Inside Llewyn Davis
SPOILER FREE
I have to say this one was a bit of a mystery to me. It's left me feeling like it was a sub-par Barton Fink with Oh Brother Where Art Thou? music and occasional Odyssey nods.
The funny thing is that it's far from a bad film.
The script is great and peppered with a drier than sand sense of humour, performed exceptionally well by Oscar Isaac, John Goodman and most of the supporting cast and not so well by a bland, always miserable Carey Mulligan and a silly Justin Timberlake (both in, relatively, tiny roles), it looks beautiful, is, of course, directed perfectly and the music is sublime.
The story, such as it is, is simply a series of mishaps, both self created and "acts of god", that befall a poor folk musician in 60s New York, his ginger cat and the crazy cast of Coen-esque characters he, of course, meets along the way. There's lots to love in the film and as a portrait of a time, a place and a music it's fine but as anything deeper or better I am simply not sure. I know people will probably read all sorts of stuff into it and get their own interpretation and I know I need to watch it at least two more times to probably fully absorb it but I can't say on this initial viewing that it left me feeling like it was anything special and that's despite the dilemma and depression experienced by the central character resonating really strongly with me right now.
Definitely worth the watch but you know the Coens could do better and for all the serious tone, moody cinematography and allusions to something deeper, something better, this just feels like a place holder and a greatest hits of their recent work but the Coens spinning their wheels is still more fascinating than most film-makers giving 100%
7 out of 10
I have to say this one was a bit of a mystery to me. It's left me feeling like it was a sub-par Barton Fink with Oh Brother Where Art Thou? music and occasional Odyssey nods.
The funny thing is that it's far from a bad film.
The script is great and peppered with a drier than sand sense of humour, performed exceptionally well by Oscar Isaac, John Goodman and most of the supporting cast and not so well by a bland, always miserable Carey Mulligan and a silly Justin Timberlake (both in, relatively, tiny roles), it looks beautiful, is, of course, directed perfectly and the music is sublime.
The story, such as it is, is simply a series of mishaps, both self created and "acts of god", that befall a poor folk musician in 60s New York, his ginger cat and the crazy cast of Coen-esque characters he, of course, meets along the way. There's lots to love in the film and as a portrait of a time, a place and a music it's fine but as anything deeper or better I am simply not sure. I know people will probably read all sorts of stuff into it and get their own interpretation and I know I need to watch it at least two more times to probably fully absorb it but I can't say on this initial viewing that it left me feeling like it was anything special and that's despite the dilemma and depression experienced by the central character resonating really strongly with me right now.
Definitely worth the watch but you know the Coens could do better and for all the serious tone, moody cinematography and allusions to something deeper, something better, this just feels like a place holder and a greatest hits of their recent work but the Coens spinning their wheels is still more fascinating than most film-makers giving 100%
7 out of 10
American Hustle
SPOILER FREE
A comedic caper with a Martin Scorsese 'Casino' like sensibility and, similarly, a kick ass period soundtrack.
I can't say that I 100% embraced American Hustle the way I did Silver Linings Playbook but the acting is always watchable, the fashions and hair suitably over the top and ridiculous and the script pretty strong. I get the feeling I will enjoy it more a second time.
I felt like it meandered too much, didn't have terrific focus and I thought that Jeremy Renner, while fine, was too young for the role. The impact of his position in the plot I felt through Bale's reactions rather than anything, actually, that Renner did. I thought Jennifer Laurence was good but not completely confident or assured in the role and very often I could see her "acting". It's difficult to shake the fact that Christian Bale, as marvellous as he is in the film, is 'doing' Robert De Niro which gets really confusing and weird when De Niro, himself, shows up for a brief cameo half-way through. Amy Adams is good in all but accent which wavers everywhere. The plot involves her putting on the performance of that of an English lady but her English accent is not defined enough to be English and her American accent isn't strong enough to be clear who she is and what she's doing. This is only a problem in as far as the fact there is a plot point and a reveal that sort of hinges on you being able to tell the difference. Lastly Bradley Cooper is tremendous in the movie, none more so than, in one scene, doing a perfect, physical impression of a surprising and awesome Louis C.K. character. Cooper clearly has hidden talents and is fast becoming O. Russel's De Niro (or DiCaprio to bring it up to date) with him doing, by far, his best work with the Director. I hope they have a long fruitful partnership, I could watch their stuff once a year, no problem.
The plot is all very well and dragged out a bit but the genius of the film is in its character portrayal and in its dark, a lost Coen-esque sense of humour. It doesn't always balance this well with the drama though and it makes a bit light of a situation we're meant to feel rising danger in and the tone is a bit all over the place, to be honest. In parts Broadway Danny Rose and in other parts Casino.
The ending, too, isn't exactly A) a shock B) explained clearly and C) gripping enough to let you walk from the cinema thinking you've seen a great con man caper.
Also, the film, like almost all films these days is 20mins too long.
That being said, however, there is great performances, clever writing and fun, assured direction to enjoy. No words on whether O Russell is still being a massive cock on set though, I like to think not.
No real strong complaints, just not the unmitigated work of genius some would have you believe.
Thinking about it again it's like the Coen brothers seen through the eyes of Scorsese but not as successful as that sounds, still a damn good effort though.
7.5 out of 10
A comedic caper with a Martin Scorsese 'Casino' like sensibility and, similarly, a kick ass period soundtrack.
I can't say that I 100% embraced American Hustle the way I did Silver Linings Playbook but the acting is always watchable, the fashions and hair suitably over the top and ridiculous and the script pretty strong. I get the feeling I will enjoy it more a second time.
I felt like it meandered too much, didn't have terrific focus and I thought that Jeremy Renner, while fine, was too young for the role. The impact of his position in the plot I felt through Bale's reactions rather than anything, actually, that Renner did. I thought Jennifer Laurence was good but not completely confident or assured in the role and very often I could see her "acting". It's difficult to shake the fact that Christian Bale, as marvellous as he is in the film, is 'doing' Robert De Niro which gets really confusing and weird when De Niro, himself, shows up for a brief cameo half-way through. Amy Adams is good in all but accent which wavers everywhere. The plot involves her putting on the performance of that of an English lady but her English accent is not defined enough to be English and her American accent isn't strong enough to be clear who she is and what she's doing. This is only a problem in as far as the fact there is a plot point and a reveal that sort of hinges on you being able to tell the difference. Lastly Bradley Cooper is tremendous in the movie, none more so than, in one scene, doing a perfect, physical impression of a surprising and awesome Louis C.K. character. Cooper clearly has hidden talents and is fast becoming O. Russel's De Niro (or DiCaprio to bring it up to date) with him doing, by far, his best work with the Director. I hope they have a long fruitful partnership, I could watch their stuff once a year, no problem.
The plot is all very well and dragged out a bit but the genius of the film is in its character portrayal and in its dark, a lost Coen-esque sense of humour. It doesn't always balance this well with the drama though and it makes a bit light of a situation we're meant to feel rising danger in and the tone is a bit all over the place, to be honest. In parts Broadway Danny Rose and in other parts Casino.
The ending, too, isn't exactly A) a shock B) explained clearly and C) gripping enough to let you walk from the cinema thinking you've seen a great con man caper.
Also, the film, like almost all films these days is 20mins too long.
That being said, however, there is great performances, clever writing and fun, assured direction to enjoy. No words on whether O Russell is still being a massive cock on set though, I like to think not.
No real strong complaints, just not the unmitigated work of genius some would have you believe.
Thinking about it again it's like the Coen brothers seen through the eyes of Scorsese but not as successful as that sounds, still a damn good effort though.
7.5 out of 10
Broken Circle Breakdown
Belgians, Bluegrass, Beards, Tattoos, Child Cancer, Marriage, Death, Birth, Life, Sex, Religion, Science, Politics, America, Birds, Stars and Suicide. The Broken Circle Breakdown is about all this and more.
It's a phenomenal, brilliant, difficult, depressing, heart warming and joyously musical movie from Belgium by writer/director Felix Van Groeningen starring the supremely talented Johan Heldenbergh and Veerle Baetens.
Johan Heldenbergh was also a co-writer of and performer in the original stage play The Broken Circle Breakdown Featuring the Cover-Ups of Alabama and even learned to play guitar, mandolin and banjo to perform the lead role of Didier who is fascinated by America and bluegrass music.
The film tells the tragic story of Didier, the bearded bluegrass fanatic and passionate atheist, Elise/Alabama the head strong, mysterious, confused, emotional, sexy and lost tattoo shop owner and Maybelle their doomed daughter.
The film chronicles their lives together, through the good and the bad, in a nonlinear narrative. The emotions involved and the relevant life moments, though, flow in a perfectly understandable and pleasing way. It's not unlike someone, sat round a table, telling you their life story. It wouldn't go from start to finish, there would be moments where they'd have to go back and fill in the blanks for you, that's the nature of this film.
The characters meet, fall in love, find joy, get pregnant, face that hurdle, have a child, suffer that child getting leukaemia and passing away and then the rest of the film shows how both Didier and Elise handle that while also taking time to cover the religious, spiritual, political and scientific ramifications of that. Didier is thrown more passionately into his steadfast belief in science and the political, religious fundamentalists who would block its exploration, while also desperately, emotionally and lovingly trying to keep his marriage and music together and Elise begins to find beauty and solace in notions of re-incarnation or the spiritual realm but also retreats from a situation she sees no remedy to and slowly, tragically abandons everything.
Interspersed through all this tough life stuff is some of the most exquisite live performance of bluegrass, country and Americana roots music by a brilliant team of bearded Belgians. It's one of the best movie soundtracks of this kind, in my humble opinion, this side of O Brother, Where Art Thou?
The director, Felix Van Groeningen, explains the inclusion of the music this way:
"Didier and Elise play in a bluegrass band and that is no accident. Bluegrass is integrated in a variety of ways into the story and forms the intrinsic link between all the main issues that appear in the film"
"We have tried to let the songs find their spot in the scenario in a more organised manner and by doing so, give them the greatest possible dramatic impact. Sometime a song is purely narrative and helps to tell the story... In other places, we select a given song because it underpins the emotions."
The music, overseen and, very often, written originally by Bjorn Eriksson is most definitely the soul of this film and where it really hits its stride in terms of displaying truth, beauty and raw emotion. The whole film could've been dialogue free and told in just that incredible series of performances such is the skill of the actors and musicians. It helps immensely that the two leads perform the songs themselves and so can imbue them with the emotional journey their character is taking.
During the rendition of 'Will the Circle Be Unbroken' We see attraction, amazement and the first flickers of love in Elise's face from the audience.
During "Cowboy" Didier connects with Elise, shows off, struts, feels confident and she responds with excitement, awe and lust.
During "Boy Who Wouldn't Hoe Corn", shown in a fantastic montage that goes from Didier practicing in the caravan, passed a beautifully photographed, fireside hoedown and up to the point when Elise finally joins her man on stage, you see her blossom and Didier unable to believe his luck. You even see the band buoyed and pushed forward by the way everything is gelling.
The band performing "In the jungle" to a returning home but sick Maybelle is as joyous as it is heart wrenching.
Elise's solo performance of "Wayfaring Stranger" is so powerful and perfect that it doesn't really need the intercut images of poor Maybelle's fate, as everything is on Veerle Baetens' face and in the words of the song.
This continues throughout the film with everyone hitting the right facial expression, hand gesture, camera movement and edit so as to make the emotions utterly raw and believable in a way that only the combination of great direction, editing, performance, music and film can.
In what might be one of the most beautiful performances of the entire film, Elise joins Didier and the band on stage one last time to perform a duet version of "If I needed You". It is the point where everything shifts and the two lovers are moving apart, Didier reaching out and Elise retreating. It's so sad, awkward and stunningly simplistic that it tells you all you need to know about the character's hearts.
These musical interludes and their deep, clever, subtle storytelling are not, in any way, too obvious, mawkish, sentimental, over wrought or manipulative. They are woven so perfectly into the broken narrative that they enhance the journey you're on with the cast.
It helps, of course, that I am already a fan of this music and it helps too that the film is photographed, directed and edited in such a wonderful way as to make even the slightest nod of a head, or the move of a hand poetic and rich.
The colours, the grain, the lighting, the sound and the shots are so full of detail, texture, shadow as to both be seemingly realistic, you can feel the warm fire in a cold farm house, and utterly artistic, vibrant and clearly a movie.
It's a phenomenal, brilliant, difficult, depressing, heart warming and joyously musical movie from Belgium by writer/director Felix Van Groeningen starring the supremely talented Johan Heldenbergh and Veerle Baetens.
Johan Heldenbergh was also a co-writer of and performer in the original stage play The Broken Circle Breakdown Featuring the Cover-Ups of Alabama and even learned to play guitar, mandolin and banjo to perform the lead role of Didier who is fascinated by America and bluegrass music.
The film tells the tragic story of Didier, the bearded bluegrass fanatic and passionate atheist, Elise/Alabama the head strong, mysterious, confused, emotional, sexy and lost tattoo shop owner and Maybelle their doomed daughter.
The film chronicles their lives together, through the good and the bad, in a nonlinear narrative. The emotions involved and the relevant life moments, though, flow in a perfectly understandable and pleasing way. It's not unlike someone, sat round a table, telling you their life story. It wouldn't go from start to finish, there would be moments where they'd have to go back and fill in the blanks for you, that's the nature of this film.
Interspersed through all this tough life stuff is some of the most exquisite live performance of bluegrass, country and Americana roots music by a brilliant team of bearded Belgians. It's one of the best movie soundtracks of this kind, in my humble opinion, this side of O Brother, Where Art Thou?
The director, Felix Van Groeningen, explains the inclusion of the music this way:
"Didier and Elise play in a bluegrass band and that is no accident. Bluegrass is integrated in a variety of ways into the story and forms the intrinsic link between all the main issues that appear in the film"
"We have tried to let the songs find their spot in the scenario in a more organised manner and by doing so, give them the greatest possible dramatic impact. Sometime a song is purely narrative and helps to tell the story... In other places, we select a given song because it underpins the emotions."
The music, overseen and, very often, written originally by Bjorn Eriksson is most definitely the soul of this film and where it really hits its stride in terms of displaying truth, beauty and raw emotion. The whole film could've been dialogue free and told in just that incredible series of performances such is the skill of the actors and musicians. It helps immensely that the two leads perform the songs themselves and so can imbue them with the emotional journey their character is taking.
During the rendition of 'Will the Circle Be Unbroken' We see attraction, amazement and the first flickers of love in Elise's face from the audience.
During "Cowboy" Didier connects with Elise, shows off, struts, feels confident and she responds with excitement, awe and lust.
During "Boy Who Wouldn't Hoe Corn", shown in a fantastic montage that goes from Didier practicing in the caravan, passed a beautifully photographed, fireside hoedown and up to the point when Elise finally joins her man on stage, you see her blossom and Didier unable to believe his luck. You even see the band buoyed and pushed forward by the way everything is gelling.
The band performing "In the jungle" to a returning home but sick Maybelle is as joyous as it is heart wrenching.
Elise's solo performance of "Wayfaring Stranger" is so powerful and perfect that it doesn't really need the intercut images of poor Maybelle's fate, as everything is on Veerle Baetens' face and in the words of the song.
This continues throughout the film with everyone hitting the right facial expression, hand gesture, camera movement and edit so as to make the emotions utterly raw and believable in a way that only the combination of great direction, editing, performance, music and film can.
In what might be one of the most beautiful performances of the entire film, Elise joins Didier and the band on stage one last time to perform a duet version of "If I needed You". It is the point where everything shifts and the two lovers are moving apart, Didier reaching out and Elise retreating. It's so sad, awkward and stunningly simplistic that it tells you all you need to know about the character's hearts.
These musical interludes and their deep, clever, subtle storytelling are not, in any way, too obvious, mawkish, sentimental, over wrought or manipulative. They are woven so perfectly into the broken narrative that they enhance the journey you're on with the cast.
It helps, of course, that I am already a fan of this music and it helps too that the film is photographed, directed and edited in such a wonderful way as to make even the slightest nod of a head, or the move of a hand poetic and rich.
The colours, the grain, the lighting, the sound and the shots are so full of detail, texture, shadow as to both be seemingly realistic, you can feel the warm fire in a cold farm house, and utterly artistic, vibrant and clearly a movie.
Is it a tough watch, a tad depressing and definitely melodramatic? yes. It wasn't the love story I was expecting by a long shot but whereas other films I have seen are just relentlessly dreary, depressing, slow and devoid of ideas and emotions, Broken Circle Breakdown can be watched over and over again for the depth, detail, performances and ideology it has. Also it's not obvious, simplistic or manipulative of your emotions like a Hollywood film might be.
I took from the film that life is meant to be held on to and fought for, not given up on or run away from and while finding solace in the religious or spiritual is all very well, there is more than enough beauty, mystery, music and reason to keep living, as much as you can, day by day, on earth, no matter how hard it gets. You never know, one day you might be surrounded by awesomely talented, bearded Belgians singing bluegrass... we can all dream, right?
The Broken Circle Breakdown Theatrical Opening Dates:
New York: Sunshine Cinema – opens November 1
Los Angeles: Nuart – opens November 8
Boston: Kendall Square - opens November 15
Washington: E Street - opens November 15
Philadelphia: Ritz Bourse - opens November 15
Irvine: University 6 - opens November 15
San Francisco: Clay Theater – opens November 22
Berekely: Shattuck 10 – opens November 22
San Diego: Ken Cinema – opens November 22
Dallas: Magnolia 5 – opens November 22
Atlanta: Midtown Art – opens December 6
Denver: Chez Artiste – opens December 6
Austin: Arbor 8 – opens December 6
Phoenix: Camelview – opens December 6
Portland: Regal Fox Tower – opens December 6
San Jose: Camera 3 Cinema – opens December 6
Fort Wayne: Cinema Center - opens December 6
Santa Fe: Jean Cocteau - opens December 6
Monterey: Osio Cinemas – opens December 6
Santa Cruz: The Nickelodeon – Opens December 6
Ft Worth: Modern Art Museum – opens December 20
Columbus: Gateway Film Center – opens January 17
Trailer:
The soundtrack can be streamed on Spotify HERE
New York: Sunshine Cinema – opens November 1
Los Angeles: Nuart – opens November 8
Boston: Kendall Square - opens November 15
Washington: E Street - opens November 15
Philadelphia: Ritz Bourse - opens November 15
Irvine: University 6 - opens November 15
San Francisco: Clay Theater – opens November 22
Berekely: Shattuck 10 – opens November 22
San Diego: Ken Cinema – opens November 22
Dallas: Magnolia 5 – opens November 22
Atlanta: Midtown Art – opens December 6
Denver: Chez Artiste – opens December 6
Austin: Arbor 8 – opens December 6
Phoenix: Camelview – opens December 6
Portland: Regal Fox Tower – opens December 6
San Jose: Camera 3 Cinema – opens December 6
Fort Wayne: Cinema Center - opens December 6
Santa Fe: Jean Cocteau - opens December 6
Monterey: Osio Cinemas – opens December 6
Santa Cruz: The Nickelodeon – Opens December 6
Ft Worth: Modern Art Museum – opens December 20
Columbus: Gateway Film Center – opens January 17
Trailer:
The soundtrack can be streamed on Spotify HERE
Profile of a Killer
While it still has some of the welcomed cliches of the serial killer and police procedural drama genres, it also does its best to dispense of them and try something different. The main one being that we, the audience, discover the identity of the killer fairly early on and from that moment the film jumps between FBI agent Rachel Cade (Emily Fradenburgh) trying to track him down and the killer, David (Joey Pollari) instigating a battle of wits with his kidnapped profiler (Gabriele Angieri).
It was apparently intended as a studio project but when financing fell through Tredwell-Owen relocated to Minnesota, got a fantastic, local cast together and a fairly extensive crew, for an indie production, and they all took the project on themselves.
The gamble appears to have paid off as a solid script, some excellent performances, beautifully real cinematography and strong production values has propelled this taught drama onto the big screen across America and onto DVD using a word of mouth, grass roots campaign that continues today with humble blogs like mine receiving screeners and doing reviews.
I am happy to report that this film was well worth the watch. I was impressed by its visual flair. The snowy farm land and freeways of Minnesota, while, of course, conjuring up some favourable comparisons to the Coen Brother's Fargo, also remained feeling very fresh, different and unique to this film. The set dressing and art direction of the farm house, where the majority of the action takes place, is pleasingly run down and filled with texture. It's also lit and shot in an evocative and vibrant way, creating depth and shadow, as well as a sense of unease. You can feel the bone chilling cold and the rough harsh surfaces of this unforgiving building.
The performances prove, once and for all, that you don't need a big name star to present compelling characters on screen. For one half, the film is a riveting two hander between Joey Pollari's David and Gabriele Angieri's Saul. Both actors enthral with their range and ability and even when, in the long second act, the dialogue gets quite complex and wordy, throwing the pacing off somewhat, their acting never wavers for a second and is always impressive to watch.
The other half of the film is focussed on the FBI and local police's attempts to track them both down, lead by Emily Fradenburgh's dedicated and dead pan agent Cade. She is the determined centre of this story and it can be a thankless task because while Fradenburgh's performance is pleasingly assured, serious and earnest, she can, sometimes, lack an emotional core. There are a couple of scenes in the film, a throwaway plot strand about her father and the death of someone close, that maybe could've used some beefing up, so that she could show the wearing affect of her steadfast dedication to the job but those are small complaints overall.
The cast of characters she is surrounded by or interviews are also resoundingly great and you're never thrown from the film because of some unfortunate dialogue delivery that can, sadly, derail even the most well intentioned low budget film.
The writing is strong and the dialogue authentic. The procedural elements of the police work felt real and without the usual over-the-top flashes that TV so often employs. The same can be said for the back and forth dialogue in the farm house. The questions, the actions and the reactions were different from what you'd expect as, usually, they would be ramped up and accompanied by an overly dramatic score but here they play out naturally. This makes these scenes disconcerting as you can't second guess what will happen next, which adds to the tension. The script is definitely clever and never overly stylised.
The film makes excellent use of the budget and it feels like every penny is on screen in the right place. There are authentic police cars, a helicopter, a delivery van and a variety of locations. There are also some nice, gruesome effects and while it's not exactly excessively gory or exploitative, the deaths are uniquely twisted and macabre.
I have to admit that the overly serious tone, pacing and length of the film are not usually my cup of tea. I also found some of the dialogue and drama during the mid section of the film to be a little confusing as I'm not sure I bought strongly into the mental cat and mouse as much as I would've liked. The ending was good though and the ultimate irony well thought out and haunting.
This is definitely a film to track down on-demand or for rent as it really has a lot to offer and projects like this need to be supported.
Purchase on DVD or RENT online
Blue Jasmine
In terms of writing, directing and Cate Blanchett's bravado central performance this is Woody Allen's best film in years.
Lots of people will tell you that he hasn't made a good film since the 80s and box office (and a lot of critics) will tell you Match Point, Vicky Christina Barcelona and Midnight In Paris are his best movies of recent times but I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with both those statements.
I watch every movie he makes, have done, every year, for years and my favourite to put on and watch of his recent period have been Whatever Works and Scoop but recognise he may not have bashed out a truly great film since 1999's Sweet and Lowdown.
You may, at this point, have stopped reading having thrown your hands up in disgust at the fact that I just mentioned, what are considered, two of his weakest films of recent years.
Well, if you have and you feel the rest of this review has no validity because of that then, sorry, I can only assume you are humourless and only believe what is fed to you from the pages of the colour supplements by snooty, strokey chin, attention starved critics which are quick to jump on bandwagons without seemingly really watching the films properly. If that's a snap judgement of who you are then I apologise but stop making snap judgements about me or Woody Allen, for that matter and go back and watch a few of the titles you may have missed. Scoop, for one, is a bit of a missed comedic gem in its own way. Ignore You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger with every fibre of your being as it's worse even than Match Point, which was woeful and while Midnight in Paris may have looked great and appeared, with the cinematography, to be Allen back on form, the writing and the performances were spectacularly lazy. Don't tell the financiers that though, it made a shed ton of money compared to Allen's other output.
With all that said and the usual myths about Allen, that critics are quick to repeat, dispelled let's get back to Blue Jasmine. Blue Jasmine is a Streetcar Named Desire inspired piece about the wife of a financial crook who, after the arrest, trial and the husbands suicide in prison finds herself, practically penniless, having to stay with her adopted sister, who has a much less glamorous lifestyle, in San Francisco.
Jasmine is a woman very accustomed to a certain, high-society, way of life that is unable to accept her situation and refuses to, in both a delusional way by lashing out at others, refusing to give up things like first class air fare and matching luggage and drinking while popping painkillers and antidepressants and in a defiant, noble, almost heroic way by trying to get her life back on track in as many ways possible like attending school, working reception for a dentist and aspiring to be an interior designer. She's also going slowly and sadly mad.
She's a tragic character, a despicable character, a loser character, an inspirational character and a sympathetic character all rolled into one and yes it's Blanchett's unwavering tour de force performance that nails her but it's also Woody's astute, intricate writing and subtle directing that brings her completely to life.
Her sister, played excellently by British actress Sally Hawkins, is a different person altogether. She's working class, engaged to a mechanic, with no prospects and two unruly kids. She is also, in some ways, in awe of her adopted sister and believes strongly that helping her is the right thing to do as family is family, despite a greek chorus of her friends, boyfriend and ex-husband telling her that Jasmine's no good. In fact Ginger, Jasmine's sister, is one of the few characters in the film that actually defends Jasmine and even attempts, unsuccessfully, to emulate her and follow her lead, believing that the grass may, in fact, be greener and if she, as Jasmine prompts, applies herself, she could get more out of life. What the film partially examines is the idea that, is 'more' what she really wants or needs ultimately?
Despite Jasmine never, directly, having a hand in her husband's, Bernie Madoff like, exploits she is seen as culpable in the loss of some lottery winnings that her sister and ex-husband, Augie, invested with Alec Baldwin's white collar crook, Hal. Also there is some question of how much she knew and didn't know of the swindling, that returns throughout the film.
When she had the wealth, a period of her life we see interspersed throughout the film in flashback, she was a horribly selfish and self involved person, no more so than in a sequence where Jasmine sees a trip that sister Ginger and ex-husband Augie, played by the fantastic Andrew Dice Clay (seriously!), take to New York as a horrible imposition to her dinner plans.
It is in these 'before the bubble burst' flashbacks that Allen has any fun with the film, writing the opulent lifestyle and smug, arrogance of the wealthy with a quiet disgust that seeps through every exchange. The rest of the film's tone hovers around more sombre, ultimately doomed Husbands and Wives territory.
The film is not a comedy and although there are some funny bits in there the film is much more of a deep character study, the likes of which we haven't seen from Woody since Hannah and Her Sisters and, the aforementioned, Husbands and Wives. The characters in this are rich, developed, deep and you see each of their own personal dilemmas and can empathise or sympathise with each and every one of them, you can also condemn them just as fast. You watch, helplessly, as a combination of her own, often forgivable, mistakes, her own lies and a cruel-ish outside world impact on Jasmine's life and tear her down off the big steps she's desperately trying to climb up. The film's basic metaphor is that money can't buy you happiness. Jasmine is lost with or without wealth, it's just with money she is able to bury her unhappiness behind cocktail lunches and fine interior furnishings but really she has a philandering, crook husband, fickle friendships and an empire built on quick sand.
The other warning is do not go and see this movie for Louis CK as he is only in it for a very few minutes. It's an odd cameo to be honest. His sequence took me out of the film a little bit. Also the lack of a true comic relief, like Allen's own brilliant turn in Hannah and Her Sisters, to break up the serious side to the film it can grind you down just a little. The flashbacks are supposed to be the, slightly more, frivolous side of the picture but, really, post the financial collapse, it's difficult to do anything but despise these hollow cheats.
There is so much going on in this film and you can read a lot into it. There is also plenty to relate to in any one of the great ensemble of characters. It's not quite the scathing satire on the surface that you want it to be but look a little further into the subtext and its as scathing an attack on the fake wealth and opulence of Wall Street fat cats that you're likely to see.
The writing though, throughout, is fiercely and surprisingly good, the direction, as expected, is assured with an emphasis on simplistic realism and the performances are a little more uneven, but luckily the film focusses on Jasmine and Ginger, with both actresses who portray them being the best things in the film by a mile with Andrew Dice Clay very close behind them.
Apart from a couple of mild later-Woody-Allen style plot contrivances, that don't jar or annoy as much as they had the potential to do in less competent hands, you leave the theatre far from happy, this is a tragedy after all, but also wandering just where the hell THIS Woody Allen has been for so long and who either woke him up or, more exactly, who got him to do a few drafts of the script and get it right.
8 out of 10 very depressing but expertly made cocktails
Lots of people will tell you that he hasn't made a good film since the 80s and box office (and a lot of critics) will tell you Match Point, Vicky Christina Barcelona and Midnight In Paris are his best movies of recent times but I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with both those statements.
I watch every movie he makes, have done, every year, for years and my favourite to put on and watch of his recent period have been Whatever Works and Scoop but recognise he may not have bashed out a truly great film since 1999's Sweet and Lowdown.
You may, at this point, have stopped reading having thrown your hands up in disgust at the fact that I just mentioned, what are considered, two of his weakest films of recent years.
Well, if you have and you feel the rest of this review has no validity because of that then, sorry, I can only assume you are humourless and only believe what is fed to you from the pages of the colour supplements by snooty, strokey chin, attention starved critics which are quick to jump on bandwagons without seemingly really watching the films properly. If that's a snap judgement of who you are then I apologise but stop making snap judgements about me or Woody Allen, for that matter and go back and watch a few of the titles you may have missed. Scoop, for one, is a bit of a missed comedic gem in its own way. Ignore You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger with every fibre of your being as it's worse even than Match Point, which was woeful and while Midnight in Paris may have looked great and appeared, with the cinematography, to be Allen back on form, the writing and the performances were spectacularly lazy. Don't tell the financiers that though, it made a shed ton of money compared to Allen's other output.
With all that said and the usual myths about Allen, that critics are quick to repeat, dispelled let's get back to Blue Jasmine. Blue Jasmine is a Streetcar Named Desire inspired piece about the wife of a financial crook who, after the arrest, trial and the husbands suicide in prison finds herself, practically penniless, having to stay with her adopted sister, who has a much less glamorous lifestyle, in San Francisco.
Jasmine is a woman very accustomed to a certain, high-society, way of life that is unable to accept her situation and refuses to, in both a delusional way by lashing out at others, refusing to give up things like first class air fare and matching luggage and drinking while popping painkillers and antidepressants and in a defiant, noble, almost heroic way by trying to get her life back on track in as many ways possible like attending school, working reception for a dentist and aspiring to be an interior designer. She's also going slowly and sadly mad.
She's a tragic character, a despicable character, a loser character, an inspirational character and a sympathetic character all rolled into one and yes it's Blanchett's unwavering tour de force performance that nails her but it's also Woody's astute, intricate writing and subtle directing that brings her completely to life.
Her sister, played excellently by British actress Sally Hawkins, is a different person altogether. She's working class, engaged to a mechanic, with no prospects and two unruly kids. She is also, in some ways, in awe of her adopted sister and believes strongly that helping her is the right thing to do as family is family, despite a greek chorus of her friends, boyfriend and ex-husband telling her that Jasmine's no good. In fact Ginger, Jasmine's sister, is one of the few characters in the film that actually defends Jasmine and even attempts, unsuccessfully, to emulate her and follow her lead, believing that the grass may, in fact, be greener and if she, as Jasmine prompts, applies herself, she could get more out of life. What the film partially examines is the idea that, is 'more' what she really wants or needs ultimately?
Despite Jasmine never, directly, having a hand in her husband's, Bernie Madoff like, exploits she is seen as culpable in the loss of some lottery winnings that her sister and ex-husband, Augie, invested with Alec Baldwin's white collar crook, Hal. Also there is some question of how much she knew and didn't know of the swindling, that returns throughout the film.
When she had the wealth, a period of her life we see interspersed throughout the film in flashback, she was a horribly selfish and self involved person, no more so than in a sequence where Jasmine sees a trip that sister Ginger and ex-husband Augie, played by the fantastic Andrew Dice Clay (seriously!), take to New York as a horrible imposition to her dinner plans.
It is in these 'before the bubble burst' flashbacks that Allen has any fun with the film, writing the opulent lifestyle and smug, arrogance of the wealthy with a quiet disgust that seeps through every exchange. The rest of the film's tone hovers around more sombre, ultimately doomed Husbands and Wives territory.
The film is not a comedy and although there are some funny bits in there the film is much more of a deep character study, the likes of which we haven't seen from Woody since Hannah and Her Sisters and, the aforementioned, Husbands and Wives. The characters in this are rich, developed, deep and you see each of their own personal dilemmas and can empathise or sympathise with each and every one of them, you can also condemn them just as fast. You watch, helplessly, as a combination of her own, often forgivable, mistakes, her own lies and a cruel-ish outside world impact on Jasmine's life and tear her down off the big steps she's desperately trying to climb up. The film's basic metaphor is that money can't buy you happiness. Jasmine is lost with or without wealth, it's just with money she is able to bury her unhappiness behind cocktail lunches and fine interior furnishings but really she has a philandering, crook husband, fickle friendships and an empire built on quick sand.
The other warning is do not go and see this movie for Louis CK as he is only in it for a very few minutes. It's an odd cameo to be honest. His sequence took me out of the film a little bit. Also the lack of a true comic relief, like Allen's own brilliant turn in Hannah and Her Sisters, to break up the serious side to the film it can grind you down just a little. The flashbacks are supposed to be the, slightly more, frivolous side of the picture but, really, post the financial collapse, it's difficult to do anything but despise these hollow cheats.
There is so much going on in this film and you can read a lot into it. There is also plenty to relate to in any one of the great ensemble of characters. It's not quite the scathing satire on the surface that you want it to be but look a little further into the subtext and its as scathing an attack on the fake wealth and opulence of Wall Street fat cats that you're likely to see.
The writing though, throughout, is fiercely and surprisingly good, the direction, as expected, is assured with an emphasis on simplistic realism and the performances are a little more uneven, but luckily the film focusses on Jasmine and Ginger, with both actresses who portray them being the best things in the film by a mile with Andrew Dice Clay very close behind them.
Apart from a couple of mild later-Woody-Allen style plot contrivances, that don't jar or annoy as much as they had the potential to do in less competent hands, you leave the theatre far from happy, this is a tragedy after all, but also wandering just where the hell THIS Woody Allen has been for so long and who either woke him up or, more exactly, who got him to do a few drafts of the script and get it right.
8 out of 10 very depressing but expertly made cocktails
Parker and Let's Get Serious About Statham
So Parker opens tonight properly in the US and, for some fans, there is much riding on it because of their love of the books and this being the first, all-important, time that a film-maker is using the character's real name.
The character has been portrayed many times on screen, most famously by Lee Marvin in Point Blank.
If I am honest I can't speak to their fandom or concerns as I have never read the books, I am, however, a fan of Point Blank and Mel Gibson's now, sadly, overlooked film Payback.
When it comes to Taylor Hackford's new take on the character though, I am there for one reason and one reason only and that is Jason Statham. I couldn't exactly or rightly pinpoint when exactly it was I became proudly gaytham for Statham (as my buddy Moe would say) but The Mechanic being a surprisingly good remake and the 1-2-3-4 mega punch of The Expendables, Killer Elite, Safe and The Expendables 2 certainly cemented me as a life long fan.
We'll get onto The Stath in a minute though, let's just quickly give Parker the once over. I will try, where I can, to not spoil anything.
As I did last week for The Last Stand, I caught the 10pm Thursday preview screening of Parker last night in a cinema with the wife, one other couple and a solitary man. A big turn out it was not, sadly.
The film tells the tale of a principled, pleasant enough thief who is double-crossed, left for dead and, of course, given no choice but to wreak long bloody but highly principled revenge.
I will say, up front, that this is not classic Statham. It falls into the not-as-good-as-Safe-but-better-than-Blitz territory, possibly a good double bill with the slightly similar themed Bank Job maybe.
What problems the film has, though, must be planted firmly at the feet of the director, Taylor Hackford and Jennifer Lopez. Parker walks a slightly similar path to Lopez's most successful screen outing, Out of Sight but where her character in that film shines with strength, sizzling sex appeal and satisfying sarcasm, in Parker, while she's putting the effort in, the part doesn't give her much to work with. Also, at a certain point, her character makes one of those decisions that film-characters do in order to heighten a tense scene and that grated ever so slightly with me.
The same can be said for the direction, where Out of Sight employed Soderbergh's usual bag of stylistic and artistic tricks to keep the slower parts of that film visually rich, Parker falters a little and can be just plain bland when it's concerned with character and plot rather than indulging in pleasing bouts of over-the-top, gory ultra-violence. It really needed to be Soderberghed up or to be made more gritty like a Get Carter, sadly, the cinematography at least, winds up being a little on the beige side.
That's about all in terms of niggles though.
Statham is as assured as ever and even a sequence which I was sure was going to be blatantly laughable, when the notoriously-not-very-good-at-accents Stath has to imitate a Texan, turned out to be fine and did the job well. The action is phenomenally well performed and there's lots of claret splashing all over the place, way more than I expected in fact.
To be fair to this film though, much like The Last Stand before it and I suspect Bullet To The Head (coming next week), it has been marketed all wrong. A better campaign would've linked it to slower paced yet strongly violent 70s fare. I know the books are set in the past and Statham's wish was to do it, like Killer Elite and The Bank Job, in the correct period but there wasn't any support for that from the producers. Instead I feel that, while the setting maybe contemporary, they have tried to imbue the film with the colder, slightly grittier feel of a 70s film. It isn't entirely succesful as I have said, it needed more interesting direction and a funky soundtrack but on a second or third viewing I definitely see this growing on me.
Unlike The Last Stand I am not sure this is necessarily going to please hardcore action fans, as there are long sections where nary a nose is broken or a knee dislocated with the butt of a shotgun, and I can't imagine it's the Parker film all the fans of the novels have been waiting for either but for us Stathamites it's a chance to once again bask in the bullet headed Brit's brilliant screen presence as he defies expectations again and tries something a little different.
While James Bond may have run 50 years, having a muscle bound English action hero is something of an extreme rarity. Yes there was Gary Daniels before him and Scott Adkins fast on his heals but both seem to stay firmly in the realms of the straight-to-video world, at least for now. I am not sure I could think of another Englishman who has achieved what Statham has and I am genuinely surprised how often that goes un-noticed on both sides of the pond. Also I am genuinely surprised how often our beloved Stath is dismissed as being one note, always making the same film, not being a good actor or only doing films in which he takes off his shirt.
It's perfectly true to say that Statham makes films within similar genres and it would also be true to say that he is aware that there are certain things expected of him when he makes a film: shirts off for the ladies, a fight scene for the lads and a couple of cheesy one liners but there is definitely more to the cult of Stath than this paltry check list of genre cliches.
Some may have wondered, back in 2010 when they went to see The Expendables, who is this gruff voiced, cockney Bruce Willis sitting next to Stallone in the cockpit of this plane? and others may have wondered that with talent and bigger names like Lundgren, Li and Rourke in the film, what was Jason Statham, a relative young upstart, doing playing Sylvester Stallone's right hand man? but when you examine what Statham has done with his career it doesn't remain a mystery very long.
It also shows that Stallone is an astute observer of talent and the industry as well as a consummate professional film-maker of the highest order.
First of all, due to his love of Bruce Lee and Stallone movies, Jason Statham was dedicated to doing things, as much as he could, for real. He trained and studied martial arts and in his Transporter and Crank series he does almost every single physical stunt seen on screen.
Secondly, much like Stallone and Willis, while aware of his little niche in the industry or 'pigeon hole' if you like, he has tried, wherever possible to make different and interesting choices.
Sometimes the impetus behind the decisions maybe obvious things like working with first time, maverick, guerilla style film-makers on the Crank series or starring in a period heist flick written by two veteran British comedy TV writers and sometimes his reasoning for taking a project might be subtle to the outsider but, gathering what I can from interviews, Statham carefully picks his film roles based on either cast members, director, script or the chance to do something he's not done before.
Now before you say 'wait a minute, isn't that what everyone does? why is that special?' think about how easy it would be for Statham to currently be making The Transporter 7 right now, or Crank 5 or think about how instead of doing a straight to DVD 80s style action film we've seen a million times he chose to take a true-ish spy story with ambiguous characters and make a big-ish budget action film set in drab early 80s Britain with Robert DeNiro and Clive Owen.
I don't care what you say that shows someone who is striving to make things as interesting and as different as possible.
The other thing to note is that what is also rare these days and wonderful to see, is how the industry has allowed him to do it. His box office has not always been strong and yet he continues to get so much funding for different projects that the man can remain as prolific, hard working and challenged as he wants to. Yeah there might be misses, for some audiences the majority of his stuff might not interest them in the slightest but at least he is being given the opportunity to chase a variety of projects because from that model you always get a few cast iron classics. Safe showed him to have some surprising depth in his performance and like Stallone had his Rambo breakdown in First Blood, Rocky's simple but earnest underdog character and his fantastic nuanced performance in Copland, so too will Statham get his chance. I hope.
So while Parker had bits I loved and bits I didn't, it defied my expectations again by simply not being just-another-action-film (not that it would've been bad if it was either) but having a script just as interested with characters and plot as it was with blood spewing fight scenes. It's just a shame it didn't have a director good enough to 100% pull it off.
3.5 out of 5
The character has been portrayed many times on screen, most famously by Lee Marvin in Point Blank.
If I am honest I can't speak to their fandom or concerns as I have never read the books, I am, however, a fan of Point Blank and Mel Gibson's now, sadly, overlooked film Payback.
When it comes to Taylor Hackford's new take on the character though, I am there for one reason and one reason only and that is Jason Statham. I couldn't exactly or rightly pinpoint when exactly it was I became proudly gaytham for Statham (as my buddy Moe would say) but The Mechanic being a surprisingly good remake and the 1-2-3-4 mega punch of The Expendables, Killer Elite, Safe and The Expendables 2 certainly cemented me as a life long fan.
We'll get onto The Stath in a minute though, let's just quickly give Parker the once over. I will try, where I can, to not spoil anything.
As I did last week for The Last Stand, I caught the 10pm Thursday preview screening of Parker last night in a cinema with the wife, one other couple and a solitary man. A big turn out it was not, sadly.
The film tells the tale of a principled, pleasant enough thief who is double-crossed, left for dead and, of course, given no choice but to wreak long bloody but highly principled revenge.
I will say, up front, that this is not classic Statham. It falls into the not-as-good-as-Safe-but-better-than-Blitz territory, possibly a good double bill with the slightly similar themed Bank Job maybe.
What problems the film has, though, must be planted firmly at the feet of the director, Taylor Hackford and Jennifer Lopez. Parker walks a slightly similar path to Lopez's most successful screen outing, Out of Sight but where her character in that film shines with strength, sizzling sex appeal and satisfying sarcasm, in Parker, while she's putting the effort in, the part doesn't give her much to work with. Also, at a certain point, her character makes one of those decisions that film-characters do in order to heighten a tense scene and that grated ever so slightly with me.
The same can be said for the direction, where Out of Sight employed Soderbergh's usual bag of stylistic and artistic tricks to keep the slower parts of that film visually rich, Parker falters a little and can be just plain bland when it's concerned with character and plot rather than indulging in pleasing bouts of over-the-top, gory ultra-violence. It really needed to be Soderberghed up or to be made more gritty like a Get Carter, sadly, the cinematography at least, winds up being a little on the beige side.
That's about all in terms of niggles though.
Statham is as assured as ever and even a sequence which I was sure was going to be blatantly laughable, when the notoriously-not-very-good-at-accents Stath has to imitate a Texan, turned out to be fine and did the job well. The action is phenomenally well performed and there's lots of claret splashing all over the place, way more than I expected in fact.
To be fair to this film though, much like The Last Stand before it and I suspect Bullet To The Head (coming next week), it has been marketed all wrong. A better campaign would've linked it to slower paced yet strongly violent 70s fare. I know the books are set in the past and Statham's wish was to do it, like Killer Elite and The Bank Job, in the correct period but there wasn't any support for that from the producers. Instead I feel that, while the setting maybe contemporary, they have tried to imbue the film with the colder, slightly grittier feel of a 70s film. It isn't entirely succesful as I have said, it needed more interesting direction and a funky soundtrack but on a second or third viewing I definitely see this growing on me.
Unlike The Last Stand I am not sure this is necessarily going to please hardcore action fans, as there are long sections where nary a nose is broken or a knee dislocated with the butt of a shotgun, and I can't imagine it's the Parker film all the fans of the novels have been waiting for either but for us Stathamites it's a chance to once again bask in the bullet headed Brit's brilliant screen presence as he defies expectations again and tries something a little different.
While James Bond may have run 50 years, having a muscle bound English action hero is something of an extreme rarity. Yes there was Gary Daniels before him and Scott Adkins fast on his heals but both seem to stay firmly in the realms of the straight-to-video world, at least for now. I am not sure I could think of another Englishman who has achieved what Statham has and I am genuinely surprised how often that goes un-noticed on both sides of the pond. Also I am genuinely surprised how often our beloved Stath is dismissed as being one note, always making the same film, not being a good actor or only doing films in which he takes off his shirt.
It's perfectly true to say that Statham makes films within similar genres and it would also be true to say that he is aware that there are certain things expected of him when he makes a film: shirts off for the ladies, a fight scene for the lads and a couple of cheesy one liners but there is definitely more to the cult of Stath than this paltry check list of genre cliches.
Some may have wondered, back in 2010 when they went to see The Expendables, who is this gruff voiced, cockney Bruce Willis sitting next to Stallone in the cockpit of this plane? and others may have wondered that with talent and bigger names like Lundgren, Li and Rourke in the film, what was Jason Statham, a relative young upstart, doing playing Sylvester Stallone's right hand man? but when you examine what Statham has done with his career it doesn't remain a mystery very long.
It also shows that Stallone is an astute observer of talent and the industry as well as a consummate professional film-maker of the highest order.
First of all, due to his love of Bruce Lee and Stallone movies, Jason Statham was dedicated to doing things, as much as he could, for real. He trained and studied martial arts and in his Transporter and Crank series he does almost every single physical stunt seen on screen.
Secondly, much like Stallone and Willis, while aware of his little niche in the industry or 'pigeon hole' if you like, he has tried, wherever possible to make different and interesting choices.
Sometimes the impetus behind the decisions maybe obvious things like working with first time, maverick, guerilla style film-makers on the Crank series or starring in a period heist flick written by two veteran British comedy TV writers and sometimes his reasoning for taking a project might be subtle to the outsider but, gathering what I can from interviews, Statham carefully picks his film roles based on either cast members, director, script or the chance to do something he's not done before.
Now before you say 'wait a minute, isn't that what everyone does? why is that special?' think about how easy it would be for Statham to currently be making The Transporter 7 right now, or Crank 5 or think about how instead of doing a straight to DVD 80s style action film we've seen a million times he chose to take a true-ish spy story with ambiguous characters and make a big-ish budget action film set in drab early 80s Britain with Robert DeNiro and Clive Owen.
I don't care what you say that shows someone who is striving to make things as interesting and as different as possible.
The other thing to note is that what is also rare these days and wonderful to see, is how the industry has allowed him to do it. His box office has not always been strong and yet he continues to get so much funding for different projects that the man can remain as prolific, hard working and challenged as he wants to. Yeah there might be misses, for some audiences the majority of his stuff might not interest them in the slightest but at least he is being given the opportunity to chase a variety of projects because from that model you always get a few cast iron classics. Safe showed him to have some surprising depth in his performance and like Stallone had his Rambo breakdown in First Blood, Rocky's simple but earnest underdog character and his fantastic nuanced performance in Copland, so too will Statham get his chance. I hope.
So while Parker had bits I loved and bits I didn't, it defied my expectations again by simply not being just-another-action-film (not that it would've been bad if it was either) but having a script just as interested with characters and plot as it was with blood spewing fight scenes. It's just a shame it didn't have a director good enough to 100% pull it off.
3.5 out of 5
Good Night and Good Luck - 10th May 2011
At some point George Clooney went from the guy who did a cameo in Return to Horror High to directing and starring in films about human rights, civil liberties and the nature of the media in our life. He also did it with good grace, a good sense of humour and a string of beautiful ladies on his arm.
For a second film as a director "Good Night and Good Luck" is an incredible achievement, hell I would be amazed if this was his tenth film!
Shot in glorious, crisp black and white, filled with fantastic actors and telling the true story of a battle of words, famous radio & TV journalist, Edward R Murrow had with Senator McCarthy at the height of the communist paranoia era in America, Good Night and Good Luck is a rich, fascinating, naturally paced, intelligent bit of film making we end up seeing all too rarely these days.
Based on actual transcripts from actual telecasts, recollections from various books by or about the people involved and watched closely, helped or filled in by surviving relatives, Clooney and his writing and producing partner, Grant Heslov, have taken careful steps to make the whole thing as factually accurate and as authentic as possible.
The action is framed by a speech Murrow made at an awards dinner, about the nature of the television, the media and its ability to be used as a source of genuine facts and learning, if only for a couple of hours a day. You, of course, only have to look at the utter puddle of effluent that modern television is today to see that nobody heeded his advice.
The genius is that this film was able to not only comment on the idea of government abandoning the laws and constitution for its own agenda, which, of course we have seen in the last decade and know all too well the ramifications of that, but also to criticise modern media's inability to hold them accountable, as they should, by simply using fact and carefully chosen words.
The thing that hits home, watching this film, is how intelligently and how precisely Murrow used his words, yes he believed that not every story had an equal side and in some cases people could just be wrong but he offered his editorial opinion using clear arguments, backable by hard facts. It must've been an absolutely captivating and riveting time to be alive.
Nowadays I can't even believe most newsreaders can spell the word fact let alone know how to carefully research one and use it correctly, it's disparaging and hopeless. I have watched clips of the real Edward R Murrow speak and it is just phenomenal that there used to be a world where journalists would speak calmly and eloquently, not talking down to or patronise their audience but assume they were as intelligent as them, even going so far as to casually quote Shakespeare to make their point and close their statements.
It just brings into glaring relief the fact that they now use freedom of the press to give credence to the utter mindless bilge spewed forth by gas bag morons like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.
Other highlights of the film are the period authenticity and the range of interesting characters. Clooney obviously loves this golden age of television and has looked at it from both sides, the frivolous game show side in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which was great but a little stylised and muddled, and the serious, factual side in this, the superior film, Good Night and Good Luck.
Apart from the black and white and the occasional theatrical lighting, this film is not, at first glance, as showy or as flashy as Confessions and yet in telling a true story, as correctly as possible, with the utmost attention to detail, Clooney, backed up by the performances of his incredibly talented cast and the words of Edward r Murrow, has actually managed to create something very visually arresting, with layers, depth, style and substance.
He's not even preachy with it, you can take from it what you will because exactly like Murrow did with McCarthy and simply projected his own words for the audience to decide, so has Clooney and Haslov with Murrow. It's a masterful piece of film making.
Recently, because of the state of television news, internet news and the world in general I decided, because I was being driven quite mad by it all, to just concern myself with fiction. Not pure stupid entertainment but good fiction because in all honesty, nowadays, as Good Night and Good Luck proves, you can learn more from a creative and intelligent retelling of the past than you can from watching the news of the present.
10 out of 10
For a second film as a director "Good Night and Good Luck" is an incredible achievement, hell I would be amazed if this was his tenth film!
Shot in glorious, crisp black and white, filled with fantastic actors and telling the true story of a battle of words, famous radio & TV journalist, Edward R Murrow had with Senator McCarthy at the height of the communist paranoia era in America, Good Night and Good Luck is a rich, fascinating, naturally paced, intelligent bit of film making we end up seeing all too rarely these days.
Based on actual transcripts from actual telecasts, recollections from various books by or about the people involved and watched closely, helped or filled in by surviving relatives, Clooney and his writing and producing partner, Grant Heslov, have taken careful steps to make the whole thing as factually accurate and as authentic as possible.
The action is framed by a speech Murrow made at an awards dinner, about the nature of the television, the media and its ability to be used as a source of genuine facts and learning, if only for a couple of hours a day. You, of course, only have to look at the utter puddle of effluent that modern television is today to see that nobody heeded his advice.
The genius is that this film was able to not only comment on the idea of government abandoning the laws and constitution for its own agenda, which, of course we have seen in the last decade and know all too well the ramifications of that, but also to criticise modern media's inability to hold them accountable, as they should, by simply using fact and carefully chosen words.
The thing that hits home, watching this film, is how intelligently and how precisely Murrow used his words, yes he believed that not every story had an equal side and in some cases people could just be wrong but he offered his editorial opinion using clear arguments, backable by hard facts. It must've been an absolutely captivating and riveting time to be alive.
Nowadays I can't even believe most newsreaders can spell the word fact let alone know how to carefully research one and use it correctly, it's disparaging and hopeless. I have watched clips of the real Edward R Murrow speak and it is just phenomenal that there used to be a world where journalists would speak calmly and eloquently, not talking down to or patronise their audience but assume they were as intelligent as them, even going so far as to casually quote Shakespeare to make their point and close their statements.
It just brings into glaring relief the fact that they now use freedom of the press to give credence to the utter mindless bilge spewed forth by gas bag morons like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly.
Other highlights of the film are the period authenticity and the range of interesting characters. Clooney obviously loves this golden age of television and has looked at it from both sides, the frivolous game show side in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, which was great but a little stylised and muddled, and the serious, factual side in this, the superior film, Good Night and Good Luck.
Apart from the black and white and the occasional theatrical lighting, this film is not, at first glance, as showy or as flashy as Confessions and yet in telling a true story, as correctly as possible, with the utmost attention to detail, Clooney, backed up by the performances of his incredibly talented cast and the words of Edward r Murrow, has actually managed to create something very visually arresting, with layers, depth, style and substance.
He's not even preachy with it, you can take from it what you will because exactly like Murrow did with McCarthy and simply projected his own words for the audience to decide, so has Clooney and Haslov with Murrow. It's a masterful piece of film making.
Recently, because of the state of television news, internet news and the world in general I decided, because I was being driven quite mad by it all, to just concern myself with fiction. Not pure stupid entertainment but good fiction because in all honesty, nowadays, as Good Night and Good Luck proves, you can learn more from a creative and intelligent retelling of the past than you can from watching the news of the present.
10 out of 10
Stranger Than Fiction - 3rd May 2011
If I was a cynic and I guess I can be sometimes, I would say that this film is one of those films that occasionally gets through the formulaic cookie cutter Hollywood machine, almost so they can prove that what they do is still artistically viable, but in their own way these sorts of films are just as formulaic.
They call them smaller, independent or arty pictures but none of those are adequate descriptions. Big named actors, looking to do quirkier and different parts and, in the case of this one, comedians looking to stretch their range, line up to participate and they are usually written and directed with that slightly smug, knowing glance at the camera where everyone involved in the project is just itching to show everyone else just how intelligent they are.
The scripts all seem like they are written by first time film students (and I know what I mean, I was one) and in their own way are riddled with cliches.
Take Strange Than Fiction, for example:
- It has the old chestnut of a chain smoking, neurotic writer with writer's block,
- The 'not as clever as it thinks it is' voiceover,
- The personification of inanimate, somewhat mundane objects,
- A protagonist who is a quiet, methodical, unassuming pleasant man who would be ok if he could just meet someone and learn to live a bit,
- The love interest who is quirky, independent, verbal and aggressive but with a heart of gold, willing to abandon all that for a man playing a rare yet hip song badly on an old guitar,
- The know it all, barmy professor who is both a friend and a father figure
- and debates on the nature of death and art.
I guess I would put it in the same category as a Charlie Kaufman film with a bit of the Truman Show thrown in for good measure. What I am just not sure about is whether it is one of those films or trying desperately to be one of those films.
What I do know is, to enjoy it and there is much to enjoy about this film, you need to get passed all that, accept it all and move on.
If you can do that then what you get is a well acted, fairly well written and wonderfully directed film that has just enough humour, just enough heart and, even, a glimmer of originality to stop itself disappearing right up its own bottom.
Clear winners and scene stealers here are Dustin Hoffman and Maggie Gyllenhaal proving you could stick her next to a bag of rodent tails and she would find a way to have chemistry with it. That you buy the relationship between her anti-war, tattooed, feminist baker and Ferrell's button down, shy IRS auditor is mostly down to her but is also, of course, in part, thanks to Ferrell.
Here he takes the, not particularly, showy and the, not particularly, comical role of the everyman struggling to come to terms with his own existence and to give it meaning and he plays it perfectly. A lot of talk is given to comedians who go straight and I wouldn't exactly call Stranger than Fiction a serious film, as it is riddled with intentional jokes, but Will Ferrell is playing the straight man of the piece to some extent. What he achieves here is a subtle and rich performance that may have root in some of his SNL or movie man-child personas but resists the urge to use any of his usual over-the-top tricks, more like on his way to becoming a latter day Bill Murray and unlike, say, Jim Carrey in the Truman Show or Eternal Boredom of a Thoughtless Mind who can't help mugging and prancing around like a buffoon.
Ferrell anchors the film perfectly and what's rare for a comedian, allows everyone else around him to be the funny ones. His performance is, very often, purely reactionary.
There is one problem I have with the whole thing though that does, towards the end, threaten to derail the film for me.
Firstly I don't understand why killing her characters at the end of her books makes Karen Eiffel, played well and unselfconsciously by Emma Thompson, a great writer but let's say that it does then why, when confronted with the reality of Harold Crick, instead of freaking out and making the decision should he live or should he die, why doesn't she simply change the name of the character in the book to Bertram Crick or Harold Crock or something?
I understand it's all a metaphor for facing the reality of death, the fact that it will come at us whether we like it or not and we might as well die for something and that's fine, the film has its cake and eats it too because they do wrap it all up neatly in the end but why make the entire plot, metaphor or not, hang on the simple task of changing one single letter.
Also at a certain point the writer goes from narrating what is happening as it's happening to being able to make things happen, like the phone ring, by typing 'the phone rings a third time'.
These inevitable plot holes, in a script such as this, are only minor niggles and actually I really enjoyed watching it this time round and laughed all the way through it.
8 out of 10 pots of hip greek yoghurt sucked up by a scruffy yet brilliant literature professor
Points from The Wife - 7 out of 10
They call them smaller, independent or arty pictures but none of those are adequate descriptions. Big named actors, looking to do quirkier and different parts and, in the case of this one, comedians looking to stretch their range, line up to participate and they are usually written and directed with that slightly smug, knowing glance at the camera where everyone involved in the project is just itching to show everyone else just how intelligent they are.
The scripts all seem like they are written by first time film students (and I know what I mean, I was one) and in their own way are riddled with cliches.
Take Strange Than Fiction, for example:
- It has the old chestnut of a chain smoking, neurotic writer with writer's block,
- The 'not as clever as it thinks it is' voiceover,
- The personification of inanimate, somewhat mundane objects,
- A protagonist who is a quiet, methodical, unassuming pleasant man who would be ok if he could just meet someone and learn to live a bit,
- The love interest who is quirky, independent, verbal and aggressive but with a heart of gold, willing to abandon all that for a man playing a rare yet hip song badly on an old guitar,
- The know it all, barmy professor who is both a friend and a father figure
- and debates on the nature of death and art.
I guess I would put it in the same category as a Charlie Kaufman film with a bit of the Truman Show thrown in for good measure. What I am just not sure about is whether it is one of those films or trying desperately to be one of those films.
What I do know is, to enjoy it and there is much to enjoy about this film, you need to get passed all that, accept it all and move on.
If you can do that then what you get is a well acted, fairly well written and wonderfully directed film that has just enough humour, just enough heart and, even, a glimmer of originality to stop itself disappearing right up its own bottom.
Clear winners and scene stealers here are Dustin Hoffman and Maggie Gyllenhaal proving you could stick her next to a bag of rodent tails and she would find a way to have chemistry with it. That you buy the relationship between her anti-war, tattooed, feminist baker and Ferrell's button down, shy IRS auditor is mostly down to her but is also, of course, in part, thanks to Ferrell.
Here he takes the, not particularly, showy and the, not particularly, comical role of the everyman struggling to come to terms with his own existence and to give it meaning and he plays it perfectly. A lot of talk is given to comedians who go straight and I wouldn't exactly call Stranger than Fiction a serious film, as it is riddled with intentional jokes, but Will Ferrell is playing the straight man of the piece to some extent. What he achieves here is a subtle and rich performance that may have root in some of his SNL or movie man-child personas but resists the urge to use any of his usual over-the-top tricks, more like on his way to becoming a latter day Bill Murray and unlike, say, Jim Carrey in the Truman Show or Eternal Boredom of a Thoughtless Mind who can't help mugging and prancing around like a buffoon.
Ferrell anchors the film perfectly and what's rare for a comedian, allows everyone else around him to be the funny ones. His performance is, very often, purely reactionary.
There is one problem I have with the whole thing though that does, towards the end, threaten to derail the film for me.
Firstly I don't understand why killing her characters at the end of her books makes Karen Eiffel, played well and unselfconsciously by Emma Thompson, a great writer but let's say that it does then why, when confronted with the reality of Harold Crick, instead of freaking out and making the decision should he live or should he die, why doesn't she simply change the name of the character in the book to Bertram Crick or Harold Crock or something?
I understand it's all a metaphor for facing the reality of death, the fact that it will come at us whether we like it or not and we might as well die for something and that's fine, the film has its cake and eats it too because they do wrap it all up neatly in the end but why make the entire plot, metaphor or not, hang on the simple task of changing one single letter.
Also at a certain point the writer goes from narrating what is happening as it's happening to being able to make things happen, like the phone ring, by typing 'the phone rings a third time'.
These inevitable plot holes, in a script such as this, are only minor niggles and actually I really enjoyed watching it this time round and laughed all the way through it.
8 out of 10 pots of hip greek yoghurt sucked up by a scruffy yet brilliant literature professor
Points from The Wife - 7 out of 10
The King's Speech - 9th February 2011
The King's Speech, or The Stuttering Firth as it shall now be known from here on in, was one of those films that I had wanted to see for a while and actually I wished we'd gone back when it first came out, before I read all the hype about it, because I feel that, whilst it was a good film, it didn't live up to it's pre-award show and pre-Oscar buzz.
The things that were great about it, first and foremost, were the central performances. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, when on screen together were both spectacular and I think that was one of the areas where the film, for me, didn't live up to it's trailer or the press, there simply wasn't enough of Rush and Firth. They really make this average British costume film swing and soar in all the right ways and I came out wishing the film had been twice as long and simply just stuffed from start to finish with the Firth/Rush pairing. Helena Bonham Carter is not bad either but she doesn't really have much of a part to play with. What part she does have, however, she plays perfectly well and also, there was a fairly decent attempt made to make her look quite similar to the Queen Mum. Next and probably last on the list of central pleasing performances was Guy Pierce who I didn't think was too shabby in the part of the infamous King Edward, you know, considering he's Guy Pierce.
Michael Gambon and Derek Jacobi get fairly thankless roles (although if a film has stuttering in it Jacobi has it in his contract that he has to be there) and I didn't understand why they couldn't have found Gambon a realistic beard, probably because they'd spent half the budget on fattening up an already ludicrously jowly Timothy Spall in what is one of the most hilariously misjudged Churchill impersonations ever committed to screen.
Still these really are tiny nitpicks in a grander, better film with strong watchable leads.
As well as Firth and Rush the film is worth seeing for its sumptuous cinematography and well judged recreations of pre-World War II London although, apparently, before World War II, London was draped continually in a thick grey cliche fog, which, I am sure, was actually a cheap way to allow the film makers to cover up anything that wasn't 'of the period'. The direction isn't bad and the framing of the scenes is very often purposefully artistic and almost like a painting, especially in the scenes in Logue's sumptuous office; however, in an attempt to make every shot a winner, the director occasionally messes with the eye lines of the characters and the sides of the screen on which they sit, which is annoying for the viewer and can sadly drag you out of the action.
The last thing I really loved about the film, and this is probably a personal thing as I am an ex-pat Brit living in The States, although I am not particularly a royalist and am fully aware the film is, at least in part, a work of fiction, seeing Britain back then during that dangerous and nervous time but also with it portrayed as brave, unapologetically proud, filled with proper English gentlemen all with a sense of duty and honour did make the old stiff upper lip quiver a little with the odd bout of patriotism.
You see there is an England, or I guess a Britain in my head, that lives in a place outside time, that probably never really existed but is instantly recognisable and appealing. It's Britain as a decent, polite, benevolent rather than an aggressive empirical nation full of green hills, country pubs, rousing music, culture and honest salt of the earth workers. Far from the sad image of council estates filled with underaged smoking single mothers watching pop idol and reality TV in a privatised, mismanaged and feeble country that leans too heavily on it's American cousins. Instead it's the fantasy of the Britain of Shakespeare, Dickens, Conan Doyle and Rudyard Kipling all set against the music of The Kinks and The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, with a few belted out verses of Jerusalem thrown in for good measure.
A list like this would, ultimately, be too long to go into here and I guess I find it a bit hard to find any real value in what goes on today, who knows maybe time will be kinder but A Stuttering Firth really brought all those rose tinted ideals and possibilities out in me again along with a deep rooted patriotism that I think all Brits should carry with them and which is far more important than simply football.
Back to the film and on the downside I would say that the film struggled with whether it was a historical retelling of a fairly forgotten story during a very well known period or an embellished and some what made-up work of semi-fiction about two men, one who happened to be an ex-actor speech therapist and the other the King of England. I only say this because I felt that they didn't focus on the two men enough for it to be the latter but missed out way too many important bits of information, especially for those not in the know about who everyone was meant to be, for it to be the former and so, for me, what ended up happening was, whilst I appreciated the back drop and context that the story of Bertie and Logue was being set in, every time they weren't on screen together I felt a lot of the scenes became superfluous. It was almost like the script didn't have the confidence in itself to just be a smartly written comedy-drama double header and so tried to cram in snap shorts of historical information that really, while sort of relevant, with all that was going on at that time, could've filled three movies, or a mini-series.
I am also amazed it's played as well as it has done in America because while something like The Queen did a great job of explaining the pomp and tradition of royalty, I felt there were big gaps where, if you weren't knowledgable about the era or the nature of a monarchy, you'd possibly get quite lost.
So, all in all, it was a fairly well written, ok directed, tremendously performed film with beautiful cinematography that completely deserves the acting awards it has won and been nominated for but I am not sure it should get much else. It's always nice to see an essentially British film doing well though.
7 out of 10 swan casseroles
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
The things that were great about it, first and foremost, were the central performances. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, when on screen together were both spectacular and I think that was one of the areas where the film, for me, didn't live up to it's trailer or the press, there simply wasn't enough of Rush and Firth. They really make this average British costume film swing and soar in all the right ways and I came out wishing the film had been twice as long and simply just stuffed from start to finish with the Firth/Rush pairing. Helena Bonham Carter is not bad either but she doesn't really have much of a part to play with. What part she does have, however, she plays perfectly well and also, there was a fairly decent attempt made to make her look quite similar to the Queen Mum. Next and probably last on the list of central pleasing performances was Guy Pierce who I didn't think was too shabby in the part of the infamous King Edward, you know, considering he's Guy Pierce.
Michael Gambon and Derek Jacobi get fairly thankless roles (although if a film has stuttering in it Jacobi has it in his contract that he has to be there) and I didn't understand why they couldn't have found Gambon a realistic beard, probably because they'd spent half the budget on fattening up an already ludicrously jowly Timothy Spall in what is one of the most hilariously misjudged Churchill impersonations ever committed to screen.
Still these really are tiny nitpicks in a grander, better film with strong watchable leads.
As well as Firth and Rush the film is worth seeing for its sumptuous cinematography and well judged recreations of pre-World War II London although, apparently, before World War II, London was draped continually in a thick grey cliche fog, which, I am sure, was actually a cheap way to allow the film makers to cover up anything that wasn't 'of the period'. The direction isn't bad and the framing of the scenes is very often purposefully artistic and almost like a painting, especially in the scenes in Logue's sumptuous office; however, in an attempt to make every shot a winner, the director occasionally messes with the eye lines of the characters and the sides of the screen on which they sit, which is annoying for the viewer and can sadly drag you out of the action.
The last thing I really loved about the film, and this is probably a personal thing as I am an ex-pat Brit living in The States, although I am not particularly a royalist and am fully aware the film is, at least in part, a work of fiction, seeing Britain back then during that dangerous and nervous time but also with it portrayed as brave, unapologetically proud, filled with proper English gentlemen all with a sense of duty and honour did make the old stiff upper lip quiver a little with the odd bout of patriotism.
You see there is an England, or I guess a Britain in my head, that lives in a place outside time, that probably never really existed but is instantly recognisable and appealing. It's Britain as a decent, polite, benevolent rather than an aggressive empirical nation full of green hills, country pubs, rousing music, culture and honest salt of the earth workers. Far from the sad image of council estates filled with underaged smoking single mothers watching pop idol and reality TV in a privatised, mismanaged and feeble country that leans too heavily on it's American cousins. Instead it's the fantasy of the Britain of Shakespeare, Dickens, Conan Doyle and Rudyard Kipling all set against the music of The Kinks and The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, with a few belted out verses of Jerusalem thrown in for good measure.
A list like this would, ultimately, be too long to go into here and I guess I find it a bit hard to find any real value in what goes on today, who knows maybe time will be kinder but A Stuttering Firth really brought all those rose tinted ideals and possibilities out in me again along with a deep rooted patriotism that I think all Brits should carry with them and which is far more important than simply football.
Back to the film and on the downside I would say that the film struggled with whether it was a historical retelling of a fairly forgotten story during a very well known period or an embellished and some what made-up work of semi-fiction about two men, one who happened to be an ex-actor speech therapist and the other the King of England. I only say this because I felt that they didn't focus on the two men enough for it to be the latter but missed out way too many important bits of information, especially for those not in the know about who everyone was meant to be, for it to be the former and so, for me, what ended up happening was, whilst I appreciated the back drop and context that the story of Bertie and Logue was being set in, every time they weren't on screen together I felt a lot of the scenes became superfluous. It was almost like the script didn't have the confidence in itself to just be a smartly written comedy-drama double header and so tried to cram in snap shorts of historical information that really, while sort of relevant, with all that was going on at that time, could've filled three movies, or a mini-series.
I am also amazed it's played as well as it has done in America because while something like The Queen did a great job of explaining the pomp and tradition of royalty, I felt there were big gaps where, if you weren't knowledgable about the era or the nature of a monarchy, you'd possibly get quite lost.
So, all in all, it was a fairly well written, ok directed, tremendously performed film with beautiful cinematography that completely deserves the acting awards it has won and been nominated for but I am not sure it should get much else. It's always nice to see an essentially British film doing well though.
7 out of 10 swan casseroles
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
The Social Network - 6th February 2011
Right. This movie made me think I was clueless, stupid and wrong for a second because everyone I have ever heard talking about this movie in the media has, quite frankly, cum all over it like it was high class hooker in solid gold shoes.
I honestly couldn't see why, I am dumfounded, baffled, perplexed and, my personal favourite, flabbergasted.
I feel like I watched the wrong film because the film I watched was, while being as well written as a thing like this could be (so hats off to Aaron Sorkin), utterly pointless, tedious, irrelevant and unredeemable. The tag line on the poster is as thought provoking and interesting as this film gets.
You see it all comes down to, I suppose, what a big deal you think Facebook is because if, like me, you were happy pootling along with e-mails and MySpace before suddenly all of your friends made some unexplained mass exodus to what, appeared to me to be, the less exciting and the less creative Facebook, you probably think Facebook is hardly the enormous social awakening everyone else thinks it is and you probably, again like me, only use it because everyone else does and you live thousands of miles away from your friends and family, well maybe not the last bit but you get the idea. The true shame is then MySpace and all other social media then tried to be more like Facebook and the internet became awash with bland, beige, marketing driven arse. Still it is nice to keep in touch with my mateys across the pond, so I won't knock it all too much.
I mention all this though because when I initially heard about this film I was completely confused as to why anyone would want to make Facebook the movie, least of all the usually reliable and brilliant David Fincher, then those abstract and random trailers started appearing and being very annoying and that sort of sealed it for me, I thought, well I never have to see this movie, I really don't care one bit about any of it. I didn't even really look into what it was actually about.
Then, towards the end of last year, it was The Social Network that was one of the first films to pick up a lot of possible award buzz and people started talking about it like it was this incredible piece of cinema that had fallen radiantly from the heavens into our multiplexes and shone on all of us like the shiny piece of wonder that it was. To which my response was "are they really talking about that damn Facebook movie? hmmmmmm that's interesting"
Now I would put three of David Fincher's films into my top 50 films of all time, Seven, Fight Club and Zodiac, so any awards buzz about one of his films and I slowly began to take notice. Then I heard an interview with Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, on a podcast I listen to and he really sold it to me. Firstly, he explained what it was about, the notion of the man who invented a social network being very anti social and he made it sound like this interesting sort of courtroom drama and I like courtroom dramas so I thought "hmmmmm I have obviously got this film all wrong, I should watch it" and so we did and it stunk.
The one thing everyone failed to mention about the film is you need to believe in what a big deal Facebook is as a concept, or as a thing and I don't care. I simply don't. The internet itself is a big deal, like the telephone before it but Facebook to me really was a simpler and therefor more tedious and frustrating MySpace but I realise I am very much alone in that opinion to the tune of 1 Billion to 1.
The other day when I put a status up on Facebook (appropriately enough) about having been to see The King's Speech (review coming soon) a friend of mine said "It was ok, but I can't get too excited about the problems of rich people" well I disagree with that statement about The King's Speech but about The Facebook Movie it is 100% accurate.
This film has absolutely nothing satisfying or remotely thought provoking about it. It is about over-privalaged, overly-educated, self important, stuck up, rich kids going around and being arrogant, entitled pricks to one another. There isn't one character in the film that has a remotely interesting arc featuring anything really resembling an actual dilemma, for all their so-called heightened intelligence they all act incredibly stupidly and selfishly throughout the film and it all boils down to a bunch of people who want some money because they may or may not have had anything to do with inventing or financing Facebook, they get some money, sign something that says they won't talk about it and that's it. Nothing at all revelatory or resembling any kind of exciting climax happens, absolutely nothing. Astoundingly dull and awful. Mark Zuckerberg is the worst culprit as he seemingly walks around being pretty much an annoying self aggrandising arse sandwich to everyone he meets but because he can write computer code with some speed and an unhealthy dollop of superhuman aloofness and nonchalance he manages to become the worlds youngest billionaire.
This is why I say you have to care about Facebook or buy into all the hype that it is this fantastic thing. It would be like going back 25 years and making a movie about the Rubic's cube, it's a wonder anyone cares at all.
The film focusses on two main cases, one in which a pair of Harvard rowing twins, who asked Mark Zuckerberg to build a Harvard exclusive dating site, claim that instead of that he invented Facebook and that somehow it was also their idea.
As far as I understood it he never took their money, he never signed anything and he didn't use any of their computer code, maybe I am wrong but it seems like the only reason this wasn't laughed out of the board room by some semi-capable lawyers is because of their privileged upbringing, standing and who their father was. So you have a storyline that takes up 65% of the screen time and I am sat there thinking "oh they are going to kick this case to the curb, urinate on it and be on their way" but no, they entertain this half baked hogwash and you have to sit through deposition after boring deposition of a case where you don't agree with the plaintiff but you downright loathe the defendant and which ends with these arian youth bastards being awarded a bundle of ready cash for their mouths shut!
All of which I present as exhibit A, your honor, as to why I didn't give an armful of BALLS about any of this mind-numbing crappery.
The second case, which is honestly the more vaguely interesting of the two, but only quite, focusses on Zuckerberg being sued by his best friend Eduardo someone-or-other (at this point I was half asleep). This case isn't particularly solid either as it again features two aggressively mundane and arrogant people, one of whom "invented" Facebook and the other one coughed up $1500, pocket change to these wealthy turds, to pay for the servers. Eduardo is named CFO by Mark, in a way that resembles two children playing business, but anytime he tries to do anything remotely CFO-ish he is either hampered by Mark's enormous ego or by his own staggering ineptitude.
It all goes tits up when Mark falls under the spell of a slimy west-coast, silver spoon in rectum, overly confident waste of hair gel who "invented" Napster played by Justin Timberlake (how can anyone take any of this bilge seriously?!).
For a bit, while Eduardo is on the east coast doing something not very interesting not very well, everyone else hangs out in a house in the LA 'burbs and have strippers round doing enormous bongs of pot while several nerds sit about, unaware of any of it, 'wired in' to computer programming.
It's all exceptionally predictable, unrealistic and just simply snooze-worthy.
Deals are made, friendships are stretched, people are arrested and shown to be the drug addled losers we all expected them to be and after what seems like an eternity of pompous swanning about and masturbatory back slapping, Eduardo is being sort of written out of the company, or something and getting all angry and litigious. To be honest at this point I was so past caring I started to debate internally what colour socks to wear tomorrow but I never felt that it was really fully made clear or properly explained what the hell was going on but you understand, that whatever it is, he's upset about it.
Quite how he has a leg to stand on when he signed the original paperwork without a lawyer checking it first and therefor happily agreed to the terms that allowed them to downsize his interest in the company is beyond me but apparently he gets a fat wedge of sweaty bank notes too and goes about his day.
We are now 17 hours into this, I've run out of words for tedious, movie and still nothing remotely resembling a worthwhile story line has emerged and I am sitting there, jaw to the floor, scratching my head as to what it is I am missing, how is it anyone liked this, let alone the huge numbers that do? This was nominated for awards?? by whom? Insomniacs who are showing the gratitude at finally being put to sleep by something?? What is this patently ridiculous world coming to?
The last piece of the puzzle that is this, not at all puzzling film, is Zuckerberg himself. Made out to be an overly sensitive, rain man like, obnoxious, grudge carrying, snot nosed, fanny fart of a man who apparently, despite being obviously and knowingly rude to everyone, really just wants to talk to girls and be touched in the boy parts like everyone else. Now, unless I missed something, I did mentally wander off after all, the man doesn't have aspergers or autism or whatever, nothing that could make him remotely sympathetic or even maybe an anti-hero, no he is just a plain bastard who doesn't deserve to be touched in the man parts unless it was swiftly and repeatedly with some steel toe capped, army-issue boots.
Which brings me back to my point, you have to care about Facebook, believe that it is this amazingly connective, beautifully cool thing that just wants to bring about world peace and understanding and not that it is a forum for people to discuss their bowel movements and nose pick habits while advertisers tell you what useless tat to buy and politicians get to pretend to be like the commoners by telling everyone what brand of shampoo they use or their latest outdated and meaningless opinion on universal healthcare in the United States. The only thing Facebook has achieved is to get Betty White a hosting gig on SNL and to sell all your private information off to the highest bidder.
Without a positive view on Facebook there is nothing else redeeming, likable or worthwhile about this surprisingly awful film.
I also want to point out that a film doesn't have to have complicated character arcs, likable protagonists, a cliched wrap up at the end or even much of a point, films can be whatever they want to be but having at least one of the above would help.
As for the directing, writing and acting, well all are fine. Unlike previous efforts of Mr.Fincher, the direction is nothing to get excited over, it is just perfectly adequate, although the boat race scene isn't bad as a stand out piece of technical wizardry (shame that the entirety of the scene was completely devoid of any reason for its existence but there you are). The acting, likewise is fine, everyone does an ok job and everyone involved makes you hate them in the first 5 minutes, which I suppose is their worthless task at the end of the day.
The writing, though, is the stand out of the three because, considering everything I have said above about how stiflingly average and, in the grand scheme of things, relatively uneventful the whole sorry affair is, Sorkin does at least manage to work it into something resembling something (just what I don't know!) He does write pretty cracking dialogue too.
So I am sorry folks, haul me over the coals, argue with me, defend this overly long self important piece of tripe if you must but I am not sure I will ever be able to see whatever it is everyone else liked about the movie. My gast will just have to continue to remain flabbered, I guess.
2.5 out of 10 rather perplexing and tasteless radishes.
Points from The Wife 4 out of 10
I honestly couldn't see why, I am dumfounded, baffled, perplexed and, my personal favourite, flabbergasted.
I feel like I watched the wrong film because the film I watched was, while being as well written as a thing like this could be (so hats off to Aaron Sorkin), utterly pointless, tedious, irrelevant and unredeemable. The tag line on the poster is as thought provoking and interesting as this film gets.
You see it all comes down to, I suppose, what a big deal you think Facebook is because if, like me, you were happy pootling along with e-mails and MySpace before suddenly all of your friends made some unexplained mass exodus to what, appeared to me to be, the less exciting and the less creative Facebook, you probably think Facebook is hardly the enormous social awakening everyone else thinks it is and you probably, again like me, only use it because everyone else does and you live thousands of miles away from your friends and family, well maybe not the last bit but you get the idea. The true shame is then MySpace and all other social media then tried to be more like Facebook and the internet became awash with bland, beige, marketing driven arse. Still it is nice to keep in touch with my mateys across the pond, so I won't knock it all too much.
I mention all this though because when I initially heard about this film I was completely confused as to why anyone would want to make Facebook the movie, least of all the usually reliable and brilliant David Fincher, then those abstract and random trailers started appearing and being very annoying and that sort of sealed it for me, I thought, well I never have to see this movie, I really don't care one bit about any of it. I didn't even really look into what it was actually about.
Then, towards the end of last year, it was The Social Network that was one of the first films to pick up a lot of possible award buzz and people started talking about it like it was this incredible piece of cinema that had fallen radiantly from the heavens into our multiplexes and shone on all of us like the shiny piece of wonder that it was. To which my response was "are they really talking about that damn Facebook movie? hmmmmmm that's interesting"
Now I would put three of David Fincher's films into my top 50 films of all time, Seven, Fight Club and Zodiac, so any awards buzz about one of his films and I slowly began to take notice. Then I heard an interview with Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, on a podcast I listen to and he really sold it to me. Firstly, he explained what it was about, the notion of the man who invented a social network being very anti social and he made it sound like this interesting sort of courtroom drama and I like courtroom dramas so I thought "hmmmmm I have obviously got this film all wrong, I should watch it" and so we did and it stunk.
The one thing everyone failed to mention about the film is you need to believe in what a big deal Facebook is as a concept, or as a thing and I don't care. I simply don't. The internet itself is a big deal, like the telephone before it but Facebook to me really was a simpler and therefor more tedious and frustrating MySpace but I realise I am very much alone in that opinion to the tune of 1 Billion to 1.
The other day when I put a status up on Facebook (appropriately enough) about having been to see The King's Speech (review coming soon) a friend of mine said "It was ok, but I can't get too excited about the problems of rich people" well I disagree with that statement about The King's Speech but about The Facebook Movie it is 100% accurate.
This film has absolutely nothing satisfying or remotely thought provoking about it. It is about over-privalaged, overly-educated, self important, stuck up, rich kids going around and being arrogant, entitled pricks to one another. There isn't one character in the film that has a remotely interesting arc featuring anything really resembling an actual dilemma, for all their so-called heightened intelligence they all act incredibly stupidly and selfishly throughout the film and it all boils down to a bunch of people who want some money because they may or may not have had anything to do with inventing or financing Facebook, they get some money, sign something that says they won't talk about it and that's it. Nothing at all revelatory or resembling any kind of exciting climax happens, absolutely nothing. Astoundingly dull and awful. Mark Zuckerberg is the worst culprit as he seemingly walks around being pretty much an annoying self aggrandising arse sandwich to everyone he meets but because he can write computer code with some speed and an unhealthy dollop of superhuman aloofness and nonchalance he manages to become the worlds youngest billionaire.
This is why I say you have to care about Facebook or buy into all the hype that it is this fantastic thing. It would be like going back 25 years and making a movie about the Rubic's cube, it's a wonder anyone cares at all.
The film focusses on two main cases, one in which a pair of Harvard rowing twins, who asked Mark Zuckerberg to build a Harvard exclusive dating site, claim that instead of that he invented Facebook and that somehow it was also their idea.
As far as I understood it he never took their money, he never signed anything and he didn't use any of their computer code, maybe I am wrong but it seems like the only reason this wasn't laughed out of the board room by some semi-capable lawyers is because of their privileged upbringing, standing and who their father was. So you have a storyline that takes up 65% of the screen time and I am sat there thinking "oh they are going to kick this case to the curb, urinate on it and be on their way" but no, they entertain this half baked hogwash and you have to sit through deposition after boring deposition of a case where you don't agree with the plaintiff but you downright loathe the defendant and which ends with these arian youth bastards being awarded a bundle of ready cash for their mouths shut!
All of which I present as exhibit A, your honor, as to why I didn't give an armful of BALLS about any of this mind-numbing crappery.
The second case, which is honestly the more vaguely interesting of the two, but only quite, focusses on Zuckerberg being sued by his best friend Eduardo someone-or-other (at this point I was half asleep). This case isn't particularly solid either as it again features two aggressively mundane and arrogant people, one of whom "invented" Facebook and the other one coughed up $1500, pocket change to these wealthy turds, to pay for the servers. Eduardo is named CFO by Mark, in a way that resembles two children playing business, but anytime he tries to do anything remotely CFO-ish he is either hampered by Mark's enormous ego or by his own staggering ineptitude.
It all goes tits up when Mark falls under the spell of a slimy west-coast, silver spoon in rectum, overly confident waste of hair gel who "invented" Napster played by Justin Timberlake (how can anyone take any of this bilge seriously?!).
For a bit, while Eduardo is on the east coast doing something not very interesting not very well, everyone else hangs out in a house in the LA 'burbs and have strippers round doing enormous bongs of pot while several nerds sit about, unaware of any of it, 'wired in' to computer programming.
It's all exceptionally predictable, unrealistic and just simply snooze-worthy.
Deals are made, friendships are stretched, people are arrested and shown to be the drug addled losers we all expected them to be and after what seems like an eternity of pompous swanning about and masturbatory back slapping, Eduardo is being sort of written out of the company, or something and getting all angry and litigious. To be honest at this point I was so past caring I started to debate internally what colour socks to wear tomorrow but I never felt that it was really fully made clear or properly explained what the hell was going on but you understand, that whatever it is, he's upset about it.
Quite how he has a leg to stand on when he signed the original paperwork without a lawyer checking it first and therefor happily agreed to the terms that allowed them to downsize his interest in the company is beyond me but apparently he gets a fat wedge of sweaty bank notes too and goes about his day.
We are now 17 hours into this, I've run out of words for tedious, movie and still nothing remotely resembling a worthwhile story line has emerged and I am sitting there, jaw to the floor, scratching my head as to what it is I am missing, how is it anyone liked this, let alone the huge numbers that do? This was nominated for awards?? by whom? Insomniacs who are showing the gratitude at finally being put to sleep by something?? What is this patently ridiculous world coming to?
The last piece of the puzzle that is this, not at all puzzling film, is Zuckerberg himself. Made out to be an overly sensitive, rain man like, obnoxious, grudge carrying, snot nosed, fanny fart of a man who apparently, despite being obviously and knowingly rude to everyone, really just wants to talk to girls and be touched in the boy parts like everyone else. Now, unless I missed something, I did mentally wander off after all, the man doesn't have aspergers or autism or whatever, nothing that could make him remotely sympathetic or even maybe an anti-hero, no he is just a plain bastard who doesn't deserve to be touched in the man parts unless it was swiftly and repeatedly with some steel toe capped, army-issue boots.
Which brings me back to my point, you have to care about Facebook, believe that it is this amazingly connective, beautifully cool thing that just wants to bring about world peace and understanding and not that it is a forum for people to discuss their bowel movements and nose pick habits while advertisers tell you what useless tat to buy and politicians get to pretend to be like the commoners by telling everyone what brand of shampoo they use or their latest outdated and meaningless opinion on universal healthcare in the United States. The only thing Facebook has achieved is to get Betty White a hosting gig on SNL and to sell all your private information off to the highest bidder.
Without a positive view on Facebook there is nothing else redeeming, likable or worthwhile about this surprisingly awful film.
I also want to point out that a film doesn't have to have complicated character arcs, likable protagonists, a cliched wrap up at the end or even much of a point, films can be whatever they want to be but having at least one of the above would help.
As for the directing, writing and acting, well all are fine. Unlike previous efforts of Mr.Fincher, the direction is nothing to get excited over, it is just perfectly adequate, although the boat race scene isn't bad as a stand out piece of technical wizardry (shame that the entirety of the scene was completely devoid of any reason for its existence but there you are). The acting, likewise is fine, everyone does an ok job and everyone involved makes you hate them in the first 5 minutes, which I suppose is their worthless task at the end of the day.
The writing, though, is the stand out of the three because, considering everything I have said above about how stiflingly average and, in the grand scheme of things, relatively uneventful the whole sorry affair is, Sorkin does at least manage to work it into something resembling something (just what I don't know!) He does write pretty cracking dialogue too.
So I am sorry folks, haul me over the coals, argue with me, defend this overly long self important piece of tripe if you must but I am not sure I will ever be able to see whatever it is everyone else liked about the movie. My gast will just have to continue to remain flabbered, I guess.
2.5 out of 10 rather perplexing and tasteless radishes.
Points from The Wife 4 out of 10
The Next Three Days - 21st November 2010
We basically decided that this weekend would be a hibernation weekend, punctuated only by a couple of trips to the cinema to see Morning Glory and The Next Three Days. My hope was, that with Harry Potter 7 part 1 out this weekend too, that these other two, lower tier, movies would be relatively quiet.
It was refreshing to see the cinema relatively full for both these films and also annoying as all hell because, well, as much as I love the cinema going experience, whatever the movie, I generally hate other people, especially when they congregate together as they seemingly forget their manners.
Normally, to avoid the majority of people, especially children or teenagers, and as we are night owls, we tend to go to the last screening of the night which is usually around 11pm. This was the case yesterday for Morning Glory and despite the film not being up to much, the cinema going experience was fine and dandy. The same can not be said about tonight, which is a shame because this was definitely the better film of the two. Tonight we went at 7:45pm which was a big mistake because not only was it already busy when we went to find our seats but my heart gradually sank and my tension levels slowly rose as the seats around us and in front of us filled up. We had every type of annoying patron possible from mobile phone users to packet rustlers and one particularly disgusting fiend who was obviously sick who coughed throughout the whole movie and used a cup holder as a tissue depository. I feel like I was raised in the 1950s or something but why is it nobody else seems to have any damn manners in public anymore? The cinema/train/bus/shop/restaurant is not your own private living room, it's a public space! Nobody cares about your conversations, likes your phone usage, wants to hear you open confectionary loudly, masticate audibly, cough, blow your nose, fart or any other disgusting bodily practices usually reserved for ones own bedroom or a bathroom. To maintain the illusion, once the lights go down, you face front, shut the hell up as much as possible and avoid contact with the seat in front of you, I paid my $13 too you know, have some damn courtesy! (comments on this below please)
Anyway, rant over, now to the film in hand:
The Next Three Days, although I didn't know this going in, is the remake of a French movie Pour Elle. Now, with hindsight, I sort of wish I'd seen that but as I didn't know I am reviewing this simply as the experience I had watching this, the English language version.
If you haven't seen the trailer, this is a film about a podgy community college professor, his implausibly attractive wife and their son and what happens to them when she is accused of murder, and jailed for 20 years. After 2 years of attempted but failed appeals, the husband decides, at all costs, to break her out of prison because he loves her, doesn't believe she's capable of murder and also is a bit of a dreamer. Russell Crowe in post Robin Hood, pie-binged, podgester mode and Elizabeth Banks in serious actress mode play the husband and wife respectively in this slightly over long and dry drama of a film by Paul 'I am a very furrowed brow makingly serious, Oscar winning writer/director don't you know" Haggis.
I went in, because of the previews, thinking this was going to be something between Taken and The Fugitive and instead ended up watching, for the first two thirds of the movie at least, a fairly slow moving, calculated drama about a determined husband and his attempts to put an escape plot together while raising a kid alone. It's not until the escape plot is underway that the movie begins to take off but it's definitely a bit too little too late. Crowe and Banks do some great work and the supporting cast and cameos, presumably down to Haggis' academy kudos, are all played by well known but unexpected thesps, which does raise this above the level of a made-for-TV movie of the week (only just) but also throws you out of the movie somewhat as you sit there going, "oh look Olivia Wilde playing another, unusually attractive, Pennsylvanian school mam of one, that's weird!" and "wasn't that Daniel Stern as Crowe's attorney?" Something which the chattering feeders behind me couldn't help whispering at vital moments of the plot. What hideous excuses for humanity.
It's also all well put together, directed without any glaring errors, apart from the dragging pace at times, it's just, somewhere along the line, Haggis, no doubt inspired by the existentialism and angst that, let's face it, probably wafts out of the French film like the smoke from a freshly lit Gauloies and his seemingly inflated sense of his own talent, thought he was writing a gritty, soul searching, academy impressing and earnest piece when really he should've gone more for the action orientated angle that he gives into in the finale. I personally, for example, could have done with seeing some table thumping and emotional puffery in a court case scene or Banks coping with the very 'real, grimy hell' of being in prison all rendered in Hollywood style heightened dramatic reality but instead I had to sit through an hour and a half of Russell Crowe mumbling.
This would've all been fine, I am sure, if I knew what I was letting myself in for, however, a lot like The Town before it, this is a fairly average prison escape adventure rendered as a talky, thinky piece that believes itself to be great and important but really is just another film full of obvious old cliches and contrived plot points.
All that said, though, I did enjoy it and would like to see it again now that I know what I am letting myself in for. It is uneven, certainly, but it has the strength of its own convictions and follows a slightly more realistic and therefor unorthodox way of telling a standard action/drama story right up to the very end where, they sort of have to wrap everything up in a neat-ish bow which, for this film at least, spoils it.
You see, when it began, I wandered if, like The Fugitive, part of the whole escape would involve proving the wife's innocence but as it went on I realised more and more that the question of whether she's innocent or not is irrelevant because the husband believes completely that she is, we're following the husband and so the only thing that matters is his conviction, determination and ultimate success. We root for him because he's basically a good guy, loves his wife, loves his kid and we see nobody else's point of view, after an hour it has completely ceased to become even a smidgen of relevant whether she killed her boss or not because that is not the story being told. The fact then that they bother to wrap it up in the end and give you a definite answer either way makes me think that either A) we were meant to care about that all along, which I didn't and that diminishes the intention I got from the flick or B) some studio head watched it and said "well folks from Iowa are gonna want to know whether she did or didn't do it" and that makes Paul Haggis a big fraud. Hollywood obviously learnt nothing from Inception then and apparently, despite 100 years plus of cinema being behind us, someone somewhere still believes they need to tell me what to think.
If you are going to try and tell a story like this a bit differently, which they obviously where, then have the strength to see your vision right to the end and leave it ambiguous, make the film be about what a man would do for his family and the courage of humanity and not just another episode of Murder She Wrote.
So, in conclusion, don't go in expecting too much action, this is flabby, mumbly, slobby and sweater wearing Russell Crowe not boring, action man, Ridley Scott directed Russell Crowe, know that it takes its time to tell its story and if you're an adult who appreciates good acting, sturdy, if unimaginative direction and wants to avoid Harry Potter at all costs then you could do worse than see The Next Three Days, after all, you could be fooled into seeing Morning Glory.
6.5 out of 10 pies for Russell's waist line
Points from The Wife 6 out of 10 pies
Horror Movie Marathon - Day Two - 24th October 2010
Before we start here are -
Things the wife learnt from this weekend's horror movie marathon:
1) the better your apartment is, the more likely you will be killed in it;
2) beware of blonde-haired, blue eyed children;
3) bully's will be punished;
4) doors opening and closing by themselves is never the wind;
5) midget creatures cannot speak, but are amazingly strong;
6) 3am is NOT a good hour for anything.
Right, so here we are on the second day of our marathon of movies and in no way has my excitement dipped at the prospect of watching more horror movies, in fact I am beginning to think this might be a pretty wondrous way to spend every weekend. There is some discussion about what film we should watch first and then the day is underway.
First up is...
a chance for me to eat my words from yesterday evidently.
If you have read my review of Paranormal Activity you know I said that shaky camcorder/found footage horror movies must stop and, for the most part, I would I still greatly stand by that. From Cannibal Holocaust through Blair Witch to Paranormal Activity and it's head scratchingly popular sequel, 99% of them are utterly worthless but like every rule there are the few that brake it; I said that Diary of the Dead, for example, did work for me and I wasn't expecting that it would.
So here is the addendum to the rule:
If the use of camera is strictly integral to the plot, the camera and sound is good, watchable quality, if the film is paced, produced and feels like a real movie and if it is called REC then it's ok.
I have to say, I did not have high hopes going into this film, that's why I voted for it to go first, as it was a found footage/shaky cam horror film from Spain but in the middle of the day, with a group of us in the room, REC surprised, shocked, scared me and far exceeded my expectations. As with some of the other, relatively new, films that I watched this weekend I don't want to spoil too many of the surprises or shocks of this excellent piece of cinema so I will just set up the film for you like this:
The film starts with a local news team of two hanging out in a fire station after dark, doing a piece for their show 'While you were sleeping' which documents what certain people get up to in certain occupations over night. She interviews the chief and then the boys having dinner but suddenly realises that if there isn't a call it's not going to be a very interesting piece, not that she wants anyone to be in danger but filming firemen sleep is not what she had in mind. Luckily they get a call that someone has locked themselves in their flat and so off they go, camera in hand, to catch on film what should be a routine operation. Of course, from the moment they get into the building it is clear, from talks of screams etc. and the huddled mass on onlookers in the foyer, that all may not be as it seems. Before long, quite a bit of hell has broken loose and everyone, including the camera man and his host, are trapped inside by authorities outside.
What is tremendous about this film is that it turns the usual zombie/monster siege idea on it's head because instead of being a film about: we can't go outside there are hordes of zombies out there let's wait it out in here, this film is all about: we can't go outside, we're trapped and there maybe a zombie in here!
From that excellent premise which is well set up, with a good build that doesn't show off all it's tricks straight away but doesn't drag its feet either, the film goes on to include an examination of the nature of human beings reaction to illness, the idea that documentation of such events is important for the future and perpetuates a heightened sense of being trapped and the four walls and darkness closing in around you. The film-maker cleverly reducing the amount of space the protagonists have, making it smaller and a smaller till it becomes unbearably tense and claustrophobic. It even has elements of The Thing as the story unravels, with each of the survivors pointing the finger at the others as the possible starter of this contagious zombifying disease.
Along with 'Let the Right One In' this was one of my favourite films of the weekend, a startling discovery that there are still people out there breathing new, exciting and unexpected life into old ideas while maintaining classic scare techniques, plot points and making the following, not the debunking, of the rules the thing that was ultimately satisfying about both visionary films. Also, unlike a lot of modern horror attempts, especially those with a handheld, first person camera style to them, REC remembers to be bloody scary.
9 out of 10
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
Less of a horror movie and more of a court room drama, The Exorcism of Emily Rose has no idea what it really wants to be. Is it a modern update of the 'girl gets possessed' story line with all new CGI effects, polished Hollywood sheen and a startling performance by newcomer Jennifer Carpenter? Is it an earnest 'based on a true story' drama about belief and the law starring a couple of serious heavy weights like Linney and Wilkinson? or is it a completely unbelievable slice of old hooey in which the only way to really go with the story is to surrender rationality and believe in god?
I don't know. It felt like all three at different points of the film.
Now, the idea of taking something like The Exorcist and extrapolating what would happen, realistically, if the girl died and the priest was convicted of a crime is a pretty good one, I don't mind suspending disbelief for a good ridiculous court room drama and I love a good creepy possession movie full of bone cracking sound effects and eerie contortions of the body but despite being pretty much all that and an ok paced, well acted film I can't say that The Exorcism of Emily Rose did anything for me.
My main problem with it was the tag-line 'based on a true story'. Now we all know that when we read that what follows is likely to be about as truthful as a politician on a chat show but in this case the disclaimer that this was 'based on a true story' conflicted so violently not just with the ludicrous, Hollywood style plot of the film but the over-the-top visuals and directorial style too that it ultimately ended up spoiling my enjoyment. Then to include a so-called twist and climax that is entirely predicated on whether you believe in god or not and an absolutely laughable moment when an earnest jury member interrupts a previously strict judge that facilitates a Disney ending to the whole thing, only goes to make the entire endeavor completely worthless. This is no more based on a true story than the bible itself.
Like I said before though, if you get rid of that stupid bit about it being a true story, it is a competently put together bit of courtroom hokum with some effective flashback sequences depicting some rather cool possession effects. Just nothing new or interesting here and after REC it really fell flat for me.
5 out of 10
Points from The Wife 4 out of 10
After the other two successes we'd had with original foreign language movies this weekend I had high hopes for Ju-On or 'The Grudge' as we call it. This is a film I'd never seen but I knew that it was apparently so good the Director himself made it a total of 7 times, 8 if you include the computer game. It was also a film that came with the high recommendation of none-other-than Sam Raimi (he even lends a praise filled commentary to the American DVD of the Japanese version) but, for whatever reason, I found the whole thing underwhelming, boring and needlessly confusing.
Many times we stopped the film during its run to check just what the hell was going on and each time it was explained I would think, yes, that's what I thought was going on too, is that really all there is to this film? It keeps playing like there is so much more to it but really, no.
It's just a not-very-scary, mostly downright bland, inconsistent and silly haunted house movie.
Call me weird but I don't find Japanese children painted white particularly frightening, especially when shot against a stunningly, depressingly boring, beige background doing absolutely nothing. There was no use of lighting to speak of, no attempt to build atmosphere or scares using sound design or camera angles and maybe, yes, I am too used to the traditional Western way of doing things in horror movies and yes maybe the subtly of the score or the use of real lighting as opposed to 'scary movie lighting' was a bold, brave, cool Eastern way to approach horror, I don't know. What I do know is, I didn't like it and it wasn't scary. Also the attempt to make the thing remotely interesting by cutting up a tediously simple linear plot into lots of little stories seen from individual characters perspectives, jumping all over the timeline with a lazy disregard for the audience, ended up with the whole thing leaving me with an annoyed, gritted-teethed 'did I miss something?', "that was it?' vibe.
It's a shame because I wanted to like it but the whole thing was a difficult mess of nothingness to wade through.
3 out of 10
Points from The Wife 1 out of 10
So, this weekend we had three foreign language movies that all shared the dubious distinction of being deemed good enough to warrant having been remade for American audiences at some point, a couple of disappointing possession movies, one Canadian melodrama from the 70s and three, what I would call, classic American teen horror movies from the late 70s early 80s, the sort of which I grew up on a steady diet of. The last of these final category of movies and the film that, for the wife and me ended our marathon, was the highly underrated Sleepaway Camp. I am sure that, at first glance, to the common horror movie goer of the 80s this looked like just another poor rip off attempt to cash in on Friday 13th. In reality it plays more like a bizarre, twisted, x-rated version of Meatballs. Firstly it's the dictionary definition of politically incorrect, it covers subjects that make you rub your eyes, shake your head and say 'wow did they just go there and do that?!' and it is gloriously irreverent and strange. To attempt to describe this scattershot, bonkers and pleasingly weird little film would be futile, all I can say is that, if you can find it, watch it because it really does do things that no other film of its style or genre barely bother to go near. When you think of all the horror films of this period, all of them in one way or another pushed the envelope on gore, violence, special effects, death set pieces and nudity but rarely do they go beyond the theme of: there's a bad person, with no morals or much reason coming after me in the dark but Sleepaway Camp is sort of entirely the opposite. The deaths are not exactly the most inventive on film, although they are rendered competently enough, there aren't that many deaths through out the film anyway and the plot itself, people come to camp, there are bullies and sluts and they are punished by a killer that stalks them in the woods, is as rigidly adhered to and formulaic as can be but it's in the dialogue, the characters and the nutty crap they get up to that makes this film stand apart from the likes of Friday the 13th and have its very own little, unique corner of this wild and inventive genre.
To watch this and really 'get it' you have to have a healthy sense of humour, an appreciation for the left field or off-kilter and a love of ridiculous horror or B movies. It is also the perfect film to watch in a group as the reactions of others to the strange and quirky unfolding of the story will be as much of a joy as the film itself. It, therefor, made a perfectly fitting end to a tremendous weekend of movies that, whether they were good or bad, all added up to a fantastic experience that I am, already, dying to repeat this weekend.
7 out of 10
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10
2) beware of blonde-haired, blue eyed children;
3) bully's will be punished;
4) doors opening and closing by themselves is never the wind;
5) midget creatures cannot speak, but are amazingly strong;
6) 3am is NOT a good hour for anything.
Right, so here we are on the second day of our marathon of movies and in no way has my excitement dipped at the prospect of watching more horror movies, in fact I am beginning to think this might be a pretty wondrous way to spend every weekend. There is some discussion about what film we should watch first and then the day is underway.
First up is...
a chance for me to eat my words from yesterday evidently.
If you have read my review of Paranormal Activity you know I said that shaky camcorder/found footage horror movies must stop and, for the most part, I would I still greatly stand by that. From Cannibal Holocaust through Blair Witch to Paranormal Activity and it's head scratchingly popular sequel, 99% of them are utterly worthless but like every rule there are the few that brake it; I said that Diary of the Dead, for example, did work for me and I wasn't expecting that it would.
So here is the addendum to the rule:
If the use of camera is strictly integral to the plot, the camera and sound is good, watchable quality, if the film is paced, produced and feels like a real movie and if it is called REC then it's ok.
I have to say, I did not have high hopes going into this film, that's why I voted for it to go first, as it was a found footage/shaky cam horror film from Spain but in the middle of the day, with a group of us in the room, REC surprised, shocked, scared me and far exceeded my expectations. As with some of the other, relatively new, films that I watched this weekend I don't want to spoil too many of the surprises or shocks of this excellent piece of cinema so I will just set up the film for you like this:
The film starts with a local news team of two hanging out in a fire station after dark, doing a piece for their show 'While you were sleeping' which documents what certain people get up to in certain occupations over night. She interviews the chief and then the boys having dinner but suddenly realises that if there isn't a call it's not going to be a very interesting piece, not that she wants anyone to be in danger but filming firemen sleep is not what she had in mind. Luckily they get a call that someone has locked themselves in their flat and so off they go, camera in hand, to catch on film what should be a routine operation. Of course, from the moment they get into the building it is clear, from talks of screams etc. and the huddled mass on onlookers in the foyer, that all may not be as it seems. Before long, quite a bit of hell has broken loose and everyone, including the camera man and his host, are trapped inside by authorities outside.
What is tremendous about this film is that it turns the usual zombie/monster siege idea on it's head because instead of being a film about: we can't go outside there are hordes of zombies out there let's wait it out in here, this film is all about: we can't go outside, we're trapped and there maybe a zombie in here!
From that excellent premise which is well set up, with a good build that doesn't show off all it's tricks straight away but doesn't drag its feet either, the film goes on to include an examination of the nature of human beings reaction to illness, the idea that documentation of such events is important for the future and perpetuates a heightened sense of being trapped and the four walls and darkness closing in around you. The film-maker cleverly reducing the amount of space the protagonists have, making it smaller and a smaller till it becomes unbearably tense and claustrophobic. It even has elements of The Thing as the story unravels, with each of the survivors pointing the finger at the others as the possible starter of this contagious zombifying disease.
Along with 'Let the Right One In' this was one of my favourite films of the weekend, a startling discovery that there are still people out there breathing new, exciting and unexpected life into old ideas while maintaining classic scare techniques, plot points and making the following, not the debunking, of the rules the thing that was ultimately satisfying about both visionary films. Also, unlike a lot of modern horror attempts, especially those with a handheld, first person camera style to them, REC remembers to be bloody scary.
9 out of 10
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
Less of a horror movie and more of a court room drama, The Exorcism of Emily Rose has no idea what it really wants to be. Is it a modern update of the 'girl gets possessed' story line with all new CGI effects, polished Hollywood sheen and a startling performance by newcomer Jennifer Carpenter? Is it an earnest 'based on a true story' drama about belief and the law starring a couple of serious heavy weights like Linney and Wilkinson? or is it a completely unbelievable slice of old hooey in which the only way to really go with the story is to surrender rationality and believe in god?
I don't know. It felt like all three at different points of the film.
Now, the idea of taking something like The Exorcist and extrapolating what would happen, realistically, if the girl died and the priest was convicted of a crime is a pretty good one, I don't mind suspending disbelief for a good ridiculous court room drama and I love a good creepy possession movie full of bone cracking sound effects and eerie contortions of the body but despite being pretty much all that and an ok paced, well acted film I can't say that The Exorcism of Emily Rose did anything for me.
My main problem with it was the tag-line 'based on a true story'. Now we all know that when we read that what follows is likely to be about as truthful as a politician on a chat show but in this case the disclaimer that this was 'based on a true story' conflicted so violently not just with the ludicrous, Hollywood style plot of the film but the over-the-top visuals and directorial style too that it ultimately ended up spoiling my enjoyment. Then to include a so-called twist and climax that is entirely predicated on whether you believe in god or not and an absolutely laughable moment when an earnest jury member interrupts a previously strict judge that facilitates a Disney ending to the whole thing, only goes to make the entire endeavor completely worthless. This is no more based on a true story than the bible itself.
Like I said before though, if you get rid of that stupid bit about it being a true story, it is a competently put together bit of courtroom hokum with some effective flashback sequences depicting some rather cool possession effects. Just nothing new or interesting here and after REC it really fell flat for me.
5 out of 10
Points from The Wife 4 out of 10
After the other two successes we'd had with original foreign language movies this weekend I had high hopes for Ju-On or 'The Grudge' as we call it. This is a film I'd never seen but I knew that it was apparently so good the Director himself made it a total of 7 times, 8 if you include the computer game. It was also a film that came with the high recommendation of none-other-than Sam Raimi (he even lends a praise filled commentary to the American DVD of the Japanese version) but, for whatever reason, I found the whole thing underwhelming, boring and needlessly confusing.
Many times we stopped the film during its run to check just what the hell was going on and each time it was explained I would think, yes, that's what I thought was going on too, is that really all there is to this film? It keeps playing like there is so much more to it but really, no.
It's just a not-very-scary, mostly downright bland, inconsistent and silly haunted house movie.
Call me weird but I don't find Japanese children painted white particularly frightening, especially when shot against a stunningly, depressingly boring, beige background doing absolutely nothing. There was no use of lighting to speak of, no attempt to build atmosphere or scares using sound design or camera angles and maybe, yes, I am too used to the traditional Western way of doing things in horror movies and yes maybe the subtly of the score or the use of real lighting as opposed to 'scary movie lighting' was a bold, brave, cool Eastern way to approach horror, I don't know. What I do know is, I didn't like it and it wasn't scary. Also the attempt to make the thing remotely interesting by cutting up a tediously simple linear plot into lots of little stories seen from individual characters perspectives, jumping all over the timeline with a lazy disregard for the audience, ended up with the whole thing leaving me with an annoyed, gritted-teethed 'did I miss something?', "that was it?' vibe.
It's a shame because I wanted to like it but the whole thing was a difficult mess of nothingness to wade through.
3 out of 10
Points from The Wife 1 out of 10
So, this weekend we had three foreign language movies that all shared the dubious distinction of being deemed good enough to warrant having been remade for American audiences at some point, a couple of disappointing possession movies, one Canadian melodrama from the 70s and three, what I would call, classic American teen horror movies from the late 70s early 80s, the sort of which I grew up on a steady diet of. The last of these final category of movies and the film that, for the wife and me ended our marathon, was the highly underrated Sleepaway Camp. I am sure that, at first glance, to the common horror movie goer of the 80s this looked like just another poor rip off attempt to cash in on Friday 13th. In reality it plays more like a bizarre, twisted, x-rated version of Meatballs. Firstly it's the dictionary definition of politically incorrect, it covers subjects that make you rub your eyes, shake your head and say 'wow did they just go there and do that?!' and it is gloriously irreverent and strange. To attempt to describe this scattershot, bonkers and pleasingly weird little film would be futile, all I can say is that, if you can find it, watch it because it really does do things that no other film of its style or genre barely bother to go near. When you think of all the horror films of this period, all of them in one way or another pushed the envelope on gore, violence, special effects, death set pieces and nudity but rarely do they go beyond the theme of: there's a bad person, with no morals or much reason coming after me in the dark but Sleepaway Camp is sort of entirely the opposite. The deaths are not exactly the most inventive on film, although they are rendered competently enough, there aren't that many deaths through out the film anyway and the plot itself, people come to camp, there are bullies and sluts and they are punished by a killer that stalks them in the woods, is as rigidly adhered to and formulaic as can be but it's in the dialogue, the characters and the nutty crap they get up to that makes this film stand apart from the likes of Friday the 13th and have its very own little, unique corner of this wild and inventive genre.
To watch this and really 'get it' you have to have a healthy sense of humour, an appreciation for the left field or off-kilter and a love of ridiculous horror or B movies. It is also the perfect film to watch in a group as the reactions of others to the strange and quirky unfolding of the story will be as much of a joy as the film itself. It, therefor, made a perfectly fitting end to a tremendous weekend of movies that, whether they were good or bad, all added up to a fantastic experience that I am, already, dying to repeat this weekend.
7 out of 10
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10
The Town - 25th September 2010
Occasionally, when I sit down to watch a film and then later when I am attempting a review of it and I start to think through the plot, I begin thinking, are films getting less and less original or have I just watched way too many films that of course you can join the dots between any number of story-lines if you want to.
There is, of course, that old theory that states there are only really 7 stories in the world anyway. In fact, researching that, there is also another theory that states all writing of any kind is built upon the foundation of just one single plot idea: Conflict and boy is there a lot of that in The Town.
The reason I say all this is because my feeling as the lights came up in the cinema directly after watching this film and the feeling that still lingers today, a week later when I write this, is that this film is basically Heat but set in gritty, monochrome Bawstan (or Boston for anyone without that accent). I don't think this would bother me so much if it didn't seem to strive so hard to let you know just how authentic it was, how gritty the streets really are and how if you step one foot into this part of Boston without being a ridiculously aggressive, tattooed Irish man then you're liable to get raped because that's just the way it is and you better get used to the idea. Meaning that, if a working class, isn't life hard, I just wish I had it better, earnest drama is what you want to make, then great but don't have such a cliched, obvious, usually reserved for lighter less important films type plot. Also, don't cast yourself, millionaire Ben Affleck, in the lead, but I'll get to that later.
First, the Heat comparison, I think, is valid:
1. Criminal who is really nice deep down and wants out - check,
2. Policeman who is a bit of a swine who will do anything to get his man - check,
3. Criminal falls in love with woman and wants to take her away from all this - check and 4. Film includes a large gun shoot out between crims and cops on busy streets - check.
Where The Town differs is, instead of Michael Mann's over-the-top, neon drenched, shiny Los Angeles, with exaggerated hammy performances from it's famous leads, that ends on an ambiguous, possibly down, ending; what you get is an earnest, striving to be taken seriously, supposedly realistic and dangerous portrayal of Boston lowlifes that ends like a normal Hollywood film. You can decide, by watching Heat and The Town back to back, which approach you prefer, both are perfectly valid and while both have some big flaws both are well made, engaging movies.
I use Heat as an example but, thinking about it further, my point really could be applied to any of the multitude of cops and robber films out there, not just Heat. They all have their standard plot beats and The Town is no different.
So, to The Town's plus points. Firstly, the direction. I have never really been an Affleck hater, I guess because I was a fan of Kevin Smith, I actually liked Jersey Girl, have never seen Gigli and never cared who he was or wasn't sleeping with or engaged to. While he has surely made tons of terrible films, the ones that I have chosen to watch with him in it, have been, for the most part, ok. I really liked his last, isn't Bawstan just the grittiest place on earth, film as a director, Gone Baby Gone and since he has taken his career down a notch from his Armageddon, J-Lo loving days, I think people are finally seeing what he can actually accomplish and where his talent lies. The Town is a well shot and well paced cops and robbers movie, with fine performances. I just wish it didn't take itself so seriously.
As for the actors, just as Casey Affleck seemed a little miscast, mainly because of his age and not his talent, in Gone Baby Gone, similarly Ben Affleck seems a little miscast in The Town. This is not to say he isn't good, he is, in fact the acting all round is superb, and he tries his damned hardest to pull off the soulful, I just want the money for a new life, Bank Robber but watching it, I couldn't help thinking 'Why's Ben Affleck trying to play it all tough and blue collar? he's Ben Affleck.'
I am not normally affected by people's personas, or previous work when I watch a film, especially if the acting is good but, imagine, if Jeremy Renner, the second lead in this film and an actor who is becoming known for aggressive, intense and action orientated roles suddenly did a happy-clappy, the sun is always shining, romantic comedy. Wouldn't you be watching it thinking "no, don't go out with him! runaway! within days you'll be hooked on smack, holding up liquor stores and having deep inner torment". Let me put it another way, you know when DeNiro tries to do comedy and it should work but it doesn't because he's Robert DeNiro, well there is an element of that in Ben Affleck's performance.
It also begs the question, why is Ben Affleck even making gritty crime dramas? If it was a more carefree caper then fine but I really think the over-furrowed brow, behold my pain style of this movie spoils it for me. Also why does the entire film have to look like an hour before dusk on a grey miserable day, can want-to-go-straight, violent thieves not feel angst and pain on a sunny day?
I will now stop harping on about the serious drama/bank robber caper disconnect that keeps rearing its head in this review, it's just every time I get close to stating positive things about this film which, I did enjoy, it just keeps popping up in the form of a loud resounding "BUT", however I shall endeavour to put that to rest and assume the point has been put across.
Despite all that, I can recognise its good points, John Hamm turns in a solid performance that hopefully will be the start of many in his future, post Mad Men film career, both actresses are excellent, with parts that seem to be trying to show the extreme of the different places life can take you, depending on which choices you make and Pete Postlethwaite steals the film in an extended cameo as a genuinely unnerving, black hearted evil florist. Finally, the multitude of greys in the colour palette of the cinematography, while not entirely to my taste, is consistent, giving the film an atmosphere that's akin to that coldish feeling you get coming home slightly damp from the drizzling rain which is difficult to shake.
Ultimately though, for me, the film was just too throwaway and I would never really need to see it again. I didn't love it but I didn't hate it, it was fine for what it was but it's not the searing in-depth portrayal of a society in decay drama that it thinks it is, it is a by-the-books, cliche filled cops and robbers movie that only lacks a charming, camera-winking, ladies man, comic relief.
6.5 out of 10 average Belgian waffles
Points from the Misses 9 out of 10 obviously tastier that I realised Belgian Waffles
There is, of course, that old theory that states there are only really 7 stories in the world anyway. In fact, researching that, there is also another theory that states all writing of any kind is built upon the foundation of just one single plot idea: Conflict and boy is there a lot of that in The Town.
The reason I say all this is because my feeling as the lights came up in the cinema directly after watching this film and the feeling that still lingers today, a week later when I write this, is that this film is basically Heat but set in gritty, monochrome Bawstan (or Boston for anyone without that accent). I don't think this would bother me so much if it didn't seem to strive so hard to let you know just how authentic it was, how gritty the streets really are and how if you step one foot into this part of Boston without being a ridiculously aggressive, tattooed Irish man then you're liable to get raped because that's just the way it is and you better get used to the idea. Meaning that, if a working class, isn't life hard, I just wish I had it better, earnest drama is what you want to make, then great but don't have such a cliched, obvious, usually reserved for lighter less important films type plot. Also, don't cast yourself, millionaire Ben Affleck, in the lead, but I'll get to that later.
First, the Heat comparison, I think, is valid:
1. Criminal who is really nice deep down and wants out - check,
2. Policeman who is a bit of a swine who will do anything to get his man - check,
3. Criminal falls in love with woman and wants to take her away from all this - check and 4. Film includes a large gun shoot out between crims and cops on busy streets - check.
Where The Town differs is, instead of Michael Mann's over-the-top, neon drenched, shiny Los Angeles, with exaggerated hammy performances from it's famous leads, that ends on an ambiguous, possibly down, ending; what you get is an earnest, striving to be taken seriously, supposedly realistic and dangerous portrayal of Boston lowlifes that ends like a normal Hollywood film. You can decide, by watching Heat and The Town back to back, which approach you prefer, both are perfectly valid and while both have some big flaws both are well made, engaging movies.
I use Heat as an example but, thinking about it further, my point really could be applied to any of the multitude of cops and robber films out there, not just Heat. They all have their standard plot beats and The Town is no different.
So, to The Town's plus points. Firstly, the direction. I have never really been an Affleck hater, I guess because I was a fan of Kevin Smith, I actually liked Jersey Girl, have never seen Gigli and never cared who he was or wasn't sleeping with or engaged to. While he has surely made tons of terrible films, the ones that I have chosen to watch with him in it, have been, for the most part, ok. I really liked his last, isn't Bawstan just the grittiest place on earth, film as a director, Gone Baby Gone and since he has taken his career down a notch from his Armageddon, J-Lo loving days, I think people are finally seeing what he can actually accomplish and where his talent lies. The Town is a well shot and well paced cops and robbers movie, with fine performances. I just wish it didn't take itself so seriously.
As for the actors, just as Casey Affleck seemed a little miscast, mainly because of his age and not his talent, in Gone Baby Gone, similarly Ben Affleck seems a little miscast in The Town. This is not to say he isn't good, he is, in fact the acting all round is superb, and he tries his damned hardest to pull off the soulful, I just want the money for a new life, Bank Robber but watching it, I couldn't help thinking 'Why's Ben Affleck trying to play it all tough and blue collar? he's Ben Affleck.'
I am not normally affected by people's personas, or previous work when I watch a film, especially if the acting is good but, imagine, if Jeremy Renner, the second lead in this film and an actor who is becoming known for aggressive, intense and action orientated roles suddenly did a happy-clappy, the sun is always shining, romantic comedy. Wouldn't you be watching it thinking "no, don't go out with him! runaway! within days you'll be hooked on smack, holding up liquor stores and having deep inner torment". Let me put it another way, you know when DeNiro tries to do comedy and it should work but it doesn't because he's Robert DeNiro, well there is an element of that in Ben Affleck's performance.
It also begs the question, why is Ben Affleck even making gritty crime dramas? If it was a more carefree caper then fine but I really think the over-furrowed brow, behold my pain style of this movie spoils it for me. Also why does the entire film have to look like an hour before dusk on a grey miserable day, can want-to-go-straight, violent thieves not feel angst and pain on a sunny day?
I will now stop harping on about the serious drama/bank robber caper disconnect that keeps rearing its head in this review, it's just every time I get close to stating positive things about this film which, I did enjoy, it just keeps popping up in the form of a loud resounding "BUT", however I shall endeavour to put that to rest and assume the point has been put across.
Despite all that, I can recognise its good points, John Hamm turns in a solid performance that hopefully will be the start of many in his future, post Mad Men film career, both actresses are excellent, with parts that seem to be trying to show the extreme of the different places life can take you, depending on which choices you make and Pete Postlethwaite steals the film in an extended cameo as a genuinely unnerving, black hearted evil florist. Finally, the multitude of greys in the colour palette of the cinematography, while not entirely to my taste, is consistent, giving the film an atmosphere that's akin to that coldish feeling you get coming home slightly damp from the drizzling rain which is difficult to shake.
Ultimately though, for me, the film was just too throwaway and I would never really need to see it again. I didn't love it but I didn't hate it, it was fine for what it was but it's not the searing in-depth portrayal of a society in decay drama that it thinks it is, it is a by-the-books, cliche filled cops and robbers movie that only lacks a charming, camera-winking, ladies man, comic relief.
6.5 out of 10 average Belgian waffles
Points from the Misses 9 out of 10 obviously tastier that I realised Belgian Waffles
Dollhouse - August 2010
This my first TV series review and it's for a series that has already been cancelled. What frustrates me about this is that someone like J.J. Abrams, who is nowhere near the genius everyone else seems to think he is, only has to fart and a flood of crisp bank notes washes up at his door and yet Joss Whedon, creator of what I believe to be some of the best Sci-Fi/Fantasy TV of all time, has watched his last two series and what could've been a movie franchise in Serenity, fail before given the opportunity to grow. He must hate it, he turns up to Comic-Con or does Q & A's around the world and thousands upon thousands of people turn out to tell him how great he is but when he puts something on TV not enough seem to watch. Although, apparently, the only reason that Dollhouse got another season was that the head of Fox programming didn't want to receive a gazillion letters from whining fans. The threat wasn't enough to push it to a third, sadly.
Right, so between Abrams and Whedon (not that it's a fight particularly), I am firmly in the Whedon camp. Especially as I don't trust anyone who doesn't reveal their first name, what's with the J.J. ? hmmmmmm? Seems pretentious as hell if you ask me.
I have the fondest memories of watching Buffy at university with my housemates. They used to be released in 2 VHS boxsets a few months apart and each time my friend would purchase a box set we would have a Buffy marathon. A ton of sweets and munchies would be purchased, duvets would be brought down to the sofa, curtains would be drawn, eyes would be glued to the screen, laughs would be had and lectures would be missed. I would later buy them and Angel on DVD myself and with my wife, who I introduced to them, I would watch every episode again back to back. Then Firefly and Serenity, which I consider Joss Whedon's finest hour, would prove to me that Whedon seemingly can do no wrong and also introduced me to Nathon Fillion who could prove to be the next generation Bruce Campbell.
Joss Whedon firstly writes good characters and then secondly gives them interesting and unexpected things to do, not like M. Night Shamalawhotsit where it became a twist for twists sake (although Joss does terrific twists) and not like Lost where the unexpected things happened because the writers seemed to be scrabbling around for any old 'cool' idea but because it makes sense within the parameters of the plot. In every Whedon show you get the distinct impression it's actually building to a genuine climax and that you won't be disappointed, I never feel like I am being taken down a blind alleyway he can't get us out of and you also get the feeling that he has thought this through, you are in safe hands and he cares. Also he is funny, really funny, you only have to watch Dr.Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog to see that (review coming soon because I watched that again this weekend).
So, to Dollhouse then, the show that before I'd even seen a frame of it I knew it had been cancelled, reviews had been mixed and I had heard from friends that they didn't really like it either. This was a challenge then because I wanted to see it and judge it for myself but I also didn't want to watch the first Whedon show that I might not like. I was also on the fence about Eliza Dushku as well because the Faith character in Buffy she played could be 50% exciting and sassy and 50% annoying (but then again so could Buffy).
I am just going to say that I loved it and no it didn't have the pop culture attitude of Buffy, the class (or cast) of Firefly or anything like the humour of his previous work but it was still one hell of a complex, adult, interesting and exciting show.
I could go into each episode and the overall plot of the piece but honestly all I want to say about it is that both my wife and I were on the edge of our seats and happily plowed through the 14 episodes on the DVD (including the original pilot) in no time at all and despite the negative and unfair reviews I have read about her, I thought that Eliza Dushku showed incredible range and versatility in all of the roles she is required to play in this show.
I also have a theory about why it wasn't so popular on TV. Watching each episode without adverts on DVD, the in depth, dense plot line develops quickly and cleverly. I couldn't imagine watching it week after week and having to wait each time, it would lose its carefully crafted nuance. Also this is a TV show without, really, any heros or villains. It's the first TV Show I have watched where everyone is in a grey area, which is just terrific. My wife and I had long discussions about whether we sided with the Dollhouse characters or the FBI agent and who in the Dollhouse would turn out to be good or evil. There was a lot more moral ambiguity than ever before and that doesn't sit well with audiences used to the black n white weekly soap opera/entertainment show where the labels are clearly defined. I did think, at some point, you had to accept what the Dollhouse was and not judge it in order to go along with the ride. By the time Alpha showed up we were completely hooked!
Thank goodness that Season 2 comes out in November because we are both hankering for more time in the Dollhouse. Now who's going to give Joss some money to resurrect this and Firefly simultaneously hmmmmmm?
8.5 out of 10 glorious steak and fries
Points from The Misses 9 out of 10 glorious steak and fries
Right, so between Abrams and Whedon (not that it's a fight particularly), I am firmly in the Whedon camp. Especially as I don't trust anyone who doesn't reveal their first name, what's with the J.J. ? hmmmmmm? Seems pretentious as hell if you ask me.
I have the fondest memories of watching Buffy at university with my housemates. They used to be released in 2 VHS boxsets a few months apart and each time my friend would purchase a box set we would have a Buffy marathon. A ton of sweets and munchies would be purchased, duvets would be brought down to the sofa, curtains would be drawn, eyes would be glued to the screen, laughs would be had and lectures would be missed. I would later buy them and Angel on DVD myself and with my wife, who I introduced to them, I would watch every episode again back to back. Then Firefly and Serenity, which I consider Joss Whedon's finest hour, would prove to me that Whedon seemingly can do no wrong and also introduced me to Nathon Fillion who could prove to be the next generation Bruce Campbell.
Joss Whedon firstly writes good characters and then secondly gives them interesting and unexpected things to do, not like M. Night Shamalawhotsit where it became a twist for twists sake (although Joss does terrific twists) and not like Lost where the unexpected things happened because the writers seemed to be scrabbling around for any old 'cool' idea but because it makes sense within the parameters of the plot. In every Whedon show you get the distinct impression it's actually building to a genuine climax and that you won't be disappointed, I never feel like I am being taken down a blind alleyway he can't get us out of and you also get the feeling that he has thought this through, you are in safe hands and he cares. Also he is funny, really funny, you only have to watch Dr.Horrible's Sing-Along-Blog to see that (review coming soon because I watched that again this weekend).
So, to Dollhouse then, the show that before I'd even seen a frame of it I knew it had been cancelled, reviews had been mixed and I had heard from friends that they didn't really like it either. This was a challenge then because I wanted to see it and judge it for myself but I also didn't want to watch the first Whedon show that I might not like. I was also on the fence about Eliza Dushku as well because the Faith character in Buffy she played could be 50% exciting and sassy and 50% annoying (but then again so could Buffy).
I am just going to say that I loved it and no it didn't have the pop culture attitude of Buffy, the class (or cast) of Firefly or anything like the humour of his previous work but it was still one hell of a complex, adult, interesting and exciting show.
I could go into each episode and the overall plot of the piece but honestly all I want to say about it is that both my wife and I were on the edge of our seats and happily plowed through the 14 episodes on the DVD (including the original pilot) in no time at all and despite the negative and unfair reviews I have read about her, I thought that Eliza Dushku showed incredible range and versatility in all of the roles she is required to play in this show.
I also have a theory about why it wasn't so popular on TV. Watching each episode without adverts on DVD, the in depth, dense plot line develops quickly and cleverly. I couldn't imagine watching it week after week and having to wait each time, it would lose its carefully crafted nuance. Also this is a TV show without, really, any heros or villains. It's the first TV Show I have watched where everyone is in a grey area, which is just terrific. My wife and I had long discussions about whether we sided with the Dollhouse characters or the FBI agent and who in the Dollhouse would turn out to be good or evil. There was a lot more moral ambiguity than ever before and that doesn't sit well with audiences used to the black n white weekly soap opera/entertainment show where the labels are clearly defined. I did think, at some point, you had to accept what the Dollhouse was and not judge it in order to go along with the ride. By the time Alpha showed up we were completely hooked!
Thank goodness that Season 2 comes out in November because we are both hankering for more time in the Dollhouse. Now who's going to give Joss some money to resurrect this and Firefly simultaneously hmmmmmm?
8.5 out of 10 glorious steak and fries
Points from The Misses 9 out of 10 glorious steak and fries
Eat Pray Love - 15th August 2010
Now, let me explain. When you're married, or some girl's boyfriend, you have to occasionally make a concession and go to a movie that you would normally have rather wrenched your own tongue out with some rusty pliers than patronise with so much as a slightly damp sneeze. Hopefully, if it's a good relationship, they in turn will go see some gun-toting, pony-tail sporting, loud-mouth movie and if it's a great relationship some really disturbingly graphic porn.
I am one of the very lucky ones as my wife loves zombie films and introduced me to the true joys of Stallone. Most of the time when we see a movie we generally agree on the major parts of it and just occasionally she likes tat that I wouldn't waft my anal emissions at, usually featuring Patrick Dempsey or something.
Luckily with Cough Fart Snooze, sorry Eat Pray Love, we were more or less on the same page.
Ok, so, where to begin? First of all this movie is 17 hours long. It would be quicker to personally travel to Italy, India and Bali on the back of a wheezing dromedary than watch Julia Roberts do it in the cinema. I had seen the trailer for the film a handful of times and had thought "ok, so I am going to get dragged to this and that's fine, I like Roberts and there's bound to be some interesting shots of exotic countries I can enjoy" but unfortunately that wasn't really the case because instead of making the most of each of these fascinating locations she goes to and at least giving us the odd montage of Julia gayly skipping amongst the ruins of Rome, enjoying the incense of India and basking on or bathing off the beaches in Bali, what we in fact get is a lot of self important whiny folk blathering on and on about their home-spun, knocked-off, mosaic philosophies while Roberts, with a seemingly endless supply of cash stuffs her face or blubs her eyes out, self-importantly.
Which segues beautifully into my second point and that is why on earth, mars and the moon should I give two shakes of a bison's doo-dah about this woman's life?
Which segues beautifully into my second point and that is why on earth, mars and the moon should I give two shakes of a bison's doo-dah about this woman's life?
The film begins and she's married, apparently unhappily but it's never fully established why, something to do with him wanting to do some more education and her wanting to swan about in designer clothes drinking a lot of fancy foaming beverages while she selfishly bleeds her friends dry of all of their love and support. She then quickly hops into bed with the first vacuous, odious, eastern-religion spouting, scruffy wanna-be, hemp chewing teenager she can find (James Franco disappointingly back in glassy eyed annoying as all hell mode) before quickly realising he's not right either, again it's not established or explained why, and deciding out-of-the-blue to travel to three different places in the world but not because she has any genuine or apparent passion to do so but just because some toothless, ancient, barmy Bali dweller gave her some hokey palm reading months back and that's as good a reason as any.
Glossing over for the moment how the hell an unemployed writer can afford such a ridiculous trip after an expensive divorce and the fact that I am meant to, but couldn't possibly, care for this directionless bimbo who whines about things most people would sell their aunties and parakeets to have long enough to become that disenchanted with, the real crime here is that this movie got made at all.
From all that I have heard the source material is even more devoid of human tact and understanding than the film is and I know in times of crisis people want escape but who thought anyone, when in the depths of the current recession, would want to watch this self-involved millionaire writhe around in linguine, hindu and Javier Bardem for 100 hours!
Maybe I am weird, old before my time, particularly bright or just plain perceptive but the so-called lesson that she apparently learns on the beaches of Bali with Mr.Perfect Bardem and his predictable past with trust issues, I knew and understood about 10 years ago and it didn't take an all expenses trip around the world, a lot of naval gazing and some waffly eastern mysticism to achieve either.
The sad thing is I have met these whining sorts for whom the discontinuation of their favourite colour of lip gloss is a suicide-worthy event and so this movie will probably appeal to quite a few, also the trailer makes it look possibly watchable and interesting so some will be fooled like us.
The one thing I would say is that if you started to watch the film from half way through (about the time that Richard Jenkins shows up - never a disappointment) and she's in India trying to get her ducks in a row then the film would be almost enjoyable, some of the scenes in Bali make you wish you had a bottomless pot of gold so you too could flounce about the street markets full of mad fruit, the bamboo huts and billowing white sheets and gaze out at the fishing boat bombing sea. Javier Bardem also acts the hell out of a cliche but occasionally genuinely emotional role.
Finally, because of all of that, by the end of this whole hideous debacle I did leave the cinema feeling good, smug and in dire need of something containing soy milk and guava so I guess, it sort of did its job.
2.5 out of 10 Turkey clubs
Points from the Misses - 4 out of 10 Turkey clubs
Sunset Boulevard - 23rd July 2010
I have been a fan of this film for years and I was really happy to find that they were screening it on a roof top in New York's west village one lovely summer evening.
Unfortunately the roof top belonged to a shabby recreation centre and the senile old man and his overly-enthusiastic, under qualified female companion hadn't exactly done a bang up job of setting the whole thing up, also the equipment was not exactly what you'd call swanky.
The bizarre group of unsuitable teenagers, old film enthusiasts, deranged hippies, beatniks, students and at least one muttering homeless man gave the whole event the feeling of cult meeting complete with the small, plastic picnic cups of fizzy pop (for some).
However, that is all part of the charm of these things I guess and I made the best of it all as I settled down to watch the thing on the most uncomfortable metal chair imaginable and through a large man's flabby head.
Even with these screening drawbacks the films superb writing, expert and assured direction, dark humour, drama and fantastic acting shone through.
I love watching these old films because you see just how adult, clever, intriguing and daring cinema used to be.
It maybe because I seem to be going through the decade of where I feel like I have seen everything before, where films like Avatar and Inception are hailed as being new, fresh, innovative and clever but leave you feeling cold or bored.
Sunset Boulevard was also original in its take on Hollywood, with the film commenting on the notoriously shallow and cut-throat industry as well as the fickle nature of fame 50 years before Pop Idol and other such nauseating crap-fests. Wrap all this delicious send-up in a tasty little film noir plot with quirky twists and turns, gothic cinematography and riveting central performances and you have this wonderful, surprising and classic film.
10 out of 10 Cheese Burgers
Points from the Misses - 10 out of 10 Cheese Burgers
Inception - 20th July 2010
I have mixed feelings about Inception. Watching it I knew I was watching something that was very well crafted, superbly acted and cleverly written. I watched it intently and closely because I had heard that it was a tough one to follow, that it could get confusing and that, for a summer blockbuster, it demanded a lot from its audience.
I honestly don't know what all the fuss was about, maybe I just have some sort enormous brain (which I highly doubt) but I thought everything was fairly self explanatory. Each dream level was clearly recognisable and despite it being a tense, action packed film at no point did I feel the plot itself was moving too quickly for me.
In fact I felt very little and that is the main problem with this film, I guess in that way it was a bit like a Kubrick movie (although even his best had characters you gave two hoots about), I knew or felt as much as I ever was going to about DiCaprio's character at the beginning of the flick as I did at the end and as for the rest of the characters I didn't learn their stories, motivations or ambitions. Nothing at all.
There were, as there is bound to be in a movie like this, glaring plot holes once you took a step back from it and thought about it for a moment and a bunch of times where they needed to get the rules straight. I find I can go on any kind of surreal or fantastical journey as long as the rules are well established first, this tends to go for sci-fi films featuring inter-dimensional or time travel, but in Inception I felt like they made up rules as they went along and as they were needed which hindered its believability.
However I am probably being far too critical about this, it was an expertly made, tense action drama. It was well acted with a suitably booming and exaggerated soundtrack and, people are right, for a summer blockbuster it certainly had a bit more going for it than your usual robots fighting ghost cgi pirates remake sequel movie. I just won't be in a hurry to watch it again.
7 out of 10 milkshakes.
Points from the Misses - 9 out of 10 milkshakes