen. Would it have been like that without the first film? Even though both are based on a book, you still get the feeling that the original film was the bigger influence on Reeves’ remake and so therefore the answer is no. At the end of the day you should see Let The Right One In. But if you simply don’t do subtitles, then Let Me In is a more than adequate substitute.
7/10
If you’ve seen Let The Right One In then story wise you’re in for no surprises. Owen (The Road’s Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a lonely outsider, bullied at school, harbouring revenge fantasies against his bullies, and living with his recently separated (and, in this version, highly religious) Mother. Into his apartment block moves Abby (Hit Girl herself, Chloe Grace Moretz) and her apparent Father (the always excellent Richard Jenkins). Chloe is, of course, a vampire and Jenkins is her helper, going out at night to kill for blood to keep her alive. The story progresses, sometimes scene for scene, as the original film and we watch Owen experience his first love, the relationship between he and Abby being the focus of the film and that which drives it towards its fantastic last act.
One of the best things in the original film was the performances and Moretz and Smit-McPhee are both excellent in the remake. There is a palpable sadness in both children, both for very different reasons of course, and this lingers over the whole film. Reeves makes the choice to remove some elements and, for the most part, they are not missed. The now infamous “cat scene” is mercifully gone. What might just be the most famous shot from the first film is also missing. You’ll know it when you don’t see it. Owen’s Mother always appears out of focus or out of frame and it’s a visually interesting touch that underscores the nature of that relationship. The most successful changes are small moments that deserve to be seen without being spoiled beforehand, though I will say that a failed attempt by Richard Jenkins to capture a victim for Abby to feed on results in a sequence arguably more tense than anything in the original. Not all the changes work, CGI Abby being the worst offender, and its similarity to the original means the whole “what’s the point” question looms large over its entire running time. Most of the last act is completely intact, including the most famous scene, and the impact is diminished by virtue of it being so similar.
Ultimately Let Me In is a good film, atmospheric, deliberately paced, well acted and well written and directed and, as such, deserves to be seen. Would it have been like that without the first film? Even though both are based on a book, you still get the feeling that the original film was the bigger influence on Reeves’ remake and so therefore the answer is no. At the end of the day you should see Let The Right One In. But if you simply don’t do subtitles, then Let Me In is a more than adequate substitute.
7/10
Friday, 5 November 2010
Frightfest Halloween Special
Last Saturday I went to the Frightfest Halloween all night horror movie marathon at the Empire Leicester Square. It started at 6.00pm Saturday evening and the last film of the night was scheduled to start at 6.00am Sunday morning. We were in it for the long haul! As it happened technical difficulties prevented two of the films from being shown and they moved the last film of the night up to fifth place. Which was absolutely fine by my flatmate and I because by this time we were flagging and the last film, the Finnish film Rare Exports, was the main reason for wanting to go. In the end we skipped an earlier film to get some food so we ended up seeing four films, all of which are apparently going to be released in the New Year, so here’s a quick rundown of the night.
CONFESSIONS.
First up was a Japanese film called Confessions. A teacher, whose daughter died, comes into her class and announces that the verdict of accidental death was incorrect and that her daughter’s death was in fact murder. Not only that but the killers are two of her pupils. This was all I knew going in to the film and I thought that was a cracking premise. What ends up happening is that the film becomes a series of confessions, first the teacher, then one of the boys, then a friend etc etc. It’s a tough film to describe as it sounds like a variation of the Rashoman type, “multiple perspectives on the truth” type of film which isn’t really the case. Each of the person’s stories reveals a little more of the main plot and one or two concern themselves with subplots. In the end the film is less a horror film and more of a revenge thriller as the teacher exacts punishment on those responsible for her daughter’s death.
Confessions wasn’t terrible, it was very well made, stylishly shot and edited, but it didn’t really amount to very much for me. There are good moments, funny moments too, and, as with much of Japanese cinema, you never really trust the tone to remain consistent. The actual revenge as it plays out is quite convoluted and at well over two hours, my patience ended up being stretched. It was an okay start to the night as I was up for whatever was to come and it certainly got us in the mood for the remaining screenings As a film in itself it’s just about worth a look but I certainly won’t return to it.
ALTITUDE
Fucking hell…
The guys running the night introduced it by saying there would be a mixture of light and dark. Altitude was meant to represent the light and I assume its inclusion in the programme was tongue in cheek. The problem was that, while there were a few “so bad it’s genius” moments, they were too few to push the film as a whole into that territory. Also, dreadful acting aside, those moments mainly occurred in the last half hour making the first fifty minutes (the film was mercifully short) pretty much interminable.
A group of teeth-wrenchingly grating American kids (the jock, the sensitive one blah blah blah) charter a plane to fly to a rock concert. The pilot doesn’t look old enough to drive a car never mind fly a plane, but assuming she is of legal age to command a plane, I wouldn’t trust her to choose my McDonalds let alone fly me anywhere. Anyway our vacuous heroes take off and hit rough weather. Weather that is so rough in fact that, in one truly hilarious sequence, it necessitates one of the group being tied to a rope and hung outside the plane so as to manually fix the wing, or some shit. Seeing a young man hung from the back of a moving plane at 15,000 feet is pretty amazing. Anyway it’s during this sequence that they catch their first glimpse of the monster in the sky. That’s right folks, the monster in the sky. Shall I just tell you where this is all going? Yeah what the hell, skip if you’re afraid of spoilers. But really don’t be afraid of spoilers.
One of the group is a comic book nerd. He has a comic with him that is all about… are you ready… A MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!! What is happening is that his fears manifest in the real world and he uses comics for inspiration as to what form they should take. It’s creature from the Id stuff but really terrible. He is in love with the pilot but she doesn’t love him and he’s afraid of… well, that I think. The climax comes when everyone else is dead and it’s just the two of them in the plane and they figure all this out. The clouds are jet black, they haven’t seen the ground in hours, there’s a MONSTER IN THE SKY!!! And then she leans over and kisses him! And the clouds vanish and the monster disappears because he’s not afraid anymore!!! Genius. But then, he realises that… SHE DIDN’T MEAN THE KISS!!!!! And the sky blackens and the clouds return and, oh my God, there’s the MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!! This time the monster reaches out one of its tentacles and pulls the pilot out of the plane!! But she manages to grab the window and hang on for dear life. Now, clinging to the front of a plane, with A 500 foot tentacle wrapped around her, she proceeds to deliver a speech about how he can’t be afraid anymore and how he must face his fears if he is to have a life!!! It’s absolutely inspired in all kinds of ways and almost, almost, makes the film worth watching. But not quite. There’s also some rubbish about a childhood incident that comes back on itself…YAAAAAWN.
Altitude is rubbish. Even with a MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!
THE SILENT HOUSE
This was one of the films I was really looking forward to seeing. It went down really well at Cannes, a fortune was spent on acquiring it and it’s set to receive a large distribution next year. It’s a haunted house movie from Uruguay but its main selling point is that it was shot in one continuous take on a digital camera. At 79 minutes long, this is an incredible feat and it adds massive amounts of tension as it becomes a real time film and you feel completely trapped with the protagonist in this creepy as hell abandoned house.
I SO want to give the film a glowing review. This is everything I love in horror films, things happening off camera, sounds from elsewhere in the house, psychological scares, little girl ghosts… it’s all there! When the film is good it’s absolutely brilliant, incredibly effective, tense, creepy and downright scary. But it frustratingly drops the ball in a way I won’t reveal so as not to influence expectations. It’s such a shame because this could have been one of the great horror films and at points it is. But as much if not more than the horror, I remember the disappointments. Interestingly, the crowd didn’t really seem into it. And I overheard many people walk out saying they had seen it all before and it was nothing new. With a film like this though, it’s less about originality necessarily and more about the execution and the one take approach, far from being a gimmick, adds a level of horror that is really palpable. From a technical perspective it is also incredibly impressive but that never overshadows the atmosphere and tone. Also, there are many genuinely creepy and unnerving moments outside of the one take approach hat linger in the memory. It’s a massive, massive shame that it just can’t sustain the level it often reaches for its whole running time.
RARE EXPORTS
What a weird little film! This was one that really could have gone either way judging from the trailer. But I’m really happy to report that it’s a lot of fun. An entrepreneur uses an excavation crew to blast a hole in a Finnish mountain in search of Santa Claus. Yep, Santa. But this isn’t our benevolent, Coca Cola Santa. This is weird, creepy Santa who kidnaps children and puts them in a giant sack for God knows what kinds of nefarious purposes.
I’m actually not going to say too much about Rare Exports because it really is well worth seeing as fresh as possible. The script takes the concept and pushes it to create many great little moments. The setting is fantastic, the acting excellent and perhaps most importantly, the tone of the film is absolutely spot on. It could have completely trivialised its concept but instead manages to be fun, funny, warm and take the idea seriously enough so that we laugh with it rather than at it and are genuinely affected by its unnerving, creepy moments. It’s never downright scary as such, creepy and unnerving are the best words to use. Though those moments of that old man glaring at our little protagonist really do unsettle. This is a genuine original and, like the other films screened, will apparently receive a general release so do go see it.
And that was Frightfest! A lot of fun and a couple of good films thrown in for good measure.
MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!!!!
CONFESSIONS.
First up was a Japanese film called Confessions. A teacher, whose daughter died, comes into her class and announces that the verdict of accidental death was incorrect and that her daughter’s death was in fact murder. Not only that but the killers are two of her pupils. This was all I knew going in to the film and I thought that was a cracking premise. What ends up happening is that the film becomes a series of confessions, first the teacher, then one of the boys, then a friend etc etc. It’s a tough film to describe as it sounds like a variation of the Rashoman type, “multiple perspectives on the truth” type of film which isn’t really the case. Each of the person’s stories reveals a little more of the main plot and one or two concern themselves with subplots. In the end the film is less a horror film and more of a revenge thriller as the teacher exacts punishment on those responsible for her daughter’s death.
Confessions wasn’t terrible, it was very well made, stylishly shot and edited, but it didn’t really amount to very much for me. There are good moments, funny moments too, and, as with much of Japanese cinema, you never really trust the tone to remain consistent. The actual revenge as it plays out is quite convoluted and at well over two hours, my patience ended up being stretched. It was an okay start to the night as I was up for whatever was to come and it certainly got us in the mood for the remaining screenings As a film in itself it’s just about worth a look but I certainly won’t return to it.
ALTITUDE
Fucking hell…
The guys running the night introduced it by saying there would be a mixture of light and dark. Altitude was meant to represent the light and I assume its inclusion in the programme was tongue in cheek. The problem was that, while there were a few “so bad it’s genius” moments, they were too few to push the film as a whole into that territory. Also, dreadful acting aside, those moments mainly occurred in the last half hour making the first fifty minutes (the film was mercifully short) pretty much interminable.
A group of teeth-wrenchingly grating American kids (the jock, the sensitive one blah blah blah) charter a plane to fly to a rock concert. The pilot doesn’t look old enough to drive a car never mind fly a plane, but assuming she is of legal age to command a plane, I wouldn’t trust her to choose my McDonalds let alone fly me anywhere. Anyway our vacuous heroes take off and hit rough weather. Weather that is so rough in fact that, in one truly hilarious sequence, it necessitates one of the group being tied to a rope and hung outside the plane so as to manually fix the wing, or some shit. Seeing a young man hung from the back of a moving plane at 15,000 feet is pretty amazing. Anyway it’s during this sequence that they catch their first glimpse of the monster in the sky. That’s right folks, the monster in the sky. Shall I just tell you where this is all going? Yeah what the hell, skip if you’re afraid of spoilers. But really don’t be afraid of spoilers.
One of the group is a comic book nerd. He has a comic with him that is all about… are you ready… A MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!!!! What is happening is that his fears manifest in the real world and he uses comics for inspiration as to what form they should take. It’s creature from the Id stuff but really terrible. He is in love with the pilot but she doesn’t love him and he’s afraid of… well, that I think. The climax comes when everyone else is dead and it’s just the two of them in the plane and they figure all this out. The clouds are jet black, they haven’t seen the ground in hours, there’s a MONSTER IN THE SKY!!! And then she leans over and kisses him! And the clouds vanish and the monster disappears because he’s not afraid anymore!!! Genius. But then, he realises that… SHE DIDN’T MEAN THE KISS!!!!! And the sky blackens and the clouds return and, oh my God, there’s the MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!! This time the monster reaches out one of its tentacles and pulls the pilot out of the plane!! But she manages to grab the window and hang on for dear life. Now, clinging to the front of a plane, with A 500 foot tentacle wrapped around her, she proceeds to deliver a speech about how he can’t be afraid anymore and how he must face his fears if he is to have a life!!! It’s absolutely inspired in all kinds of ways and almost, almost, makes the film worth watching. But not quite. There’s also some rubbish about a childhood incident that comes back on itself…YAAAAAWN.
Altitude is rubbish. Even with a MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!
THE SILENT HOUSE
This was one of the films I was really looking forward to seeing. It went down really well at Cannes, a fortune was spent on acquiring it and it’s set to receive a large distribution next year. It’s a haunted house movie from Uruguay but its main selling point is that it was shot in one continuous take on a digital camera. At 79 minutes long, this is an incredible feat and it adds massive amounts of tension as it becomes a real time film and you feel completely trapped with the protagonist in this creepy as hell abandoned house.
I SO want to give the film a glowing review. This is everything I love in horror films, things happening off camera, sounds from elsewhere in the house, psychological scares, little girl ghosts… it’s all there! When the film is good it’s absolutely brilliant, incredibly effective, tense, creepy and downright scary. But it frustratingly drops the ball in a way I won’t reveal so as not to influence expectations. It’s such a shame because this could have been one of the great horror films and at points it is. But as much if not more than the horror, I remember the disappointments. Interestingly, the crowd didn’t really seem into it. And I overheard many people walk out saying they had seen it all before and it was nothing new. With a film like this though, it’s less about originality necessarily and more about the execution and the one take approach, far from being a gimmick, adds a level of horror that is really palpable. From a technical perspective it is also incredibly impressive but that never overshadows the atmosphere and tone. Also, there are many genuinely creepy and unnerving moments outside of the one take approach hat linger in the memory. It’s a massive, massive shame that it just can’t sustain the level it often reaches for its whole running time.
RARE EXPORTS
What a weird little film! This was one that really could have gone either way judging from the trailer. But I’m really happy to report that it’s a lot of fun. An entrepreneur uses an excavation crew to blast a hole in a Finnish mountain in search of Santa Claus. Yep, Santa. But this isn’t our benevolent, Coca Cola Santa. This is weird, creepy Santa who kidnaps children and puts them in a giant sack for God knows what kinds of nefarious purposes.
I’m actually not going to say too much about Rare Exports because it really is well worth seeing as fresh as possible. The script takes the concept and pushes it to create many great little moments. The setting is fantastic, the acting excellent and perhaps most importantly, the tone of the film is absolutely spot on. It could have completely trivialised its concept but instead manages to be fun, funny, warm and take the idea seriously enough so that we laugh with it rather than at it and are genuinely affected by its unnerving, creepy moments. It’s never downright scary as such, creepy and unnerving are the best words to use. Though those moments of that old man glaring at our little protagonist really do unsettle. This is a genuine original and, like the other films screened, will apparently receive a general release so do go see it.
And that was Frightfest! A lot of fun and a couple of good films thrown in for good measure.
MONSTER IN THE SKY!!!!!!
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Paranormal Activity 2 Review
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
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
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
Thursday, 30 September 2010
The Town Review
I think we have a new movie cliché. Along with the “hit man called out for one last job” film or the “clean cut cop paired with a manic cop” film, or the “ugly duckling turns into beautiful swan” film (usually by letting her hair down and taking off her glasses) surely we must now add “crime thriller set in Boston” film? Why is every American crime thriller currently set in Boston? The ridiculous accents, Red Sox Hoodies, chats about “the neighbourhood” these are now clichés every bit as tiresome as any other. Welcome to The Town. What’s frustrating is that the film is very well made, very well directed by Ben Affleck and it’s to his credit that he is able to take material this familiar, this well worn, and elevate it into something watchable. With a good script I have no doubt Affleck will direct a really great film. But this isn’t it.
The Town isn’t bad per se, it’s just so painfully unoriginal. Doug MacRay (Affleck) heads a team of bank robbers in Charlestown (or “Chaaaaaaalsetaaaaaan” in Boston vernacular) who, on one particular job, kidnap bank manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) but let her go unharmed. Upon discovering that she actually lives right in their neighbourhood and they will probably see her every day, Affleck sets about ingratiating himself into her life to find out what she knows about the gang. Can you see where this is going? Of course you can. As they fall in love, FBI Agent John Hamm (still managing to be dapper in that effortless Don Draper way even with three day stubble and shoddy FBI clothes) is hot on their heels, knowing who the gang is and slowly gathering evidence to put them away for good. Present and accounted for are the best friend, the unhinged James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), the local crime lord (unlikely Pete Postlethwaite with an awesome Northern Irish accent) the Dad behind bars (Chris Cooper) and the drugged up skank causing problems for Affleck. (Blake Lively.) Is “drugged up skank” a politically correct term? Not sure. Anyway, boxes are ticked, scenes arrive with total predictability, the films goes exactly where you expect it to at every point and then it ends.
I’m coming down pretty hard on The Town and, in truth, because I like these kinds of films I was happy to watch it. The hook is that, an enormous percentage of all bank robberies committed in America occur in this small area of Charlestown. But while that's an interesting fact, it doesn't impact the story or the film in any meaningful way. Affleck wants out of the neighbourhood and his world of crime but so has every other protagonist in this kind of film before him. The "why" of it doesn't really matter. As I said above, the fact that it’s as well made as it is only serves to remind that we have been in this territory many, many times before. The various set pieces, opening bank robbery, a car chase through narrow streets and the climactic gun fight, are very well handled, Affleck and his always brilliant director of photograpy Robert Elswitt finding interesting angles to shoot the action from and allowing the audience the space to understand the geography of what’s happening within the frame. But I keep returning to the near total lack of originality. What is in this story that makes it worth telling? A bit of Heat, a bit of Copland, a bit of (God forbid) The Departed, stir well and then serve up The Town. I also found myself with little reason to care about the characters. Will Ben Affleck die? Go to jail? Live happily ever after? Get the girl, not get the girl? I don’t really care. And the script makes that lazy decision to have his best friend a borderline psycho who’s happy to kill. “See? Ben is not as bad as that guy. It’s okay to root for him.”
I have problems with Gone Baby Gone but it’s a much more interesting film. The Town feels like a way for Ben Affleck the director to hone his craft, challenge himself by directing action and plot and he has totally succeeded but, as a film, it’s treading water. It’s now time for him to get a really compelling piece of material and become the serious director he’s threatening to become.
Just please don’t set it in Boston.
6/10
The Town isn’t bad per se, it’s just so painfully unoriginal. Doug MacRay (Affleck) heads a team of bank robbers in Charlestown (or “Chaaaaaaalsetaaaaaan” in Boston vernacular) who, on one particular job, kidnap bank manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) but let her go unharmed. Upon discovering that she actually lives right in their neighbourhood and they will probably see her every day, Affleck sets about ingratiating himself into her life to find out what she knows about the gang. Can you see where this is going? Of course you can. As they fall in love, FBI Agent John Hamm (still managing to be dapper in that effortless Don Draper way even with three day stubble and shoddy FBI clothes) is hot on their heels, knowing who the gang is and slowly gathering evidence to put them away for good. Present and accounted for are the best friend, the unhinged James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), the local crime lord (unlikely Pete Postlethwaite with an awesome Northern Irish accent) the Dad behind bars (Chris Cooper) and the drugged up skank causing problems for Affleck. (Blake Lively.) Is “drugged up skank” a politically correct term? Not sure. Anyway, boxes are ticked, scenes arrive with total predictability, the films goes exactly where you expect it to at every point and then it ends.
I’m coming down pretty hard on The Town and, in truth, because I like these kinds of films I was happy to watch it. The hook is that, an enormous percentage of all bank robberies committed in America occur in this small area of Charlestown. But while that's an interesting fact, it doesn't impact the story or the film in any meaningful way. Affleck wants out of the neighbourhood and his world of crime but so has every other protagonist in this kind of film before him. The "why" of it doesn't really matter. As I said above, the fact that it’s as well made as it is only serves to remind that we have been in this territory many, many times before. The various set pieces, opening bank robbery, a car chase through narrow streets and the climactic gun fight, are very well handled, Affleck and his always brilliant director of photograpy Robert Elswitt finding interesting angles to shoot the action from and allowing the audience the space to understand the geography of what’s happening within the frame. But I keep returning to the near total lack of originality. What is in this story that makes it worth telling? A bit of Heat, a bit of Copland, a bit of (God forbid) The Departed, stir well and then serve up The Town. I also found myself with little reason to care about the characters. Will Ben Affleck die? Go to jail? Live happily ever after? Get the girl, not get the girl? I don’t really care. And the script makes that lazy decision to have his best friend a borderline psycho who’s happy to kill. “See? Ben is not as bad as that guy. It’s okay to root for him.”
I have problems with Gone Baby Gone but it’s a much more interesting film. The Town feels like a way for Ben Affleck the director to hone his craft, challenge himself by directing action and plot and he has totally succeeded but, as a film, it’s treading water. It’s now time for him to get a really compelling piece of material and become the serious director he’s threatening to become.
Just please don’t set it in Boston.
6/10
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Quickies
I’m going to be offline for a few days so here are a couple of very quick reviews.
THE OTHER GUYS
I’ve come to the conclusion that I like Will Ferrell a lot more than I often like his films. Anchorman is without doubt his best, I have a soft spot for Blades Of Glory, but Talladega Nights, Semi Pro, Step Brothers… they all have funny stuff in them, usually Ferrell is the best thing in them, but the films as a whole are extremely scattershot, often too long and ultimately fall short to varying degrees. And to that list we can now add The Other Guys. What was surprising was how the film ended up being stolen from underneath Will Ferrell’s nose by Michael Keaton who is hilarious as the clichéd “Police Captain” who also happens to work at a bed and mattress superstore. Some very funny moments, definitely enough to make it worth a watch, but, again, scattershot, way too long and in the end probably insufficient.
5.5/10
DEVIL
When the concept is 6 people are trapped in a lift and one of them is the Devil, you really can’t complain about the resulting film. If, in a weird way, it had embraced its own inherent silliness a bit more it may have been quite good. But coming from the mind of M Night Shyamalan there is nothing throwaway or silly here. This is THE DEVIL people!!! And he’s in a lift!!! Thing is, it’s running time is 76 minutes and for that it’s definitely getting extra points. It’s also verging on the enjoyable in a bad way. It doesn’t quite get there, for the most part it’s just bad, and if anyone is fooled by the reveal of which of the elevator’s occupants the Devil ends up being, you should never be allowed inside another cinema ever again.
4.5/10
That’s it for now folks.
THE OTHER GUYS
I’ve come to the conclusion that I like Will Ferrell a lot more than I often like his films. Anchorman is without doubt his best, I have a soft spot for Blades Of Glory, but Talladega Nights, Semi Pro, Step Brothers… they all have funny stuff in them, usually Ferrell is the best thing in them, but the films as a whole are extremely scattershot, often too long and ultimately fall short to varying degrees. And to that list we can now add The Other Guys. What was surprising was how the film ended up being stolen from underneath Will Ferrell’s nose by Michael Keaton who is hilarious as the clichéd “Police Captain” who also happens to work at a bed and mattress superstore. Some very funny moments, definitely enough to make it worth a watch, but, again, scattershot, way too long and in the end probably insufficient.
5.5/10
DEVIL
When the concept is 6 people are trapped in a lift and one of them is the Devil, you really can’t complain about the resulting film. If, in a weird way, it had embraced its own inherent silliness a bit more it may have been quite good. But coming from the mind of M Night Shyamalan there is nothing throwaway or silly here. This is THE DEVIL people!!! And he’s in a lift!!! Thing is, it’s running time is 76 minutes and for that it’s definitely getting extra points. It’s also verging on the enjoyable in a bad way. It doesn’t quite get there, for the most part it’s just bad, and if anyone is fooled by the reveal of which of the elevator’s occupants the Devil ends up being, you should never be allowed inside another cinema ever again.
4.5/10
That’s it for now folks.
Friday, 3 September 2010
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) Review
Sometimes you watch a film and you think, what am I doing here? What am I supposed to be getting from this? In fairness, the story of The Human Centipede (First Sequence) is pretty infamous by now so one could argue that, you know what you’re getting yourself into. But while the shock value of the idea might get you to see the film in the first place, ultimately the film itself needs to deliver something and, for my money, it really doesn’t.
So the story is (and do finish eating before you go any further) that mad scientist Dr. Heiter, who has spent his life separating Siamese twins, has decided that it’s time to do the opposite, i.e. connect people together. Via the digestive system. Ass to mouth. Literally. The unwitting subjects are two young American girls who are travelling across Europe and a young Japanese guy. The Japanese guy forms the head of the “centipede” and the two girls the middle and end. His creation complete, the Doctor goes about trying to train his human centipede, but of course things go wrong.
So let me try and eek out the good here. Given its concept, the film is surprisingly free of gore and viscera. Writer/director Tim Six understands that the idea of this film is enough to give you shivers. He knows that all it takes is the Japanese guy to say “I need a shit” and you will spend the next 5 minutes squirming in the most convulsive, uncomfortable horror as all you’re actually watching is a close up of the poor girl’s eyes. This is the girl who is in the middle I should explain. In case that wasn’t clear. The most effective sequence is when Dr. Heiter has his three subjects tied to their beds in his makeshift surgery in the basement of his house and he explains the details of what he is about to do, severing kneecaps, removing teeth, and literally sewing the three people together. He does this with the kind of matter-of-fact precision that any surgeon would use to explain to their patient the details of their forthcoming procedure and it’s very effective indeed. The point here isn’t torture for torture sake, like, say, Hostel or Saw. This is an experiment, and the fact that the three subjects are anaesthetised as he performs the various surgeries and then wake up in the positions they end up in, adds to the sense of madness and hopelessness and makes it more terrifying as a result. This is a man who knows exactly what he wants to do and is going about it without fuss or hysteria, in the most methodical and efficient way he can. On this point, arguably the greatest horror on display is the horror of humiliation and degradation. Dr. Heiter proceeds to try and train his new creation as if it were a pet, the three people forced to crawl on their hands and knees, eat the food the Doctor throws at them and suffer the consequences when they disobey. Again, it’s interesting to note that this punishment occurs off screen. You hear what is happening and that is more than enough. This is not to say there is no onscreen violence; I defy anyone to watch the tooth extraction without wincing or screaming like a girl and covering their face with a cushion. Not that that’s what I did of course. I merely winced and moved on. But the point is that Six is trying to create horror through ideas and, in a really unique way, this is the problem.
I have no time for violence for violence sake in films, including horror films. The best horror for me is always psychological, always about ideas, and while The Human Centipede eschews gratuitous violence, it is equally possible to assault people with an idea so gratuitous that you have to wonder, in a similar way as you would with the films that place gratuitous violence front and centre, what is the point? What am I to get from all this? The film succeeded in making me squirm at points, making me uncomfortable at points, but to what end? And if there isn’t an end or point greater than the sum of the parts (which, for me, there isn’t) then isn’t that the very definition of gratuitousness? Dieter Laser plays the part very well and what is good is the way he is obviously, in-your-face insane. There is no pretence, no attempt at subversion, he is batshit raving mad from frame one. The downside from a plot perspective is that, from the second the two girls enter his house and are offered a drink of water, you are screaming at them to run. He is CLEARLY up to no good, get the hell out of the house!!! What is also good about his performance is the fact that, it’s not brimming with tics and hysteria. As I said above, cold, methodical and efficient are the best words to describe him and this makes him even more frightening. Cold, methodical and efficient are also good words to describe Tim Six’s directing style and I found myself completely distanced from the subjects’ plight at all times. The ending, in particular the final image, is supposed to resonate and haunt you but I really didn’t care at that point and so it had no effect on me at all.
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) has and will gain notoriety. I like the fact that those seeking the very worst of what this film could have been will be disappointed by it not being as in-your-face as they will have presumably imagined. But in the end the only question I could ask is, what’s the point of it all? And, beyond to shock with a truly skin-crawling idea, I fear the answer is that there isn’t one.
4/10
So the story is (and do finish eating before you go any further) that mad scientist Dr. Heiter, who has spent his life separating Siamese twins, has decided that it’s time to do the opposite, i.e. connect people together. Via the digestive system. Ass to mouth. Literally. The unwitting subjects are two young American girls who are travelling across Europe and a young Japanese guy. The Japanese guy forms the head of the “centipede” and the two girls the middle and end. His creation complete, the Doctor goes about trying to train his human centipede, but of course things go wrong.
So let me try and eek out the good here. Given its concept, the film is surprisingly free of gore and viscera. Writer/director Tim Six understands that the idea of this film is enough to give you shivers. He knows that all it takes is the Japanese guy to say “I need a shit” and you will spend the next 5 minutes squirming in the most convulsive, uncomfortable horror as all you’re actually watching is a close up of the poor girl’s eyes. This is the girl who is in the middle I should explain. In case that wasn’t clear. The most effective sequence is when Dr. Heiter has his three subjects tied to their beds in his makeshift surgery in the basement of his house and he explains the details of what he is about to do, severing kneecaps, removing teeth, and literally sewing the three people together. He does this with the kind of matter-of-fact precision that any surgeon would use to explain to their patient the details of their forthcoming procedure and it’s very effective indeed. The point here isn’t torture for torture sake, like, say, Hostel or Saw. This is an experiment, and the fact that the three subjects are anaesthetised as he performs the various surgeries and then wake up in the positions they end up in, adds to the sense of madness and hopelessness and makes it more terrifying as a result. This is a man who knows exactly what he wants to do and is going about it without fuss or hysteria, in the most methodical and efficient way he can. On this point, arguably the greatest horror on display is the horror of humiliation and degradation. Dr. Heiter proceeds to try and train his new creation as if it were a pet, the three people forced to crawl on their hands and knees, eat the food the Doctor throws at them and suffer the consequences when they disobey. Again, it’s interesting to note that this punishment occurs off screen. You hear what is happening and that is more than enough. This is not to say there is no onscreen violence; I defy anyone to watch the tooth extraction without wincing or screaming like a girl and covering their face with a cushion. Not that that’s what I did of course. I merely winced and moved on. But the point is that Six is trying to create horror through ideas and, in a really unique way, this is the problem.
I have no time for violence for violence sake in films, including horror films. The best horror for me is always psychological, always about ideas, and while The Human Centipede eschews gratuitous violence, it is equally possible to assault people with an idea so gratuitous that you have to wonder, in a similar way as you would with the films that place gratuitous violence front and centre, what is the point? What am I to get from all this? The film succeeded in making me squirm at points, making me uncomfortable at points, but to what end? And if there isn’t an end or point greater than the sum of the parts (which, for me, there isn’t) then isn’t that the very definition of gratuitousness? Dieter Laser plays the part very well and what is good is the way he is obviously, in-your-face insane. There is no pretence, no attempt at subversion, he is batshit raving mad from frame one. The downside from a plot perspective is that, from the second the two girls enter his house and are offered a drink of water, you are screaming at them to run. He is CLEARLY up to no good, get the hell out of the house!!! What is also good about his performance is the fact that, it’s not brimming with tics and hysteria. As I said above, cold, methodical and efficient are the best words to describe him and this makes him even more frightening. Cold, methodical and efficient are also good words to describe Tim Six’s directing style and I found myself completely distanced from the subjects’ plight at all times. The ending, in particular the final image, is supposed to resonate and haunt you but I really didn’t care at that point and so it had no effect on me at all.
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) has and will gain notoriety. I like the fact that those seeking the very worst of what this film could have been will be disappointed by it not being as in-your-face as they will have presumably imagined. But in the end the only question I could ask is, what’s the point of it all? And, beyond to shock with a truly skin-crawling idea, I fear the answer is that there isn’t one.
4/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)