I can't really review this film properly as I've seen it several times before. I went to see it again because I think it's great and there was also an introduction by Maggie Hoffgen from the Goethe Institut.
Maggie's introduction was occasionally illuminating but she also for some reason gave us a resume of the film we were about to see. Anyway, despite being shown on the smallest screen in the Cornerhouse, the sound and picture not being the best quality and the picture being at a strange angle all the way through, it was nice to see the film again.
When I first saw it at 17 I was really taken in by the slow-boiling paranoia, the German-ness of it and the slight homo-erotic subtext. And even after several viewings 23 was still intriguing to me.
I am not going to rate it but I still think this is great.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Crank - 12th September 2006
This film was just as silly and enjoyable as promised. There wasn't really much of a plot just an excuse for Jason Statham to go nuts for a while driving fast cars, beating people up and taking lots of drugs.
While I applauded all the great silliness I did kind of feel a bit lost at some points. It almost felt the script had been written during a particularly drunken game of Consequences: "ok, he beats up some people and then he steals a car and then goes to the hospital..." it didn't really feel like it was going anywhere.
There were also too many sequences of Statham driving a car fast, or riding a motorbike fast, or running fast with obligatory hard rock music, sweeping camera and bizarrely unnecessary effects.
I was also rather disappointed about the lack of innovative prop use, such as melons and fire hoses, like in Transporter 2. Most disputes seemed to be settled by gunfights which was a bit annoying, although the severed hand bit was rather interesting.
Some bits, however, were quite amusing, such as the ridiculous final shootout between the rival gangs and when Statham steals a taxi cab from an Arab driver; throwing him to the ground and shouting 'Al-Qaida', at which point he is set upon by a crowd of onlookers.
It wasn't a bad use of an afternoon but I can't help but feel there were a lot of missed opportunities... I give Crank 2 and a half stars out of 5.
While I applauded all the great silliness I did kind of feel a bit lost at some points. It almost felt the script had been written during a particularly drunken game of Consequences: "ok, he beats up some people and then he steals a car and then goes to the hospital..." it didn't really feel like it was going anywhere.
There were also too many sequences of Statham driving a car fast, or riding a motorbike fast, or running fast with obligatory hard rock music, sweeping camera and bizarrely unnecessary effects.
I was also rather disappointed about the lack of innovative prop use, such as melons and fire hoses, like in Transporter 2. Most disputes seemed to be settled by gunfights which was a bit annoying, although the severed hand bit was rather interesting.
Some bits, however, were quite amusing, such as the ridiculous final shootout between the rival gangs and when Statham steals a taxi cab from an Arab driver; throwing him to the ground and shouting 'Al-Qaida', at which point he is set upon by a crowd of onlookers.
It wasn't a bad use of an afternoon but I can't help but feel there were a lot of missed opportunities... I give Crank 2 and a half stars out of 5.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Renaissance - 4th September 2006
I hadn't heard much about this film except it was a French black-and-white animated futuristic film noir. As genres go this one seems fairly niche although it managed to be incredibly original and yet somehow reassuring.
First of all to the film noir part: Renaissance was a brilliant example of the genre; the plot was well timed and had all the necessary ingredients - dark and brooding cop (excellently voiced by Daniel Craig), femme fatale, shadowy corporation, a selection of underworld characters and enough plot twists, car chases and gun fights to keep the viewer interested.
One of the most wonderful things in film noir is the use of chiascuro and the medium of monochrome animation was absolutely perfect - the director could choose exactly what to light up and what to keep in shadow, it really was amazing how effective the black and white was.
Using this wonderful medium the director was able to create a futuristic vision of Paris about 50 years hence. There were of course nods to Metropolis and Blade Runner but this city managed to remain unique. Its multi-layered criss-crossing railtracks provided the perfect noir shadows and the view of a Montmartre swamped with buildings was breath-taking. In fact, the 'locations' were possible the best part of the film. From the imposing offices of uber-corporation Avalon to the baths belonging to the gangland boss to the white-light forest prison, every new location was astounding.
The film also boasts probably the best car chase I've seen all year: a high-speed take-no-prisoners chase through the roads of this futuristic Paris, although I think Citroen can't have done badly out of it... The fight scenes were also magnificent, particularly the surreal slo-mo shoot-out on the rooftop arboretum.
Finally, as a France/Luxembourg/UK (although I believe mainly French) co-production, it was strange to see all the future Parisians speaking English. A further aspect of this nightmarish future dystopia was that the French language had been all but wiped out. Subtle allusions were made to this dead language (the remains of an advert, a copy of Le Monde 2006) but no explanation was given.
This film was, as far as I can say, unique. Each frame was fascinating and it managed to live-up to and surpass all the expectations of its varied genres. 8.5
First of all to the film noir part: Renaissance was a brilliant example of the genre; the plot was well timed and had all the necessary ingredients - dark and brooding cop (excellently voiced by Daniel Craig), femme fatale, shadowy corporation, a selection of underworld characters and enough plot twists, car chases and gun fights to keep the viewer interested.
One of the most wonderful things in film noir is the use of chiascuro and the medium of monochrome animation was absolutely perfect - the director could choose exactly what to light up and what to keep in shadow, it really was amazing how effective the black and white was.
Using this wonderful medium the director was able to create a futuristic vision of Paris about 50 years hence. There were of course nods to Metropolis and Blade Runner but this city managed to remain unique. Its multi-layered criss-crossing railtracks provided the perfect noir shadows and the view of a Montmartre swamped with buildings was breath-taking. In fact, the 'locations' were possible the best part of the film. From the imposing offices of uber-corporation Avalon to the baths belonging to the gangland boss to the white-light forest prison, every new location was astounding.
The film also boasts probably the best car chase I've seen all year: a high-speed take-no-prisoners chase through the roads of this futuristic Paris, although I think Citroen can't have done badly out of it... The fight scenes were also magnificent, particularly the surreal slo-mo shoot-out on the rooftop arboretum.
Finally, as a France/Luxembourg/UK (although I believe mainly French) co-production, it was strange to see all the future Parisians speaking English. A further aspect of this nightmarish future dystopia was that the French language had been all but wiped out. Subtle allusions were made to this dead language (the remains of an advert, a copy of Le Monde 2006) but no explanation was given.
This film was, as far as I can say, unique. Each frame was fascinating and it managed to live-up to and surpass all the expectations of its varied genres. 8.5
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Severance - 30th August 2006
This had been advertised as 'The best British horror comedy since Shaun of the Dead'. I spent all the trailers thinking how many British horror comedies there had been since Simon Pegg's masterpiece...
I think I had issues reconciling the horror and comedy parts of this film. Most of it I found genuinely quite scary (I admit I did spent most of the film hiding behind my jacket) and the majority of the violence and gore were presented as straight horror, which made the jump to the supposedly amusing bits even more jarring. Every so often there would be a moment of almost surreal comedy (for example the little dance when Maggie is trying to choose a stone with which to bash in her attacker's head) which, sandwiched between the brutal and frenetic attack and then the eventual head-squishing, seemed completely out of place. Okay, bear traps and decapitation may have been quite funny but Jill being set on fire was just disturbing.
There were quite a few nice bits - the office-based characters, although complete stereotypes, were funny because they were recognisable (I could probably tick off all the characters from the office where I last worked). It was also just nice to see British people, warts and all, at the cinema; after a while my brain has become filled with the ubiquitous homogenous, ridiculously attractive, Hollywood types. Captain Darling was brilliant as the ineffective manager and his untimely and ironic death was actually surprisingly touching.
Other bits I quite liked were the amusing arms-dealing bits – particularly the rocket launcher – although more could have been done with this. Also the first scene was good, the meaning of which became clear later. As for the rest of it, the horror aspect was almost too knowing, the suspense was being endlessly built up before the viewer was ‘fooled’ when nothing happened. And once the enemy has become apparent the whole chasing/fighting bit at the end became a bit repetitive.
Also: despite the imaginatively illustrated stories, which may have been one of the best parts of the film, it was never explained what was behind all the murderous nutters. Maybe that was for the best: 4.
I think I had issues reconciling the horror and comedy parts of this film. Most of it I found genuinely quite scary (I admit I did spent most of the film hiding behind my jacket) and the majority of the violence and gore were presented as straight horror, which made the jump to the supposedly amusing bits even more jarring. Every so often there would be a moment of almost surreal comedy (for example the little dance when Maggie is trying to choose a stone with which to bash in her attacker's head) which, sandwiched between the brutal and frenetic attack and then the eventual head-squishing, seemed completely out of place. Okay, bear traps and decapitation may have been quite funny but Jill being set on fire was just disturbing.
There were quite a few nice bits - the office-based characters, although complete stereotypes, were funny because they were recognisable (I could probably tick off all the characters from the office where I last worked). It was also just nice to see British people, warts and all, at the cinema; after a while my brain has become filled with the ubiquitous homogenous, ridiculously attractive, Hollywood types. Captain Darling was brilliant as the ineffective manager and his untimely and ironic death was actually surprisingly touching.
Other bits I quite liked were the amusing arms-dealing bits – particularly the rocket launcher – although more could have been done with this. Also the first scene was good, the meaning of which became clear later. As for the rest of it, the horror aspect was almost too knowing, the suspense was being endlessly built up before the viewer was ‘fooled’ when nothing happened. And once the enemy has become apparent the whole chasing/fighting bit at the end became a bit repetitive.
Also: despite the imaginatively illustrated stories, which may have been one of the best parts of the film, it was never explained what was behind all the murderous nutters. Maybe that was for the best: 4.
Volver - 29th August 2006
I am a big fan of Almodovar and his latest offering didn't disappoint. Volver was above all a story about the trials and tribulations of Women.
All the action in the film took place within spheres of activity which traditionally belong to women: the family home, the kitchen, the hair salon, even a daytime TV show. And although the film dealt with some varied things: death and murder and ghosts, we saw everything from a woman's perspective. Paula has just murdered her father and, although we hear the story, we do not see the murder itself. More attention is spent on the cleaning up of the crime scene: Penelope Cruz wiping up the blood, mopping the floor and washing the knife. When she is momentarily interrupted by a knock at the door she explains away the blood on her neck as "women's troubles."
The action mostly centres around the Penelope Cruz's (female) family and the extended family-like village community whom she can call upon to help her out with running the restaurant or disposing of her husband's body. Men, on the other hand, are conspicuous by their absence. Most notably in the opening scene, where all the village's women set about cleaning their husbands' graves. Where they do appear men are presented as perverts and lechers. Penelope's husband is a prime example and the shadow of her dead father is constantly present - given that his actions could be taken as a catalyst for all the events in the film.
The style is very much that of melodrama which reinforces the use of women's talk and gossip as the principal plot devices; this is also backed up by the Hitchcockian suspense music used. Penelope Cruz was fantastic as she always is in her Spanish language films. The film was never boring and actually quite funny in some parts.
Overall: 7.5
All the action in the film took place within spheres of activity which traditionally belong to women: the family home, the kitchen, the hair salon, even a daytime TV show. And although the film dealt with some varied things: death and murder and ghosts, we saw everything from a woman's perspective. Paula has just murdered her father and, although we hear the story, we do not see the murder itself. More attention is spent on the cleaning up of the crime scene: Penelope Cruz wiping up the blood, mopping the floor and washing the knife. When she is momentarily interrupted by a knock at the door she explains away the blood on her neck as "women's troubles."
The action mostly centres around the Penelope Cruz's (female) family and the extended family-like village community whom she can call upon to help her out with running the restaurant or disposing of her husband's body. Men, on the other hand, are conspicuous by their absence. Most notably in the opening scene, where all the village's women set about cleaning their husbands' graves. Where they do appear men are presented as perverts and lechers. Penelope's husband is a prime example and the shadow of her dead father is constantly present - given that his actions could be taken as a catalyst for all the events in the film.
The style is very much that of melodrama which reinforces the use of women's talk and gossip as the principal plot devices; this is also backed up by the Hitchcockian suspense music used. Penelope Cruz was fantastic as she always is in her Spanish language films. The film was never boring and actually quite funny in some parts.
Overall: 7.5
Snakes on a Plane - 27th August 2006
As the latest hot Internet craze, Snakes... could have been a victim of its own cult status. I have to admit my expectations were pretty high. However, it amazingly seemed to be 'so bad its good' without being that bad at all. It worked well as a perfectly serviceable disaster movie while having an extra layer of post-modern self-knowing thanks to the online buzz.
Okay, the concept (the snakes being on the plane part) was a little implausible but perhaps required less willing suspension of disbelief than several of this summer's blockbusters (M:I:3 I'm looking in your direction). And Snakes also managed to recognise and practically celebrate its own implausibility - at one point an FBI guy mentions the idea of someone putting snakes on a plane is completely ludicrous.
So, "plot" out of the way we can get on to enjoying the film. It was all extremely well-timed, a new threat appeared just after the passengers seemed to have conquered the last one and it was genuinely quite suspenseful. There were some good comedy deaths (boob-biting amongst others) and some rather horribly gory ones - the stiletto in the ear springs to mind. Some of the earlier scenes when the snakes first attack were really rather disturbing; but in a good way. The cast of characters was the eclectic bunch you'd expect from a disaster film; it was quite fun guessing which ones would die and the ones who survived had all learned a lesson by the end. Which was nice.
And of course there were the occasional nods to the Internet-based fans; most noticeably the "motherlovin' snakes"part and the pilot's warning the plane would "go down quicker than a Thai hooker." It was all good fun. And then at the end, they all went surfing!
Fantastic: 4 stars out of 5.
Okay, the concept (the snakes being on the plane part) was a little implausible but perhaps required less willing suspension of disbelief than several of this summer's blockbusters (M:I:3 I'm looking in your direction). And Snakes also managed to recognise and practically celebrate its own implausibility - at one point an FBI guy mentions the idea of someone putting snakes on a plane is completely ludicrous.
So, "plot" out of the way we can get on to enjoying the film. It was all extremely well-timed, a new threat appeared just after the passengers seemed to have conquered the last one and it was genuinely quite suspenseful. There were some good comedy deaths (boob-biting amongst others) and some rather horribly gory ones - the stiletto in the ear springs to mind. Some of the earlier scenes when the snakes first attack were really rather disturbing; but in a good way. The cast of characters was the eclectic bunch you'd expect from a disaster film; it was quite fun guessing which ones would die and the ones who survived had all learned a lesson by the end. Which was nice.
And of course there were the occasional nods to the Internet-based fans; most noticeably the "motherlovin' snakes"part and the pilot's warning the plane would "go down quicker than a Thai hooker." It was all good fun. And then at the end, they all went surfing!
Fantastic: 4 stars out of 5.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
A Scanner Darkly - 23rd August 2006
This handily tied in with Fear and Loathing..., which we saw a few days ago, forming some kind of hard drugs mini-season. Like the aforementioned film, A Scanner Darkly gave a twisted view of a downwardly-spiralling hard drugs nightmare. And in place of the Gilliam direction Scanner... offers us an eerily ever-changing picture courtesy of Rotoscope animation.
The story was quite pleasingly random. At first it seemed to just concentrate on the actions of this small group of addicts, which was actually fairly amusing, but before the viewer could get bored the terrifying nature of Keanu Reeves's nightmare became all the more apparent. He was ordered to spy on himself while he became more and more dependent on the illegal "D". The final revelations, which were actually dealt with rather quickly, were quite shocking and helped to give some sort of meaning to everything that had gone before.
The Rotoscope itself was the perfect medium for charting Keanu's descent into terror. If ever the plot was moving a little too slowly just watching the animation was constantly fascinating. The ever-changing lines and colours were a bit creepy but the rotoscope allowed the natural inclusion of fantasy sequences and, as a piece de resistance, the security suits, the outward appearance of which changed constantly.
Again, it felt a bit as if I'd swallowed lots of illegal drugs: 7.75
The story was quite pleasingly random. At first it seemed to just concentrate on the actions of this small group of addicts, which was actually fairly amusing, but before the viewer could get bored the terrifying nature of Keanu Reeves's nightmare became all the more apparent. He was ordered to spy on himself while he became more and more dependent on the illegal "D". The final revelations, which were actually dealt with rather quickly, were quite shocking and helped to give some sort of meaning to everything that had gone before.
The Rotoscope itself was the perfect medium for charting Keanu's descent into terror. If ever the plot was moving a little too slowly just watching the animation was constantly fascinating. The ever-changing lines and colours were a bit creepy but the rotoscope allowed the natural inclusion of fantasy sequences and, as a piece de resistance, the security suits, the outward appearance of which changed constantly.
Again, it felt a bit as if I'd swallowed lots of illegal drugs: 7.75
Friday, August 25, 2006
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - 20th August 2006
We went to see this on a Sunday morning, which made it all the more bizarre.
I'm guessing the Cornerhouse put this on to tie in with the Terry Gilliam visit a few weeks ago. As such comparisons between this and his latest film Tideland are inevitable. In fact, everything I found lacking in Tideland was present in Fear and Loathing. It was classic Gilliam through and through.
Hunter S. Thompson's drugged-up road trip provided a perfect partner to Gilliam's directorial style. The constantly moving and swaying camera (which was a main feature of Tideland) reinforced the sickening and confusing nature of the trip and the regular drug-induced hallucinations gave Gilliam a fantastic excuse to go into the surreal fantasy world he loves so well; the lizard scene in the bar was a perfect example of this.
Even though there was not much in the way of plot, I was transfixed by every single frame. This was partly due to Gilliam's aforementioned fantastic style, partly due to the increasingly hilariously bizarre nature of Duke and co's antics and partly due to Johnny Depp.
For the first few moments of the film it seemed Depp was portraying Big Brother winner Pete but from then on Depp was a perfect guide to the depraved world of Thompson. His constant commentary was occasionally difficult to follow but this didn't matter, the stream-of-consciousness ramblings just reinforced the sickeningly unstable plot, characters and camera work.
I left the cinema on Sunday feeling as if I'd just been on a two-hour drugs binge. Which can only be a good thing. 8.
I'm guessing the Cornerhouse put this on to tie in with the Terry Gilliam visit a few weeks ago. As such comparisons between this and his latest film Tideland are inevitable. In fact, everything I found lacking in Tideland was present in Fear and Loathing. It was classic Gilliam through and through.
Hunter S. Thompson's drugged-up road trip provided a perfect partner to Gilliam's directorial style. The constantly moving and swaying camera (which was a main feature of Tideland) reinforced the sickening and confusing nature of the trip and the regular drug-induced hallucinations gave Gilliam a fantastic excuse to go into the surreal fantasy world he loves so well; the lizard scene in the bar was a perfect example of this.
Even though there was not much in the way of plot, I was transfixed by every single frame. This was partly due to Gilliam's aforementioned fantastic style, partly due to the increasingly hilariously bizarre nature of Duke and co's antics and partly due to Johnny Depp.
For the first few moments of the film it seemed Depp was portraying Big Brother winner Pete but from then on Depp was a perfect guide to the depraved world of Thompson. His constant commentary was occasionally difficult to follow but this didn't matter, the stream-of-consciousness ramblings just reinforced the sickeningly unstable plot, characters and camera work.
I left the cinema on Sunday feeling as if I'd just been on a two-hour drugs binge. Which can only be a good thing. 8.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Angel-A - 9th August 2006
I enjoyed this film but I am not entirely sure why. I think I would lap up anything if it was black and white and in French and would be prepared to forgive a lot of things as long as it looked pretty.
Which this film certainly was. It even made Paris (a city I can't stand) look beautiful (maybe this was due to the lack of French people which normally marrs any vista - bizarrely the whole city was deserted.) I especially enjoyed the scene in the posh restaurant which looked amazing, even though the two leads were talking complete and utter bollocks.
To be honest the story was fairly incomprehensible and the whole guardian angel thing was a bit glib and not explained too well. There was a lot of pretentious crap spoken about loving oneself but of course you have to expect this in such a film.
There were bits that were really quite funny and moments of excitement but mostly it was just nice to look at and drink in, like a coffee from a cafe on the rive gauche, that nevertheless tastes a bit funny (probably because some Frenchman has spat in it.)
Anyway, it gets 5
Which this film certainly was. It even made Paris (a city I can't stand) look beautiful (maybe this was due to the lack of French people which normally marrs any vista - bizarrely the whole city was deserted.) I especially enjoyed the scene in the posh restaurant which looked amazing, even though the two leads were talking complete and utter bollocks.
To be honest the story was fairly incomprehensible and the whole guardian angel thing was a bit glib and not explained too well. There was a lot of pretentious crap spoken about loving oneself but of course you have to expect this in such a film.
There were bits that were really quite funny and moments of excitement but mostly it was just nice to look at and drink in, like a coffee from a cafe on the rive gauche, that nevertheless tastes a bit funny (probably because some Frenchman has spat in it.)
Anyway, it gets 5
Tideland - 8th August 2006
I was lucky enough to see a preview screening of Tideland with introduction by Terry Gilliam and a Q&A session with the director himself afterwards. The whole evening was extremely enjoyable and most enlightening.
Since the man himself was actually present I tried my hardest to like this film. I'm a big Terry Gilliam fan and rank some of his films among my all-time favourites; so I suppose this is why I felt a bit... disappointed. I think I was expecting so much more.
There was a lot of signature Gilliam stuff in this film: for the entire two hours it teetered on the edge of surreality; flirting with it, but never slipping over the edge. One most noticeable thing was that most shots were taken at some sort of angle, we hardly ever saw a straight shot, which was slightly disorientating but then it was meant to be so. We also see-sawed between fantasy (often the imaginings of Jelizah Rose) and reality, although quite often it was difficult to tell the two apart.
There was much that was provocative and controversial. Having read quite a lot about the film (diatribes that only a sick and perverted mind could have imagined it) I was expecting much worse, but these "controversial" moments were presented as viewed through the eyes of an innocent and not meant to shock. It was during these moments that the film really came alive and the classic Gilliam absurdity shone through.
For example, the scene where Jelizah-Rose comes downstairs to find her crazy neighbour embalming the body of her dead father is more amusing than disgusting. Indeed, Gilliam's presentation of this world through the eyes of a child is so pervasive that the scene in which Jelizah-Rose finds comfort with her father's preserved corpse is more touching that anything else; and the train crash, despite causing several people's deaths, is seen as a victory for Dickens and Jelizah-Rose.
Jodelle Ferland was terrifyingly brilliant as Jelizah-Rose and the rest of the cast was similarly magnificent, especially Jeff Bridges as Jelizah's junkie father (whose unending professionalism in playing a corpse was recounted to us by Gilliam.) There was also a lot of humour in the film which was a nice offset to some of the more grisly moments.
Despite all this there was something lacking about the film. In my opinion anything which invokes the spirit of Alice In Wonderland (which Tideland did heavily: making explicit and implicit reference to it: Jelizah at one point falls down a rabbit hole and Del recites some of the Queen of Hearts's dialogue) cannot be all bad, but unlike Alice there was no real motivation for Jelizah to do anything. Whereas Alice was on a quest to find her way home Jelizah's adventures are just a collection of random events. I was at no point bored but, without any kind of overall purpose I sometimes felt I was just waiting for the next thing to happen.
I also think if this film hadn't been Gilliam's I would have been more appreciative, it was maybe just I was expecting more of the great man. Tideland gets 6.
Since the man himself was actually present I tried my hardest to like this film. I'm a big Terry Gilliam fan and rank some of his films among my all-time favourites; so I suppose this is why I felt a bit... disappointed. I think I was expecting so much more.
There was a lot of signature Gilliam stuff in this film: for the entire two hours it teetered on the edge of surreality; flirting with it, but never slipping over the edge. One most noticeable thing was that most shots were taken at some sort of angle, we hardly ever saw a straight shot, which was slightly disorientating but then it was meant to be so. We also see-sawed between fantasy (often the imaginings of Jelizah Rose) and reality, although quite often it was difficult to tell the two apart.
There was much that was provocative and controversial. Having read quite a lot about the film (diatribes that only a sick and perverted mind could have imagined it) I was expecting much worse, but these "controversial" moments were presented as viewed through the eyes of an innocent and not meant to shock. It was during these moments that the film really came alive and the classic Gilliam absurdity shone through.
For example, the scene where Jelizah-Rose comes downstairs to find her crazy neighbour embalming the body of her dead father is more amusing than disgusting. Indeed, Gilliam's presentation of this world through the eyes of a child is so pervasive that the scene in which Jelizah-Rose finds comfort with her father's preserved corpse is more touching that anything else; and the train crash, despite causing several people's deaths, is seen as a victory for Dickens and Jelizah-Rose.
Jodelle Ferland was terrifyingly brilliant as Jelizah-Rose and the rest of the cast was similarly magnificent, especially Jeff Bridges as Jelizah's junkie father (whose unending professionalism in playing a corpse was recounted to us by Gilliam.) There was also a lot of humour in the film which was a nice offset to some of the more grisly moments.
Despite all this there was something lacking about the film. In my opinion anything which invokes the spirit of Alice In Wonderland (which Tideland did heavily: making explicit and implicit reference to it: Jelizah at one point falls down a rabbit hole and Del recites some of the Queen of Hearts's dialogue) cannot be all bad, but unlike Alice there was no real motivation for Jelizah to do anything. Whereas Alice was on a quest to find her way home Jelizah's adventures are just a collection of random events. I was at no point bored but, without any kind of overall purpose I sometimes felt I was just waiting for the next thing to happen.
I also think if this film hadn't been Gilliam's I would have been more appreciative, it was maybe just I was expecting more of the great man. Tideland gets 6.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Little Fish - 26th July 2006
Oh dear, another incredibly boring film. I didn't find it offensively boring like some others but there was nothing to capture my interest. I managed to fall asleep briefly but sadly woke up a short while afterwards. There were some interesting (ish) ideas, dealing with the past and the possibly inevitable slide into drugs and petty crime but you could find the same things in an average episode of Neighbours and they would be resolved after 15 minutes and then go on to a comedy scene featuring Harold Bishop. Things here just kind of fizzled out, no progress was ever made and no-one seemed to learn anything (except me - I'm never going to watch a 2 hour film at the Cornerhouse in the middle of a heatwave ever again.)
The acting, however, was brilliant. Cate Blanchett was great and completely believable as her character but she never got the chance to have a go at anything really juicy... the narrative just kind of meandered for a while. Hugo Weaving I will watch in anything and has proven to be extremely versatile (drag queen, elf, computer program) and was a brilliant retired-sportsman junkie. I think more could have been done with him and Sam Neill's character whom I found the most interesting and unusual of the lot of them.
Even at the end, when the film was working towards a climax and actually threatened to get interesting: all the disparate characters came together to one location. And then... they left again. True, some of them were dead, but it was not what I would class as a value-for-money climax. The worst bit was the ending: the three of them frolicking in the ocean, leaving Hugo Weaving's corpse on the beach, nicely decomposing in the Australian sun. No mention of what Cate was going to do about all the money or her relationship with Johnny or what they were going to do with the dead body that was, by this time, starting to attract flies...
The film gets points for being Australian and featuring Hugo Weaving but I probably could have done something more constructive with those two hours (like watching 4 whole episodes of Neighbours.) 3/10.
The acting, however, was brilliant. Cate Blanchett was great and completely believable as her character but she never got the chance to have a go at anything really juicy... the narrative just kind of meandered for a while. Hugo Weaving I will watch in anything and has proven to be extremely versatile (drag queen, elf, computer program) and was a brilliant retired-sportsman junkie. I think more could have been done with him and Sam Neill's character whom I found the most interesting and unusual of the lot of them.
Even at the end, when the film was working towards a climax and actually threatened to get interesting: all the disparate characters came together to one location. And then... they left again. True, some of them were dead, but it was not what I would class as a value-for-money climax. The worst bit was the ending: the three of them frolicking in the ocean, leaving Hugo Weaving's corpse on the beach, nicely decomposing in the Australian sun. No mention of what Cate was going to do about all the money or her relationship with Johnny or what they were going to do with the dead body that was, by this time, starting to attract flies...
The film gets points for being Australian and featuring Hugo Weaving but I probably could have done something more constructive with those two hours (like watching 4 whole episodes of Neighbours.) 3/10.
Superman Returns - 19th July 2006
I've never been a fan of DC comics in general and more specifically of Superman as a character. As a non-human he is too perfect, which, ironically is his greatest flaw. This updating (ish) of the Superman myth did little to give Superman any more humanity but just showed that being perfect could be a lot of fun.
There was a lot to recommend this film; firstly there was a plot, which was neatly structured but at the same time reassuring: evil genius wants to take over the world (or something) and Superman must foil his evil schemes.
The acting was also first rate: Brandon Routh made a good Man of Steel; the inscrutability of the Kryptonian could have been mistaken for woodenness, were it not for the fabulously geeky way he played the mild-mannered Clark Kent. Kevin Spacey gave a brilliant evil genius turn as Lex Luther but the whole show was stolen by his sidekick Kitty who was so fabulously bonkers that every scene she was in turned into pure gold. I find that DC comic characters are a little one-dimensional but sometimes that's just what you need. At least you always know where you stand.
And of course, being directed by Bryan Singer there were some quite clever bits thrown in: the homage to 2001 in the weightless plane; the wonderful expressionistic shot of the crowded, universally Daily Planet-reading elevator; the continuing play on how it is possible no-one suspects Clark Kent to be Superman when they look *identical*; the portrayal of Superman as Atlas with the metaphorical world (and the literal Daily Planet globe) on his shoulders and the Scrabble board, disturbed as Superman makes his return to Earth, containing such words as 'alienation' and 'bent' (I didn't have time to spot any others of note, or to see if any of them were on a triple word score...)
However, being two and a half hours long there was quite a lot which could have been cut. Most notably the scenes where Superman just flies around a bit, for ages. Also most of the scenes containing Lois Lane, who I just found incredibly irritating. She was just so offensively perfect, with her perfect little family - if it had been me I would have watched all three of them drown in the boat, laughing as their perfect little faces silently mouthed their final pleas for help. So maybe it's a good thing I don't have superpowers...
One thing that has been puzzling me for ages is the issue of Superman's hair. As Clark Kent he has a bit of a side parting but then, while changing into his costume, he somehow has time to gel his hair and get that one perfect curl hanging down on his forehead... When does he have the time? And wouldn't that time be better spent, you know, saving people? Maybe that's a question for the (inevitable) sequel.
Superman gets 3 and a half stars out of 5.
There was a lot to recommend this film; firstly there was a plot, which was neatly structured but at the same time reassuring: evil genius wants to take over the world (or something) and Superman must foil his evil schemes.
The acting was also first rate: Brandon Routh made a good Man of Steel; the inscrutability of the Kryptonian could have been mistaken for woodenness, were it not for the fabulously geeky way he played the mild-mannered Clark Kent. Kevin Spacey gave a brilliant evil genius turn as Lex Luther but the whole show was stolen by his sidekick Kitty who was so fabulously bonkers that every scene she was in turned into pure gold. I find that DC comic characters are a little one-dimensional but sometimes that's just what you need. At least you always know where you stand.
And of course, being directed by Bryan Singer there were some quite clever bits thrown in: the homage to 2001 in the weightless plane; the wonderful expressionistic shot of the crowded, universally Daily Planet-reading elevator; the continuing play on how it is possible no-one suspects Clark Kent to be Superman when they look *identical*; the portrayal of Superman as Atlas with the metaphorical world (and the literal Daily Planet globe) on his shoulders and the Scrabble board, disturbed as Superman makes his return to Earth, containing such words as 'alienation' and 'bent' (I didn't have time to spot any others of note, or to see if any of them were on a triple word score...)
However, being two and a half hours long there was quite a lot which could have been cut. Most notably the scenes where Superman just flies around a bit, for ages. Also most of the scenes containing Lois Lane, who I just found incredibly irritating. She was just so offensively perfect, with her perfect little family - if it had been me I would have watched all three of them drown in the boat, laughing as their perfect little faces silently mouthed their final pleas for help. So maybe it's a good thing I don't have superpowers...
One thing that has been puzzling me for ages is the issue of Superman's hair. As Clark Kent he has a bit of a side parting but then, while changing into his costume, he somehow has time to gel his hair and get that one perfect curl hanging down on his forehead... When does he have the time? And wouldn't that time be better spent, you know, saving people? Maybe that's a question for the (inevitable) sequel.
Superman gets 3 and a half stars out of 5.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest - 12th July 2006
Despite some negative reviews by certain people I did enjoy this film. As long as you switch your brain off at the beginning, (which I find worryingly easy), and accept that the film has its tongue so far in its cheek it looks like a squirrel with a face full of nuts, Dead Man's Chest is all you could ever want in a pirate film.
It was basically two and a half hours of visual porn: lots of terribly beautiful people, (even the dirty, scummy pirates managed to be so in a Disney-friendly kind of way), doing lots of terribly well-choreographed swordfighting and generally prancing around being heroic. I was never quite sure what the plot was, or even if there was one, but then that wasn't the point.
Anyway, it was all very pretty, the fight scenes were brilliant and I especially enjoyed the bar-room brawl which was a textbook example of the genre: people being smashed over the head with bottle? Check. People being pushed over balconies? Check. It was just a gleeful celebration of the pirate movie.
There was a promising suggestion of thought-provoking idea; that the romantic, libertine pirating lifestyle was under threat from globalisation and capitalism (ie the East India Trading Company) but these themes were never satisfactorily explored. However, it did kind of feel a bit too much like a kid's movie; there were too many moments of slapstick and idiocy and it was never really able to pull away from that.
My main issue with the film was that it was ridiculously long: the scene on the island where everyone was fighting for the chest went on for what seemed like hours; going back and forth until I wished everyone was murdered horribly just so the damned scene would end. Ditto when Johnny Depp et al were escaping from cannibals' island. It was taking so long I was reminded of the escape bit from King Kong, (which I'm sure lasted for about 6 hours in itself: the film must have created some kind of timewarp whereby the 17 1/2 hours actually spent watching the accursed thing took "only" 3 hours in real time, but anyway...) and being reminded of that particular arse-numbathon is never a good thing.
The worst thing was that, after investing 3 sodding hours in a film you expect some kind of resolution at the end, but nope, there was more fannying around and then they had to set the scene for the next movie - which better have a bloody good ending, and lots more beautiful people and beautiful sword-fighting etc.
Pirates gets 2 stars out of 5
It was basically two and a half hours of visual porn: lots of terribly beautiful people, (even the dirty, scummy pirates managed to be so in a Disney-friendly kind of way), doing lots of terribly well-choreographed swordfighting and generally prancing around being heroic. I was never quite sure what the plot was, or even if there was one, but then that wasn't the point.
Anyway, it was all very pretty, the fight scenes were brilliant and I especially enjoyed the bar-room brawl which was a textbook example of the genre: people being smashed over the head with bottle? Check. People being pushed over balconies? Check. It was just a gleeful celebration of the pirate movie.
There was a promising suggestion of thought-provoking idea; that the romantic, libertine pirating lifestyle was under threat from globalisation and capitalism (ie the East India Trading Company) but these themes were never satisfactorily explored. However, it did kind of feel a bit too much like a kid's movie; there were too many moments of slapstick and idiocy and it was never really able to pull away from that.
My main issue with the film was that it was ridiculously long: the scene on the island where everyone was fighting for the chest went on for what seemed like hours; going back and forth until I wished everyone was murdered horribly just so the damned scene would end. Ditto when Johnny Depp et al were escaping from cannibals' island. It was taking so long I was reminded of the escape bit from King Kong, (which I'm sure lasted for about 6 hours in itself: the film must have created some kind of timewarp whereby the 17 1/2 hours actually spent watching the accursed thing took "only" 3 hours in real time, but anyway...) and being reminded of that particular arse-numbathon is never a good thing.
The worst thing was that, after investing 3 sodding hours in a film you expect some kind of resolution at the end, but nope, there was more fannying around and then they had to set the scene for the next movie - which better have a bloody good ending, and lots more beautiful people and beautiful sword-fighting etc.
Pirates gets 2 stars out of 5
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Hard Candy - 28th June 2006
This film was, as expected, rather disturbing but never really rang true.
It was a tale of a teenage girl taking vengeance on a paedophile for his past actions. But of course it was not as simple as that. Hayley presents herself as a young girl and therefore the Victim. She is then absolved of all wrongdoing since she is avenging the heinous crimes of this adult Jeff.
However, these roles were not so clear cut. Hayley had planned the whole incident meticulously and reacts unfeelingly to any of Jeff's pleas. Where Hayley is the cold, calm, logical adult, Jeff is as a child, whose crime was capitulating to his primal instincts. It is slightly worrying to hear how Hayley relishes the punishment she is meting out, also that we are never sure whether Jeff was guilty of these crimes or not.
This blurring of roles is interesting but I think the tone of the film was not consistent. Relating to the point above; Hayley acts as an adult and she is simply not believable as a 14 year old girl. This was despite (or because of) some fantastic acting - it was a bit like Dawson's Creek where actors deliver lines more suited to people thirty years their senior.
It worked well as a low-key affair; the occasional bursts of Action!, like struggling for the gun/knife, spoilt the whole atmosphere of it. I think I suffered from reading too much about the film - most of it was waiting in terror for the castration part, at which the whole audience let out a collective whimper.
The effects were noticeable: the blurring and the use of stark colours, often as the background to head shots; these tied in to the whole photography thing but I think it was a bit needless. Would it have benefited from a more 'realistic' style of photography (grainy film, hand-held camera etc)? Not sure.
One more thing. As far as I'm concerned a pedophile is someone who is rather fond of feet. 5
It was a tale of a teenage girl taking vengeance on a paedophile for his past actions. But of course it was not as simple as that. Hayley presents herself as a young girl and therefore the Victim. She is then absolved of all wrongdoing since she is avenging the heinous crimes of this adult Jeff.
However, these roles were not so clear cut. Hayley had planned the whole incident meticulously and reacts unfeelingly to any of Jeff's pleas. Where Hayley is the cold, calm, logical adult, Jeff is as a child, whose crime was capitulating to his primal instincts. It is slightly worrying to hear how Hayley relishes the punishment she is meting out, also that we are never sure whether Jeff was guilty of these crimes or not.
This blurring of roles is interesting but I think the tone of the film was not consistent. Relating to the point above; Hayley acts as an adult and she is simply not believable as a 14 year old girl. This was despite (or because of) some fantastic acting - it was a bit like Dawson's Creek where actors deliver lines more suited to people thirty years their senior.
It worked well as a low-key affair; the occasional bursts of Action!, like struggling for the gun/knife, spoilt the whole atmosphere of it. I think I suffered from reading too much about the film - most of it was waiting in terror for the castration part, at which the whole audience let out a collective whimper.
The effects were noticeable: the blurring and the use of stark colours, often as the background to head shots; these tied in to the whole photography thing but I think it was a bit needless. Would it have benefited from a more 'realistic' style of photography (grainy film, hand-held camera etc)? Not sure.
One more thing. As far as I'm concerned a pedophile is someone who is rather fond of feet. 5
Thank You For Smoking - 21st June 2006
I thought this film was refreshingly different to most other stuff. It presented the life of a tobacco lobbyist (widely regarded as spawn of the devil) in rather a light-hearted way and without making any real moral judgements.
I don't really have much to say about it. It was constantly engaging and in some places very funny. There were enough slightly surrealist touches to stop the film ever taking itself too seriously. The sections with his son could have been a bit of a cliche but importantly he remained unrepentant throughout the whole film and he did seem like quite a nice guy.
I was pleasantly surprised: 7
I don't really have much to say about it. It was constantly engaging and in some places very funny. There were enough slightly surrealist touches to stop the film ever taking itself too seriously. The sections with his son could have been a bit of a cliche but importantly he remained unrepentant throughout the whole film and he did seem like quite a nice guy.
I was pleasantly surprised: 7
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Mission: Impossible III - 14th June 2006
This film has had some bad reviews by many people, although an old Irish man on the tram told me it was very good. I have to side with the Irish man on this one.
Maybe it's because prolonged exposure to Big Brother has permanently killed off any brain cells I had left, but I really enjoyed the film. It was everything you would expect from a film of this kind: completely implausible plot, cheesy dialogue and ridiculous action.
It was great! I especially enjoyed the 'heist' aspects: the attack on the factory in Berlin and the Vatican City coup. For comedy value they didn't even bother to show what happened inside the building in Shanghai.
The plot didn't make any sense. Even after someone explained it to me, slowly, I still didn't get it. I couldn't understand who had set whom up (but enjoyed the thing that it was to make money for the US gvt or something.) Whatever, the "plot" was completely incidental to the rest of the film.
And it just looked really good, unashamedly so. Everyone was ridiculously beautiful. There was lots of cool technology (eg the portable mask-fabricator - coming soon to an Innovations catalogue near you.) and it was all coated in a thick layer of kick-ass. Take the scene where, after just kidnapping Truman Capote, the four of them are sailing down the river in a speedboat looking cool as fuck. For no reason whatsoever. And that just sums up the whole film: Style 1 Substance 0.
There was some rather clever direction going on, Simon Pegg got to be genuinely rather funny and there was a scene in which Tom Cruise tried to bring someone back to life being shot at in a helicopter navigating a field of windmills.
It can't really get a higher score than X-Men just because it was so superficial. Also I was disappointed because I had been led to believe this film had been shot entirely in Berlin (there were rumours they were going to film inside the Reichstag). But instead they showed a scummy factory somewhere near Potsdam for 5 seconds.
Anyway, M:i:III gets III stars out of V
Maybe it's because prolonged exposure to Big Brother has permanently killed off any brain cells I had left, but I really enjoyed the film. It was everything you would expect from a film of this kind: completely implausible plot, cheesy dialogue and ridiculous action.
It was great! I especially enjoyed the 'heist' aspects: the attack on the factory in Berlin and the Vatican City coup. For comedy value they didn't even bother to show what happened inside the building in Shanghai.
The plot didn't make any sense. Even after someone explained it to me, slowly, I still didn't get it. I couldn't understand who had set whom up (but enjoyed the thing that it was to make money for the US gvt or something.) Whatever, the "plot" was completely incidental to the rest of the film.
And it just looked really good, unashamedly so. Everyone was ridiculously beautiful. There was lots of cool technology (eg the portable mask-fabricator - coming soon to an Innovations catalogue near you.) and it was all coated in a thick layer of kick-ass. Take the scene where, after just kidnapping Truman Capote, the four of them are sailing down the river in a speedboat looking cool as fuck. For no reason whatsoever. And that just sums up the whole film: Style 1 Substance 0.
There was some rather clever direction going on, Simon Pegg got to be genuinely rather funny and there was a scene in which Tom Cruise tried to bring someone back to life being shot at in a helicopter navigating a field of windmills.
It can't really get a higher score than X-Men just because it was so superficial. Also I was disappointed because I had been led to believe this film had been shot entirely in Berlin (there were rumours they were going to film inside the Reichstag). But instead they showed a scummy factory somewhere near Potsdam for 5 seconds.
Anyway, M:i:III gets III stars out of V
Down In The Valley - 7th June 2006
This film was so incredibly boring I can't be bothered to write a review of it. I was actively trying to fall asleep in the cinema but failed miserably. Nothing happened of any interest and none of the characters were remotely likeable. I suppose what happened towards the end after the shooting could have been interesting but it was just so slow. And by that time I was so bored I couldn't have given a toss if they all lived happily after or died an horrific death or if they turned into Moomintrolls and flew to Neptune. This film gets 2. Only because there was some attempt at character.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
X-Men 3: The Last Stand - 1st June
Although most reviews were claiming the 'final' instalment of the X-Men trilogy was a bit weaker than the other two, I thought it was still fairly kick-arse. It was an extremely successful Marvel film and I enjoyed it loads.
Visually, the film was very pretty from the crisp, clean tones of the Xavier Insitute to the dilapidated New York church everything was lifted almost straight off the pages of the comic book.
Thematically, the X-Men comics have always been a bit more intelligent than the average comic book. The interesting thing is that these super-heroes are always presented as flawed characters (Wolverine is not your typical holier-than-thou hero for example). And the issues dealt with within the comics are never black and white, everything is always shades of grey.
And so is it with this film - the ethical question of the mutant 'cure' finds parallels in the questionable actions of Professor X's interfering with Jean Grey's subconscious. And of course there are no easy answers.
As the final part in the trilogy anything could happen: the bold decision was made to kill off certain major characters. This felt a little strange - it was quite near to the beginning and perhaps not enough time or importance was given to the deaths. Now, Jean Grey dies on average once every 6 months but it is not usually the same for the rest of the X-Men.
One of the problems I had with this was it did feel rushed. Not enough time was given to explore new characters - for example Callisto (who I don't even think was given a name) and in particular Angel. So much more could have been made of his relationship with his father, seeing as it was the catalyst for this whole 'cure' business. Also - Angel was one of the five original X-Men; it was nice to see the Beast finally making an appearance but no time at all was given to Angel.
One more thing which made this film fantastic was the superb performance of Ian McKellen. He can bring credibility and gravitas to any role (as his brief soap career shows) and so every scene featuring Magneto was a joy to watch.
The fight scenes were excellent (really violent, but dealt with well), and there was some terribly cheesy dialogue, but this was all in the spirit of the comics and so was allowed. The only other complaints I could have would be the differences between the backstory of the films and the comics but that would make me a big big nerd so I won't list them all here.
Now, I can't really rate this in comparison to other films I've seen here. I thought as a Blockbuster summer action movie it was fab, but maybe shouldn't be compared to other, more worthy, films I've seen this year. So I'll give it Four stars out of Five ****
Visually, the film was very pretty from the crisp, clean tones of the Xavier Insitute to the dilapidated New York church everything was lifted almost straight off the pages of the comic book.
Thematically, the X-Men comics have always been a bit more intelligent than the average comic book. The interesting thing is that these super-heroes are always presented as flawed characters (Wolverine is not your typical holier-than-thou hero for example). And the issues dealt with within the comics are never black and white, everything is always shades of grey.
And so is it with this film - the ethical question of the mutant 'cure' finds parallels in the questionable actions of Professor X's interfering with Jean Grey's subconscious. And of course there are no easy answers.
As the final part in the trilogy anything could happen: the bold decision was made to kill off certain major characters. This felt a little strange - it was quite near to the beginning and perhaps not enough time or importance was given to the deaths. Now, Jean Grey dies on average once every 6 months but it is not usually the same for the rest of the X-Men.
One of the problems I had with this was it did feel rushed. Not enough time was given to explore new characters - for example Callisto (who I don't even think was given a name) and in particular Angel. So much more could have been made of his relationship with his father, seeing as it was the catalyst for this whole 'cure' business. Also - Angel was one of the five original X-Men; it was nice to see the Beast finally making an appearance but no time at all was given to Angel.
One more thing which made this film fantastic was the superb performance of Ian McKellen. He can bring credibility and gravitas to any role (as his brief soap career shows) and so every scene featuring Magneto was a joy to watch.
The fight scenes were excellent (really violent, but dealt with well), and there was some terribly cheesy dialogue, but this was all in the spirit of the comics and so was allowed. The only other complaints I could have would be the differences between the backstory of the films and the comics but that would make me a big big nerd so I won't list them all here.
Now, I can't really rate this in comparison to other films I've seen here. I thought as a Blockbuster summer action movie it was fab, but maybe shouldn't be compared to other, more worthy, films I've seen this year. So I'll give it Four stars out of Five ****
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Les Poupées Russes - 24th May 2006
I was really looking forward to this film. It is the sequel to L'auberge espagnole, a film which chronicles the experiences of French student Xavier during a year spent studying abroad (with the Erasmus programme). I first saw this film in Berlin, on my Erasmus year and the parallels between Xavier's experiences and my own were plentiful (apart from the affair with that married woman.) So I was curious to see how this film would show Xavier's post-Erasmus life.
On the whole it was rather depressing. Where l'auberge espagnole was a celebration of youth, les poupées russes was a mourning of middle-age. In this film we see Xavier and the rest of the Erasmus gang dealing with middle-aged problems: shitty jobs, shitty relationships and the gradual realisation that whatever happens, nothing can live up to the expectations of one's youth. L'auberge showed young people having fun whereas the main emotions from this film seemed to be despair and resignation.
Even the fabulous European nature of the film (Xavier flits between Paris, London and St. Petersburg) shows how Europe has grown closer over the past few years but just highlights how much the original Erasmus group has been fractured and is spread all over the continent. Where once they were all concentrated in Barcelona it seems now that the whole of Europe is the post-Erasmites' playground.
The film had rather a unique style: stories within stories within stories (as the Russian Dolls of the title) and would switch between them smoothly, all the while narrated by Xavier. There were some very clever touches and some genuinely funny moments.
Judged on its own merits this film was still very good; it had several different stories, and was consistently entertaining. However, compared to the first film it couldn't help but be inferior and make me a bit anxious about what a post-Erasmus future holds for me.... 7.25
Brick - 16th May 2006
Brick was an attempt to relocate a film noir story to an American high school and, in my opinion, I'm afraid it failed quite miserably. In trying to mesh together two very different genres it fell between two stools, it was neither one thing nor the other and it just seemed wrong.
One of the main problems was the main protagonist Brendan, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He was not empathetic enough to be a hero, nor did he have sufficient charisma to be an anti-hero as found in most film noir movies. All he seemed to do was regard everyone with a blank face and mumble things in a monotone. We did not see enough of the character to understand his motivations, and as a result I couldn't really care if he managed to solve this mystery or not.
Perhaps partly because of the above I was not engaged at all with the plotline. There was never enough suspense and ultimately I didn't really care that much as to how it all turned out.
A minor thing was the setting and the colour of the film. I kind of assumed that film noir should be, well, noir. I don't think the dusty, sun-bleached desert and concrete that provided a constant back-drop to the film could ever compete with the shadowy city streets of a traditional film noir flick.
The costumes were quite well done though. All the male characters wore an outfit which signified their place in the scheme of things (the football player, the Pin in his suit) and kept this costume throughout the whole film. The female characters wore brilliant clothes; the scene towards the end when Brendan confronts the actress girl in full hair and make-up was fantastic. And the other girl (Laura?) took her status as resident femme fatale very seriously and played it quite well. It was a bit annoying that Brendan wore the same baggy jeans and scruffy jacket all the way through though, he could have bothered to get changed sometime.
The film wasn't terrible but it just seemed a little disappointing because it could have been done so much better. Overall it gets: 5
One of the main problems was the main protagonist Brendan, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. He was not empathetic enough to be a hero, nor did he have sufficient charisma to be an anti-hero as found in most film noir movies. All he seemed to do was regard everyone with a blank face and mumble things in a monotone. We did not see enough of the character to understand his motivations, and as a result I couldn't really care if he managed to solve this mystery or not.
Perhaps partly because of the above I was not engaged at all with the plotline. There was never enough suspense and ultimately I didn't really care that much as to how it all turned out.
A minor thing was the setting and the colour of the film. I kind of assumed that film noir should be, well, noir. I don't think the dusty, sun-bleached desert and concrete that provided a constant back-drop to the film could ever compete with the shadowy city streets of a traditional film noir flick.
The costumes were quite well done though. All the male characters wore an outfit which signified their place in the scheme of things (the football player, the Pin in his suit) and kept this costume throughout the whole film. The female characters wore brilliant clothes; the scene towards the end when Brendan confronts the actress girl in full hair and make-up was fantastic. And the other girl (Laura?) took her status as resident femme fatale very seriously and played it quite well. It was a bit annoying that Brendan wore the same baggy jeans and scruffy jacket all the way through though, he could have bothered to get changed sometime.
The film wasn't terrible but it just seemed a little disappointing because it could have been done so much better. Overall it gets: 5
Saturday, May 13, 2006
The Magician - 10th May 2006
I didn't really know what to expect from this. Although the mock-documentary is nothing new (see Spinal Tap), I thought this was an original and inventive film. It definitely felt like a (rather badly edited) documentary; the way it managed to mix the minutiae of everyday life with more serious themes. Juxtaposing life and death with the mundane (hostage Tony placing a complicated fast-food order) and the inane (Ray and Max’s conversation about eating shit just before Ray shoots his friend Benny in the back of the head.)
And of course, although it feels as though it could be a real documentary, the film works because it’s not. Some of the genuinely very funny moments rely on the audience’s understanding that these are just people play-acting and the characters are not real; for example Ray taking a basball bat to Max’s junkie flatmate after promising him to use ‘the least violence necessary’ and even stopping the car for Tony, taken hostage in the boot, to settle an argument.
However, beneath its jocular tone the film asks some serious questions about screen violence. As Ray mentions in his final address to the camera - Max, who has been filming all his illegal actions, is an accessory to murder and therefore, by extension, so are all the viewers of this film. Max’s declaration of love (ish) to this ‘good-looking and charming’ hitman echoes the public’s obsession with real and fictitious gansgsters, murders and criminals.
I found this to be really very funny and always intriguing, even (or maybe especially) when nothing was going on. It was an exemplary mock-documentary, however this genre can perhaps be a little constraining and so I would never class it an amazing film. Also: the best mock-documentary ever (despite the fact it’s tragically very real indeed) is the portrait of drag queen Tyranna Sore-Arse Rex Live at Razor Stiletto - to be found at http://www.babydeltic.com/video, if you‘re interested.
Anyway, The Magician gets: 7
And of course, although it feels as though it could be a real documentary, the film works because it’s not. Some of the genuinely very funny moments rely on the audience’s understanding that these are just people play-acting and the characters are not real; for example Ray taking a basball bat to Max’s junkie flatmate after promising him to use ‘the least violence necessary’ and even stopping the car for Tony, taken hostage in the boot, to settle an argument.
However, beneath its jocular tone the film asks some serious questions about screen violence. As Ray mentions in his final address to the camera - Max, who has been filming all his illegal actions, is an accessory to murder and therefore, by extension, so are all the viewers of this film. Max’s declaration of love (ish) to this ‘good-looking and charming’ hitman echoes the public’s obsession with real and fictitious gansgsters, murders and criminals.
I found this to be really very funny and always intriguing, even (or maybe especially) when nothing was going on. It was an exemplary mock-documentary, however this genre can perhaps be a little constraining and so I would never class it an amazing film. Also: the best mock-documentary ever (despite the fact it’s tragically very real indeed) is the portrait of drag queen Tyranna Sore-Arse Rex Live at Razor Stiletto - to be found at http://www.babydeltic.com/video, if you‘re interested.
Anyway, The Magician gets: 7
C.R.A.Z.Y. - 4th May 2006
I thought this film was fantastic. Not least due to principal actor Marc-André Grondin, who was so incredibly good-looking I could easily have watched him reciting the Shipping Forecast over and over for seven hours straight. Although he did have a tendency to keep turning into Our Craig off of Corrie in my head, which was slightly off-putting.
Anyway, C.R.A.Z.Y. was so called because they were the initials of the five sons of the Beaulieu family, seemingly named after their father's favourite Patsy Cline record. (This struck me as a rather stupid idea; what if they had another son? What if the father was a fan of the song Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious from Mary Poppins? What then?)
This all tied in with the idea of family; we follow the chief protagonist Zac, the fourth son, as he searches for his place within the family, through which he is able to find his place in the world. I thought the Beaulieux were a lovely depiction of a typical French family. (I know they were Canadian but to me they seemed typically French). The father was a sterotypical patriarch, Zac's brothers conformed perfectly to their own sterotypes and the mother was charged with keeping the whole family together using a combination of gentle persuasion and ironed toast. It was through Zac's relationships with his family members that we saw him grow up.
As a coming-out story, however, it never really got going. Apart from a few implied incidents there was nothing to suggest that Zac was ever exploring his homosexuality; indeed, much more time was spent concentrating on his fantasies about his (female) cousin and his eventual girlfriend. By the same token, we never see Zac 'coming to terms' with his homosexuality himself. Even after his argument with his father at the wedding, during his time travelling, we see him struggling with the whole homo thing and this is never actually resolved (apart from a tacked-on happy-ever-after ending.)
One of the most striking things was the fantastic use of music and especially fashion to evoke the era. You could almost pinpoint the exact date just from the clothes Zac was wearing - from Ziggy Stardust to Sid and Nancy, it helped to place Zac's story very firmly within a specific timeline.
Unfortunately, it went on a little bit too long. Zac's trip to Jerusalem and wanderings in the desert were never really explained and just felt a little pointless. Sometimes the arty editing and effects jarred a little, a lot of the time they weren't at all necessary. The fantasy sequences were sometimes a little annoying but managed to be more Amelie than Ally McBeal.
I also have to mention the language: Canadian French is weird. How they managed to pronounce the word fĂŞte to rhyme with 'eight' was just strange. I sometimes had no idea what the actual French was, even when I was reading the subtitles.
Anyway, despite the slightly incomprehensible bits it was a lovely film that really rather touched me. 7.75
Anyway, C.R.A.Z.Y. was so called because they were the initials of the five sons of the Beaulieu family, seemingly named after their father's favourite Patsy Cline record. (This struck me as a rather stupid idea; what if they had another son? What if the father was a fan of the song Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious from Mary Poppins? What then?)
This all tied in with the idea of family; we follow the chief protagonist Zac, the fourth son, as he searches for his place within the family, through which he is able to find his place in the world. I thought the Beaulieux were a lovely depiction of a typical French family. (I know they were Canadian but to me they seemed typically French). The father was a sterotypical patriarch, Zac's brothers conformed perfectly to their own sterotypes and the mother was charged with keeping the whole family together using a combination of gentle persuasion and ironed toast. It was through Zac's relationships with his family members that we saw him grow up.
As a coming-out story, however, it never really got going. Apart from a few implied incidents there was nothing to suggest that Zac was ever exploring his homosexuality; indeed, much more time was spent concentrating on his fantasies about his (female) cousin and his eventual girlfriend. By the same token, we never see Zac 'coming to terms' with his homosexuality himself. Even after his argument with his father at the wedding, during his time travelling, we see him struggling with the whole homo thing and this is never actually resolved (apart from a tacked-on happy-ever-after ending.)
One of the most striking things was the fantastic use of music and especially fashion to evoke the era. You could almost pinpoint the exact date just from the clothes Zac was wearing - from Ziggy Stardust to Sid and Nancy, it helped to place Zac's story very firmly within a specific timeline.
Unfortunately, it went on a little bit too long. Zac's trip to Jerusalem and wanderings in the desert were never really explained and just felt a little pointless. Sometimes the arty editing and effects jarred a little, a lot of the time they weren't at all necessary. The fantasy sequences were sometimes a little annoying but managed to be more Amelie than Ally McBeal.
I also have to mention the language: Canadian French is weird. How they managed to pronounce the word fĂŞte to rhyme with 'eight' was just strange. I sometimes had no idea what the actual French was, even when I was reading the subtitles.
Anyway, despite the slightly incomprehensible bits it was a lovely film that really rather touched me. 7.75
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Junebug - 19th April 2006
This film completely failed to make an impression on me. I was so underwhelmed I couldn't even be bothered to be annoyed or to search for what it was trying to say. Was it a film extolling the virtues of family? I hope not, if so it failed completely. I guess the point was to show what successful career woman (can't remember her name - she was very thin though) was missing from her life: Family.
All this was so much bollocks - Art Dealer Woman obviously had a brilliant life; she'd actually been to school, had a great job and was having sex all the time. The best part was that she was miles away from the bunch of retards that were her in-laws. The only thing she could take away from this whole sorry experience was the fact her husband was actually a complete tosser.
It was so long and boring and quiet and there were so many pointless shots of nothing. Completely underwhelmed: 2
All this was so much bollocks - Art Dealer Woman obviously had a brilliant life; she'd actually been to school, had a great job and was having sex all the time. The best part was that she was miles away from the bunch of retards that were her in-laws. The only thing she could take away from this whole sorry experience was the fact her husband was actually a complete tosser.
It was so long and boring and quiet and there were so many pointless shots of nothing. Completely underwhelmed: 2
Inside Man - 12th April 2006
Well, I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. It wasn't half as brainless as I expected. However it did annoy me a bit.
I think once I'd read Spike Lee's name on the opening credits I expected everything to be in-your-face preaching about "issues". And so I spent the whole rest of the film deeply analysing everything to find this in-your-face preaching. Which was a bit stupid. That said, there was a lot of stuff about prejudice and multi-cultural integration in New York City. Which, to be honest, I couldn't give a toss about - I found it all too New York to be really relevant.
I couldn't fail to notice, however, an underlying misogyny to the whole film. The only female figures were presented as sex objects (Denzel's wife; the female hostages) or as evil incarnate (Jodie Foster, who is actually evil incarnate, but that's no reason to make her character so.) One of the most telling scenes was in a court house (I think. Something to do with law.) Where Jodie and Denzel were presented as diametric opposites: the black man is good, the white woman is evil. Basically. Also: Denzel calls Jodie a 'cunt' (in a 15 cert film no less), an insult which isn't particularly beloved by feminists. This whole aspect was ever so slightly dodgy.
That said, it was fairly good as a bank heist movie. It was engaging but all rather predictable, which I found quite reassuring. There were some plot details that were a bit weird (the Nazi stuff mainly, what was the point of all that?) but I thought it was cleverly executed and in some places quite funny. It was enjoyable enough but some of the ideology didn't sit well with me: 6.
I think once I'd read Spike Lee's name on the opening credits I expected everything to be in-your-face preaching about "issues". And so I spent the whole rest of the film deeply analysing everything to find this in-your-face preaching. Which was a bit stupid. That said, there was a lot of stuff about prejudice and multi-cultural integration in New York City. Which, to be honest, I couldn't give a toss about - I found it all too New York to be really relevant.
I couldn't fail to notice, however, an underlying misogyny to the whole film. The only female figures were presented as sex objects (Denzel's wife; the female hostages) or as evil incarnate (Jodie Foster, who is actually evil incarnate, but that's no reason to make her character so.) One of the most telling scenes was in a court house (I think. Something to do with law.) Where Jodie and Denzel were presented as diametric opposites: the black man is good, the white woman is evil. Basically. Also: Denzel calls Jodie a 'cunt' (in a 15 cert film no less), an insult which isn't particularly beloved by feminists. This whole aspect was ever so slightly dodgy.
That said, it was fairly good as a bank heist movie. It was engaging but all rather predictable, which I found quite reassuring. There were some plot details that were a bit weird (the Nazi stuff mainly, what was the point of all that?) but I thought it was cleverly executed and in some places quite funny. It was enjoyable enough but some of the ideology didn't sit well with me: 6.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Los 3 Enterrios de Melquiades Estrada - 5th April 2006
I hate not being able to speak a language and it really annoys me that I found the title of this film unpronouncable, also that I think I've spelt it incorrectly above... This was a curious film; around half-way through it changed completely and went from being confusing and a bit irritating to engaging and rather moving.
The first half was indeed confused. For some reason Tommy Lee Jones decided to play around with the narrative: firstly we see the discovering of the body of Melquiades Estrada, then we flash forward and backward in time to see the events leading up to his death and several events completely unrelated to it. These little episodes were all a bit pointless, without meaning and definitely without the charm of Tarantino when he decides to do a similar thing. The only thing to recommend the first half was the sense of small-town despair
which infused practically every scene: from the empty desert to the chain-smoking regulars in the diner.
From shunning any kind of narrative in the first half, Tommy Lee Jones decides on a classic Quest motif for the second. He makes good on his promise to take the body of his friend back to his home town of Jimenez, dragging along his assassin with the intention of making him apologise to the family of the murdered Mexican.
As is usual in the good old Quest they meet lots of different people who help them out in different ways and both the travellers learn a little bit about themselves. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned but I found this reassuring.
One thing I did like that was a bit different was the fact that Tommy Lee Jones's character was slightly nuts, he only had a one-handed grasp on the reins of reality. The way he treated Melquiades's dead body, trying to do a make-shift embalming and setting it on fire was a prime example. Not quite Weekend at Bernie's but still fairly black humour.
I thought the ending was lovely. After finding out Melquiades's tales of his home town and family were contradictory to the truth, Tommy Lee Jones succeeded in deluding himself they had found Jiminez and he and his hostage both set about making Melquiades a suitable final resting place. Then it ended - there were no questions about what they would do being hunted by the border patrol and the police, it all ended with Melquiades's third and final burial.
It started slowly and strangely but almost made up for it with a moving ending: 6.
The first half was indeed confused. For some reason Tommy Lee Jones decided to play around with the narrative: firstly we see the discovering of the body of Melquiades Estrada, then we flash forward and backward in time to see the events leading up to his death and several events completely unrelated to it. These little episodes were all a bit pointless, without meaning and definitely without the charm of Tarantino when he decides to do a similar thing. The only thing to recommend the first half was the sense of small-town despair
which infused practically every scene: from the empty desert to the chain-smoking regulars in the diner.
From shunning any kind of narrative in the first half, Tommy Lee Jones decides on a classic Quest motif for the second. He makes good on his promise to take the body of his friend back to his home town of Jimenez, dragging along his assassin with the intention of making him apologise to the family of the murdered Mexican.
As is usual in the good old Quest they meet lots of different people who help them out in different ways and both the travellers learn a little bit about themselves. Maybe I'm a bit old-fashioned but I found this reassuring.
One thing I did like that was a bit different was the fact that Tommy Lee Jones's character was slightly nuts, he only had a one-handed grasp on the reins of reality. The way he treated Melquiades's dead body, trying to do a make-shift embalming and setting it on fire was a prime example. Not quite Weekend at Bernie's but still fairly black humour.
I thought the ending was lovely. After finding out Melquiades's tales of his home town and family were contradictory to the truth, Tommy Lee Jones succeeded in deluding himself they had found Jiminez and he and his hostage both set about making Melquiades a suitable final resting place. Then it ended - there were no questions about what they would do being hunted by the border patrol and the police, it all ended with Melquiades's third and final burial.
It started slowly and strangely but almost made up for it with a moving ending: 6.
Transamerica - 29th March 2006
I really enjoyed this. I simply cannot believe that Felicity Huffman did not receive an Oscar for her performance since it was pretty much perfect. It was so, so much better than Reese Witherspoon's in Walk the Line anyway.
I think it was a brave decision to cast a woman as a male to female transsexual. It is a tribute to Huffman's skills that after the first few moments we cease to think of the character as a woman playing a man who is becoming a woman and instead see her as a woman who used to be a man. I think it re-iterates the fluidity of the concept of gender, that these things are not just black and white.
From reading Cosmo Landesman's review of this film in the Sunday Times it seemed he had an issue with a transsexual being depicted as 'normal' and that the villain of the piece was not Bree but instead her conservative mother. I can't help but disagree with this; it is a most important part of the film that the viewer is able to emphasise fully with Bree, that we see her life from her perspective.
It managed to be illuminating, very funny and genuinely moving. Often all at the same time. It was hard not to feel for Bree as she navigated hostile reactions from everyone, especially her own family while trying to keep the secret from her son.
The ending was well-judged. Hardly 'happy-ever-after' but still upbeat and positive. There was also a healthy amount of gratuitous nudity, which is always a bonus. 8.
I think it was a brave decision to cast a woman as a male to female transsexual. It is a tribute to Huffman's skills that after the first few moments we cease to think of the character as a woman playing a man who is becoming a woman and instead see her as a woman who used to be a man. I think it re-iterates the fluidity of the concept of gender, that these things are not just black and white.
From reading Cosmo Landesman's review of this film in the Sunday Times it seemed he had an issue with a transsexual being depicted as 'normal' and that the villain of the piece was not Bree but instead her conservative mother. I can't help but disagree with this; it is a most important part of the film that the viewer is able to emphasise fully with Bree, that we see her life from her perspective.
It managed to be illuminating, very funny and genuinely moving. Often all at the same time. It was hard not to feel for Bree as she navigated hostile reactions from everyone, especially her own family while trying to keep the secret from her son.
The ending was well-judged. Hardly 'happy-ever-after' but still upbeat and positive. There was also a healthy amount of gratuitous nudity, which is always a bonus. 8.
Sterne - 23rd March 2006
The Cornerhouse was showing this as part of a series of Konrad Wolf films. I don't know much about his films, or indeed the films of the GDR (East Germany) so I thought I'd go along. It was introduced by someone from the Goethe Institute and was extremely interesting.
This film was made in 1959, a co-production between the GDR and Bulgaria, and it was interesting to see the attitude towards the Holocaust from an East German perspective. It dealt with a Nazi officer in Bulgaria in charge of a detention centre for Jews before being sent to Auschwitz. He falls in love with a Jewish woman and tries to save her from being sent away.
Of course there are better films about the Holocaust; what was special about this film was its portrayal of two different German officers. Note the contrast between the main character Walter, who was presented as extremely compassionate and disapproving of the inhuman treatment of the Jews, and his fellow officer, who was more concerned with drink, women and material posessions than humanity. This can be read as metaphor for the two different Germanies and if so, it seems that Wolf was absolving the East Germans from any responsibility for the Endloesung. Maybe I am over-simplifying things, but that was something I thought while watching it. Walter even co-operates to provide the communist resistance movement with weapons.
It was mentioned that some of the effects used by Wolf in this film, although seeming old-hat to a modern audience, were quite original and inventive in their day. Some of the editing and other effects were something different from other films of that period and it was indeed a well-made film. It's difficult to rate this in comparison with modern films, so I won't. I did enjoy it, as a film as well as because of its significance from an historical perspective.
This film was made in 1959, a co-production between the GDR and Bulgaria, and it was interesting to see the attitude towards the Holocaust from an East German perspective. It dealt with a Nazi officer in Bulgaria in charge of a detention centre for Jews before being sent to Auschwitz. He falls in love with a Jewish woman and tries to save her from being sent away.
Of course there are better films about the Holocaust; what was special about this film was its portrayal of two different German officers. Note the contrast between the main character Walter, who was presented as extremely compassionate and disapproving of the inhuman treatment of the Jews, and his fellow officer, who was more concerned with drink, women and material posessions than humanity. This can be read as metaphor for the two different Germanies and if so, it seems that Wolf was absolving the East Germans from any responsibility for the Endloesung. Maybe I am over-simplifying things, but that was something I thought while watching it. Walter even co-operates to provide the communist resistance movement with weapons.
It was mentioned that some of the effects used by Wolf in this film, although seeming old-hat to a modern audience, were quite original and inventive in their day. Some of the editing and other effects were something different from other films of that period and it was indeed a well-made film. It's difficult to rate this in comparison with modern films, so I won't. I did enjoy it, as a film as well as because of its significance from an historical perspective.
Syriana - 22nd March 2006
Remember a few weeks ago I was talking about films which weren't about much in particular; they had disparate storylines, characters that had no relevance to one another and they just didn't seem to come together in the end? Well this was one of those films.
I think in trying to deal with too much it ended up saying nothing. With little background knowledge about Oil, (which I guessed was kind of the main theme? Was it? If so, Dallas did it so much better), and the political ramifications thereof, I couldn't really keep up with the convoluted plot. Either that, or there wasn't one.
It was just a bit boring and went on for too long (have films started getting longer or has my attention span just got a lot shorter?) The best thing about it was that it featured Dr. Bashir (of DS9 fame). And that was about it. 4.5.
I think in trying to deal with too much it ended up saying nothing. With little background knowledge about Oil, (which I guessed was kind of the main theme? Was it? If so, Dallas did it so much better), and the political ramifications thereof, I couldn't really keep up with the convoluted plot. Either that, or there wasn't one.
It was just a bit boring and went on for too long (have films started getting longer or has my attention span just got a lot shorter?) The best thing about it was that it featured Dr. Bashir (of DS9 fame). And that was about it. 4.5.
Calvaire - 21st March 2006
I wanted to go and see this because I was curious as to what a 'Belgian comedy' - how the film was advertised - would be like. I had a lovely Belgian evening: ate chips with mayonnaise and took a real Belgian waffle to eat in the cinema. I would hesitate to call this a comedy however.
It started off regularly enough. A Belgian cabaret singer, touring round old peoples' homes gets lost and breaks down in some godawful village in the middle of nowhere. In Belgium. The owner of the local inn, which has been all but abandoned, gives him somewhere to stay and for a start it's all rather farcical and a bit Diner de Cons: the innkeeper is a bumbling country bumpkin who doesn't really want Marc the cabaret singer to leave.
The first sign that something is a bit strange is when Marc goes for a walk and stumbles upon the rest of the villagers fucking a pig. At this point I wondered why he just didn't run as far away as possible...
Anyway, he wakes up one morning to find the innkeeper, Bartel, setting fire to his van. When Marc goes outside to stop him the innkeeper knocks him out; when he wakes up he discovers Bartel has tied him up, cut off his hair and dressed him in a dress which used to belong to his wife, who had left him several years ago. Bartel is happy, thinking that his wife Gloria has finally returned and Marc spends the rest of the film covered in dried blood, sobbing.
From then on things get a bit surreal. We see the rest of the villagers in the pub who begin some weird dancing and while Bartel is walking through the forest a group of red anorak'd children appears a la Don't Look Now. In the middle of a freaky Christmas dinner the villagers appear and attack Bartel's house. We assume it is to rescue Marc but they are really intent on capturing 'Gloria', who was apparently carrying on with all of them as well.
Marc manages to escape and thus begins the final scene of him being chased through the snowy forest which is really rather beautiful. At the very end, the last of the villagers chasing Marc almost catches up before he gets caught in a bog. Sinking, he implores 'Gloria' to tell him that she loved him. "Je t'aimais" whispers Marc, as he watches him slowly disappear....
Although it sounds weird (and it was), it was also very enjoyable. It was the surreal touches which made the film, they gave it a nightmarish quality and so it avoided being anything approaching a horror flick. Despite being a complete nutter Bartel was a rather pathetic character at times, which was what made the lurch from farce into nightmare all the more terrifying.
The scary thing is I deal with Belgians every day at work. I haven't been able to think of them in the same way since. 7.
It started off regularly enough. A Belgian cabaret singer, touring round old peoples' homes gets lost and breaks down in some godawful village in the middle of nowhere. In Belgium. The owner of the local inn, which has been all but abandoned, gives him somewhere to stay and for a start it's all rather farcical and a bit Diner de Cons: the innkeeper is a bumbling country bumpkin who doesn't really want Marc the cabaret singer to leave.
The first sign that something is a bit strange is when Marc goes for a walk and stumbles upon the rest of the villagers fucking a pig. At this point I wondered why he just didn't run as far away as possible...
Anyway, he wakes up one morning to find the innkeeper, Bartel, setting fire to his van. When Marc goes outside to stop him the innkeeper knocks him out; when he wakes up he discovers Bartel has tied him up, cut off his hair and dressed him in a dress which used to belong to his wife, who had left him several years ago. Bartel is happy, thinking that his wife Gloria has finally returned and Marc spends the rest of the film covered in dried blood, sobbing.
From then on things get a bit surreal. We see the rest of the villagers in the pub who begin some weird dancing and while Bartel is walking through the forest a group of red anorak'd children appears a la Don't Look Now. In the middle of a freaky Christmas dinner the villagers appear and attack Bartel's house. We assume it is to rescue Marc but they are really intent on capturing 'Gloria', who was apparently carrying on with all of them as well.
Marc manages to escape and thus begins the final scene of him being chased through the snowy forest which is really rather beautiful. At the very end, the last of the villagers chasing Marc almost catches up before he gets caught in a bog. Sinking, he implores 'Gloria' to tell him that she loved him. "Je t'aimais" whispers Marc, as he watches him slowly disappear....
Although it sounds weird (and it was), it was also very enjoyable. It was the surreal touches which made the film, they gave it a nightmarish quality and so it avoided being anything approaching a horror flick. Despite being a complete nutter Bartel was a rather pathetic character at times, which was what made the lurch from farce into nightmare all the more terrifying.
The scary thing is I deal with Belgians every day at work. I haven't been able to think of them in the same way since. 7.
Capote - 8th March 2006
I did enjoy this film, although I am not entirely sure why. Once again it was a film in which nothing much really happened. The plot development was slow and there were whole swathes of nothing going on.
I think what made the film was Philip Seymour Hoffman. Whatever was happening, his portrayal of the deeply contradictory character of Capote was completely captivating. For once I approve of this Oscar winner, I definitely think he deserved it.
The scene towards the end, when Perry Smith is to be hanged, is actually quite chilling. As indeed is Capote's nonchalance towards him and the ease with which he lies to everyone.
This was a so-so film that really hung on Hoffman's portrayal of this deeply flawed man: 6.
I think what made the film was Philip Seymour Hoffman. Whatever was happening, his portrayal of the deeply contradictory character of Capote was completely captivating. For once I approve of this Oscar winner, I definitely think he deserved it.
The scene towards the end, when Perry Smith is to be hanged, is actually quite chilling. As indeed is Capote's nonchalance towards him and the ease with which he lies to everyone.
This was a so-so film that really hung on Hoffman's portrayal of this deeply flawed man: 6.
Good Night and Good Luck - 22nd February 2006
Unfortunately I fell asleep for a good while during this film. It wasn't a comment on the film itself; I was very, very tired and it was difficult to stay awake with the soundtrack of easy listening jazz and a man with a very soothing voice saying "good night and sweet dreams" (or something like that) every 15 minutes.
However, it wasn't particularly thrilling. The plot, as far as I could make it out, seemed to be rather slow. Since I didn't really have much of a background knowledge of the whole McCarthy witch hunt era I perhaps wasn't aware of the significance of some of the developments. I could see the film was making a few important points but they kind of got lost for me amidst everything.
The black and white was a nice touch to give it a real feel of that era, as did the constant smoking. It did amaze me how everyone used to smoke incessantly on TV. It was nice enough, but I left the cinema distinctly underwhelmed and a little bit worried I'd been snoring throughout. 4.5
However, it wasn't particularly thrilling. The plot, as far as I could make it out, seemed to be rather slow. Since I didn't really have much of a background knowledge of the whole McCarthy witch hunt era I perhaps wasn't aware of the significance of some of the developments. I could see the film was making a few important points but they kind of got lost for me amidst everything.
The black and white was a nice touch to give it a real feel of that era, as did the constant smoking. It did amaze me how everyone used to smoke incessantly on TV. It was nice enough, but I left the cinema distinctly underwhelmed and a little bit worried I'd been snoring throughout. 4.5
Walk the Line - 15th February 2006
Ho hum. I have not much to say about this film. I found it pretty boring from beginning to end. It was the classic biopic of someone making it big from their smalltown roots, messing it all up with addiction and then finally finding saviour in the love of a good woman.
It probably wasn't best that I didn't really care about Johnny Cash and have never been the biggest fan of his music. I wasn't that impressed by Joaquin Phoenix's impersonation and I think it is an absolute travesty that Reese Witherspoon won the Oscar for this when there were much, much stronger performances nominated; by this I mean Felicity Huffman (see Transamerica review, coming soon.)
I was not in the least impressed. And it went on for too long. 3.5
It probably wasn't best that I didn't really care about Johnny Cash and have never been the biggest fan of his music. I wasn't that impressed by Joaquin Phoenix's impersonation and I think it is an absolute travesty that Reese Witherspoon won the Oscar for this when there were much, much stronger performances nominated; by this I mean Felicity Huffman (see Transamerica review, coming soon.)
I was not in the least impressed. And it went on for too long. 3.5
Monday, May 01, 2006
Munich - 8th February 2006
To be honest, I was expecting something a lot more one-dimensional; a lot more 'Hollywood', from Monsieur Spielberg. Maybe I was doing him a discredit, as the film managed to be extremely engaging, mostly since it let the viewer make up his or her own mind.
Now I didn't really know much about this specific incident. Of course that wasn't really necessary, it wasn't a film about one incident and its aftermath but the enormous grey area that exists within the realms of nationalism, religion and revenge. And naturally, although the film was set in the 1970s, the above themes are oh so relevant in today's world.
It was a rather brave choice to portray a terrorist as the main character, and such a sympathetic one as well. Eric Bana was almost an Everyman (note the wife and kid, to remind us he was just a normal bloke) and never seemed particularly fervent in his belief or his mission; he was always able to coolly and calmly rationalise his actions. This goes against the tendancy of some to characterise terrorists as half-crazed fundamentalists.
I particularly liked the way with which the actual Munich incident was dealt. It was neutral, we had no character as a point of reference. We learnt what was happening mostly through actual TV footage, which made it all the more chilling and could be seen as an acute commentary on the sensational reporting of war. Quite amusing when one of the terrorists, after seeing himself on TV, exclaimed 'Hey, we're movie stars', or something similar.
Despite all the deep stuff, Munich could equally be enjoyed as a traditional action movie. It moved along quickly, each separate bombing was carefully planned and executed and it was all pretty exciting stuff. As the film went on, however, and our main character got more and more disillusioned with his mission, the narrative jumped around a bit more. Great swathes of time passed without any comment. People died and were replaced, the never-ending vicious circle of revenge was being brought into question...
However, it went on about half an hour too long. They should have ended the film with our man being debriefed, emotionless, in that blinding white light. Instead he went to New York, had some dinner, went for a walk and arsed around for what seemed no point whatsoever.
I also enjoyed the fact it had Manni in it off of Lola Rennt.
It gets points for exceeding my expectations and actually being quite intelligent without being sanctimonious. However it loses some for going on too long and dragging a lot towards the end. So: 7.
Now I didn't really know much about this specific incident. Of course that wasn't really necessary, it wasn't a film about one incident and its aftermath but the enormous grey area that exists within the realms of nationalism, religion and revenge. And naturally, although the film was set in the 1970s, the above themes are oh so relevant in today's world.
It was a rather brave choice to portray a terrorist as the main character, and such a sympathetic one as well. Eric Bana was almost an Everyman (note the wife and kid, to remind us he was just a normal bloke) and never seemed particularly fervent in his belief or his mission; he was always able to coolly and calmly rationalise his actions. This goes against the tendancy of some to characterise terrorists as half-crazed fundamentalists.
I particularly liked the way with which the actual Munich incident was dealt. It was neutral, we had no character as a point of reference. We learnt what was happening mostly through actual TV footage, which made it all the more chilling and could be seen as an acute commentary on the sensational reporting of war. Quite amusing when one of the terrorists, after seeing himself on TV, exclaimed 'Hey, we're movie stars', or something similar.
Despite all the deep stuff, Munich could equally be enjoyed as a traditional action movie. It moved along quickly, each separate bombing was carefully planned and executed and it was all pretty exciting stuff. As the film went on, however, and our main character got more and more disillusioned with his mission, the narrative jumped around a bit more. Great swathes of time passed without any comment. People died and were replaced, the never-ending vicious circle of revenge was being brought into question...
However, it went on about half an hour too long. They should have ended the film with our man being debriefed, emotionless, in that blinding white light. Instead he went to New York, had some dinner, went for a walk and arsed around for what seemed no point whatsoever.
I also enjoyed the fact it had Manni in it off of Lola Rennt.
It gets points for exceeding my expectations and actually being quite intelligent without being sanctimonious. However it loses some for going on too long and dragging a lot towards the end. So: 7.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
A Cock and Bull Story - 1st February 2006
This was supposedly an attempt to film the "unfilmable" novel The Life and Times of Tristram Shandy. Although it almost completely ignored the plot of the book (such as it is); It was a film about making a film of the book - terribly post-modern - and I guess it stayed true to the novel's spirit.
Now, I haven't actually read Tristram Shandy. Fortunately the Guardian did a little piece about the importance of the book and its unfilmability a few months beforehand, so I kind of knew what to expect. As the book deals with Tristram Shandy writing a book about his life and portraying 'himself' as a deeply flawed character, so the film deals with a group of people making a film about the book of Tristram Shandy's life, the main actors playing caricatures of 'themselves' as deeply flawed characters.
It was quite difficult to dislike, as any criticism that could be levelled at this film (mainly its self-indulgence, as well as lack of any consistent narrative), could be seen as knowing references to the style of the book itself. That said, some parts did drag on and the continued irreverance sometimes became tiring.
Some of it, however, was genuinely very funny, particularly the excerpts from the Tristram Shandy film itself, and Steve Coogan, Rob Brydon et al are always delightful to watch. Now, there are a lot of films, like this one, which eschew a traditional plot and aren't really about anything. Some of these just don't come together at the end (see Magnolia, Lost In Translation & Crash, amongst others) and some do, I can't really explain it. This one did, however. I did enjoy it: gets 7.
Now, I haven't actually read Tristram Shandy. Fortunately the Guardian did a little piece about the importance of the book and its unfilmability a few months beforehand, so I kind of knew what to expect. As the book deals with Tristram Shandy writing a book about his life and portraying 'himself' as a deeply flawed character, so the film deals with a group of people making a film about the book of Tristram Shandy's life, the main actors playing caricatures of 'themselves' as deeply flawed characters.
It was quite difficult to dislike, as any criticism that could be levelled at this film (mainly its self-indulgence, as well as lack of any consistent narrative), could be seen as knowing references to the style of the book itself. That said, some parts did drag on and the continued irreverance sometimes became tiring.
Some of it, however, was genuinely very funny, particularly the excerpts from the Tristram Shandy film itself, and Steve Coogan, Rob Brydon et al are always delightful to watch. Now, there are a lot of films, like this one, which eschew a traditional plot and aren't really about anything. Some of these just don't come together at the end (see Magnolia, Lost In Translation & Crash, amongst others) and some do, I can't really explain it. This one did, however. I did enjoy it: gets 7.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Jarhead - 25th January
I have to say I am not a fan of War Films. I can quite happily watch them, it's just I have difficulty relating to the whole macho world on which they are based.
It had all the usual bits of a war film - the training scenes (which were done to perfection in Full Metal Jacket, so why even bother?) and then the War, in which nothing really happens. But then, like with most war films, nothing ever happening was kind of the point... (Nichts Neues im Westen as a prime example.)
I don't really think it was supposed to 'say' much about the concept of war in general or even the Gulf War specifically. If it was I must have missed it, all I remember is the beautiful shots of endless desert and the bizarreness of it all: the shock of seeing any other people for the first time and the beautifully surreal scenes of walking through the raining oil.
I guess instead of being a commentary on War, Jarhead gave a more personal view of what it is to be a soldier. One thing I did notice was the bright, sharp, immediacy of the picture during the time in the desert, even when nothing was going on; compared with the dull, anaesthetised, almost insignificant views of life back on civvy street.
Jarhead was nice to watch for a few hours, it did annoy me a little how much importance was put upon Jake Gyllenhaal's girlfriend leaving him, it almost felt like it was the centre of the film. But apart from that, and the fact I'm not the biggest fan ever of War Films, I did enjoy it. It gets a 7
It had all the usual bits of a war film - the training scenes (which were done to perfection in Full Metal Jacket, so why even bother?) and then the War, in which nothing really happens. But then, like with most war films, nothing ever happening was kind of the point... (Nichts Neues im Westen as a prime example.)
I don't really think it was supposed to 'say' much about the concept of war in general or even the Gulf War specifically. If it was I must have missed it, all I remember is the beautiful shots of endless desert and the bizarreness of it all: the shock of seeing any other people for the first time and the beautifully surreal scenes of walking through the raining oil.
I guess instead of being a commentary on War, Jarhead gave a more personal view of what it is to be a soldier. One thing I did notice was the bright, sharp, immediacy of the picture during the time in the desert, even when nothing was going on; compared with the dull, anaesthetised, almost insignificant views of life back on civvy street.
Jarhead was nice to watch for a few hours, it did annoy me a little how much importance was put upon Jake Gyllenhaal's girlfriend leaving him, it almost felt like it was the centre of the film. But apart from that, and the fact I'm not the biggest fan ever of War Films, I did enjoy it. It gets a 7
Saturday, April 22, 2006
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe - 18th January 2006
In the interest of balance, the week after Brokeback Mountain we went to see a film beloved by the Christian Right. And I can see why. I think the reason I has such problems with the film was that I had read too many reviews and articles about C.S. Lewis beforehand and so had a head full of pre-conceptions about the sermonising religiosity of the film.
I suppose the question with which I struggled, was whether a film version of a book should stay true to all its underlying political, religious and social ideology. If the answer was yes then The Chronicles of Narnia... did a good job. I did, however, find all the Jesus stuff hard to swallow and took exception to some of the stuff it was preaching which seemed to be at odds with accepted modern values.
I think it was the some of the stuff I'd read, but I couldn't help noticing the kind of white superiority message and underlying misogyny of the film. Also something which I don't think was in the book was the glorification of war and fighting. I suppose it would have been acceptable if this had been an exclusively fantasy battle but there were obvious parallels between the battle for Narnia & WWII, which seemed to me to be decidedly dodgy. Also: it's supposed to be for kids! You can accuse rap vidoes of glorifying violence but when Father Christmas appears handing out weapons of war to kids something seems to be a bit wrong. Or maybe it's just me.
On the plus side it was a very pretty film, everything looked nice. The battle scenes were lovely to watch with a nice mix of mythical creatures. One thing I didn't understand was the arbitary division of animals between Good and Evil. (Why were the tigers Good and leopards Evil?) It set me thinking about which side different animals would be on (are giraffes Good or Evil? What about sloths?) so didn't pay much attention to the end of the film.
The kids were annoying and impossibly twee, Tilda Swinton was good but I couldn't get over her weird dress and Steve off of Shameless was fantastic as Mr Tumnus. Probably the best thing in the film.
So, it was alright to watch for a few hours but did annoy me a bit. Also, nothing could compare to the low-budget BBC series from the 80s, watched with child-like ignorance of the underlying, frankly quite dodgy, ideology. It gets 5
I suppose the question with which I struggled, was whether a film version of a book should stay true to all its underlying political, religious and social ideology. If the answer was yes then The Chronicles of Narnia... did a good job. I did, however, find all the Jesus stuff hard to swallow and took exception to some of the stuff it was preaching which seemed to be at odds with accepted modern values.
I think it was the some of the stuff I'd read, but I couldn't help noticing the kind of white superiority message and underlying misogyny of the film. Also something which I don't think was in the book was the glorification of war and fighting. I suppose it would have been acceptable if this had been an exclusively fantasy battle but there were obvious parallels between the battle for Narnia & WWII, which seemed to me to be decidedly dodgy. Also: it's supposed to be for kids! You can accuse rap vidoes of glorifying violence but when Father Christmas appears handing out weapons of war to kids something seems to be a bit wrong. Or maybe it's just me.
On the plus side it was a very pretty film, everything looked nice. The battle scenes were lovely to watch with a nice mix of mythical creatures. One thing I didn't understand was the arbitary division of animals between Good and Evil. (Why were the tigers Good and leopards Evil?) It set me thinking about which side different animals would be on (are giraffes Good or Evil? What about sloths?) so didn't pay much attention to the end of the film.
The kids were annoying and impossibly twee, Tilda Swinton was good but I couldn't get over her weird dress and Steve off of Shameless was fantastic as Mr Tumnus. Probably the best thing in the film.
So, it was alright to watch for a few hours but did annoy me a bit. Also, nothing could compare to the low-budget BBC series from the 80s, watched with child-like ignorance of the underlying, frankly quite dodgy, ideology. It gets 5
Brokeback Mountain - 7th & 11th January 2006
First of all I cannot believe this did not win Best Picture at the Oscars. As a film it was a thousand times better than Crash, which I found confused and irritating.
Despite all the hype & controversy, Brokeback Mountain is not a "gay cowboy" film, it is a love story in its purest sense, one that was beautifully written, acted & shot; I think this will remain one of my favourite films of the year.
I went to go and see this twice and very almost cried both times. The only reason I managed to stop myself was that if I'd have started, I would have been blubbing all the way home on the train. This was especially the case during the second viewing, when I knew what was going to happen, and was all the more aware of the overwhelming sense of despair that is present throughout the film.
For it is not only the film's (perhaps inevitable) conclusion that is so tear-inducing. From the moment the cowboys are forced to leave the peaceful idyll of Brokeback Mountain and begin to lead "normal" lives, away from each other, there is an ever-growing sense of despair and injustice. All the time they spend trapped within the confines of family, work, normal society; is time they are spending away from each other in unhappiness. Even the time on the mountain is tinged with sadness: the ephemeral nature of their happiness is all too apparent. You know that it will not and cannot last forever.
This is why Brokeback Mountain is not a "gay" film. It is a story of two people struggling against society's (and their own) pre-conceptions. The path of true love... and all that. It's important that the two cowboys are very much your typical, macho cowboys and not presented in the least as effeminate or camp, which would have rendered the movie farcical.
This love that dare not speak its name (or even be mumbled by Heath Ledger) was shown to be pure and natural, much more so than the artificial and sterile "civilised" society it contrasts with. Just compare the breath-takingly beautiful shots of the mountains whenever the two cowboys are together, with the claustrophobic, dreary and plain ugly shots of the towns and houses where the two cowboys live. The mountain's colours are so bright and sharp whereas the tones used for the scenes of civilised society are either dull sepia or horribly garish. Take, for example, the final scene (I think) with Heath in his tiny, dirty brown caravan. Framed in the window are the beautifully green mountains against a clear blue sky, perhaps representing hope for the future, and a lovely theme on which to end the film.
I think it is a sign of the moving and provocative nature of the film that even thinking about this it, several days later, sat in work, brought a tear to my eye.
I understand that it may seem a little slow in parts and it is only for this reason it doesn't score higher. My first film of the year gets 8.5.
Despite all the hype & controversy, Brokeback Mountain is not a "gay cowboy" film, it is a love story in its purest sense, one that was beautifully written, acted & shot; I think this will remain one of my favourite films of the year.
I went to go and see this twice and very almost cried both times. The only reason I managed to stop myself was that if I'd have started, I would have been blubbing all the way home on the train. This was especially the case during the second viewing, when I knew what was going to happen, and was all the more aware of the overwhelming sense of despair that is present throughout the film.
For it is not only the film's (perhaps inevitable) conclusion that is so tear-inducing. From the moment the cowboys are forced to leave the peaceful idyll of Brokeback Mountain and begin to lead "normal" lives, away from each other, there is an ever-growing sense of despair and injustice. All the time they spend trapped within the confines of family, work, normal society; is time they are spending away from each other in unhappiness. Even the time on the mountain is tinged with sadness: the ephemeral nature of their happiness is all too apparent. You know that it will not and cannot last forever.
This is why Brokeback Mountain is not a "gay" film. It is a story of two people struggling against society's (and their own) pre-conceptions. The path of true love... and all that. It's important that the two cowboys are very much your typical, macho cowboys and not presented in the least as effeminate or camp, which would have rendered the movie farcical.
This love that dare not speak its name (or even be mumbled by Heath Ledger) was shown to be pure and natural, much more so than the artificial and sterile "civilised" society it contrasts with. Just compare the breath-takingly beautiful shots of the mountains whenever the two cowboys are together, with the claustrophobic, dreary and plain ugly shots of the towns and houses where the two cowboys live. The mountain's colours are so bright and sharp whereas the tones used for the scenes of civilised society are either dull sepia or horribly garish. Take, for example, the final scene (I think) with Heath in his tiny, dirty brown caravan. Framed in the window are the beautifully green mountains against a clear blue sky, perhaps representing hope for the future, and a lovely theme on which to end the film.
I think it is a sign of the moving and provocative nature of the film that even thinking about this it, several days later, sat in work, brought a tear to my eye.
I understand that it may seem a little slow in parts and it is only for this reason it doesn't score higher. My first film of the year gets 8.5.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Welcome to Kinoland
Taking inspiration from my good friend cinemafool I have decided it is time for the world to hear what I have to say about our weekly cinema trips. And maybe it will stop her stealing my ideas... Since I've clocked up fifteen films this year, expect a quick recap of each film: not sure if I remember them very well but here we go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)