Christmas Cinema Viewing - Pulpy Thrillers and Pointless Bum Nummers
The wife and I like to, over the Christmas period, visit the movie theatre and check out all the new films pushing and fighting their way into the multi-screen havens of stale popcorn, rancid piss smells and cough created germs at the hope of the almighty seasonal dollar.
This year was no exception.
Saturday December 22nd we strolled in and watched new Tom Cruise vehicle, Jack Reacher.
Now, firstly, a couple of things: I have never read a Jack Reacher book and I was only excited to see this film, initially for 2 reasons
1) Action Cruise tends to be good Cruise and
2) Werner herzog as a Bond style villain with a comically milky eye.
Apart from those things I had fairly low expectations and they were further lowered when I was set upon on Twitter and told that it was a load of old rubbish and I should avoid it.
Well I'll tell you the problem with Jack Reacher the movie and no, Lee Child purists, it has nothing to do with Tom Cruise's height you bunch of negative whiny bitches. The problem with Jack Reacher the movie was the marketing. As always marketing companies (who should really change their name to mismarketing companies or talentless hacks, they can take their pick) have fouled this up and advertised it as a relatively dumb action film. This is to do the film a disservice as it has a clever witty script, it trundles along at a decent pace, the performances are excellent and it's a good old fashioned pulpy, unpretentious, wise-crakin', ass-whuppin' good time of a conspiracy thriller.
It has a twisty-turny-yet-fairly-obvious-if-you-know-how-these-things-go type story to tell and it gets in and out with no fuss. The action is good, clear, tight and to the point too with a great finale that manages to amuse, thrill and surprise in a satisfying way.
In the shadow of the events recently in Connecticut it's a little tricky in parts because it does fall squarely on the side of the right wing where guns are concerned but, to be fair, that is hardwired into its western style, dime novel sensibility.
Lastly the casting of Werner Herzog is a stroke of sheer genius, every word he utters (and that's not a lot as he doesn't have nearly enough scenes) is the sort of nonsensical yet deep sounding babble that drips from the Bavarian's lips as easy as if he were reading a shopping list. It's an absolute wonder to behold and, actually, a little went a long way where he was concerned, any more and it would've veered into really questionable and confusing Bond style villain antics and that would've derailed the simplicity and succinctness with which Christopher McQuarrie told the story.
The wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this, sorry if you didn't that is a real shame because this movie is fun, aware of its cliches but written well enough to not over play them.
8 out of 10
Next up was This is 40 on Dec 24th
which really needed to be renamed 'Man these attractive white folk who are their own worst enemy really do whine ALOT!'
Ok, let's get started. I have a love hate relationship with Judd Apatow. I love that he has made possible some really great comedy films and that without him comedy in the last 10 years might have been just whatever Tyler Perry finds funny this week but I hate Judd Apatow because of his clear belief that, in his own directed films at least, that he is some Woody Allen like exposer of deep truths and a witty commentator on the silly little flaws of human nature. I also hate him because he seems to think showing naked bits of people that are usually, thankfully covered up is somehow hilarious and daring... oh and he produces that shitfest of incessantly pointless whiny drivel and mind numbingly shallow pile of arse 'Girls'... oh and he puts his famous musician friends in movies... oh and he needs someone to tell him to fucking stop once in a while.
Lets make something clear, hardly any film needs to be over 2hrs long and certainly not a comedy. OK. There are only a handful of stories in the world and the art form of film used to have a 90min standard because it worked. If you can't tell your story in a three act structure over the course of 90 minutes then you really shouldn't be working in film. You want to ramble? write a book, do a podcast anything but make a movie, let alone a comedy movie that is LITERALLY ABOUT NOTHING.
Are there exceptions to the 90min rule? sure - plenty.
Is there wiggle room where a movie at 105mins or even 120mins can be good or better? of course
Can you name a time you laughed for longer than 90mins? Probably not very frequently and certainly not at this Crate & Barrel catalogue looking mound of beige whining arse.
In fact John Cleese, the far too psychologically minded member of Monty Python, once said that, on average, people can laugh happily for around 40 minutes and after that there better be some plot, action or emotion going on to maintain momentum into the third act. The easiest example of this is Four Weddings and a Funeral because you laugh at the first three weddings, then there's the quiet bit where you are a little sad at the funeral, then end strong with a big, funny ending that ties all the story-lines together.
The trouble with 'This Is 40' is actually not that it isn't funny, it's actually, in places, very funny and when it comes to actual funny lines it is funnier than Apatow's previous effort 'Funny People' but the problem is it's not about anything.
The movie starts and two very annoying, idiotic, pretty people who live in a wonderful home, spend money like it's going out of style and with two daughters who are far cleverer and less annoying than them, have two Dads both of whom fucked up their first marriage and are now living with second families with varying degrees of success. When the movie ends this is all still true, except that Leslie Mann's Dad, played by John Lithgow, is a little more sympathetic and that's it. Nothing is learnt, nothing has changed and no one has said to these two whiny, whingey, stupid people "Shut the fuck up and sort yourselves out!"
The performances are fine too, although Leslie Mann, because of her high pitched nasaly voice, gets to points in this film where I could've quite easily beaten her to death with a shovel but all round there's nothing really bad about the way it's acted or shot.
It's just we're talking about a film where two people, because of their woeful communication, utter inability to manage their money and staggering lack of personal awareness and insight decide that selling their beautiful home is the solution to their problems rather than, I don't know, not spending $12,000 on flying a band no one has ever heard of ever to play in a tiny bar, not spending $10,000 on a catered Birthday party and suing the pilled-up, drippy girl who just robbed them of another $10,000.
I don't care about any of the people in this film and if the ending was that they were all mowed down by a hail of machine gun bullets from the arseholes of 8ft robot destroyers it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest and, at least, it would've been an ending.
4 out of 10
Lastly, Django Unchained on Dec 25th
I don't even know where to begin with this. Well, firstly, unlike this film, I'll just give you a quick bit of back story. I used to like Tarantino. My patience wained with him, however, somewhere around the middle of Kill Bill 2 and after the howling and irritating mistakes of Death Proof and the masturbatory Inglorious Basterds I was about ready to give up.
Then came Django Unchained. I have seen the original, Franco Nero starring, film which is an ambiguous, rambling, strange, pulp, cult spaghetti western and like it, for what it is.
So, there, a few sentences and you understand where I am coming from and can probably see I didn't enter the screening tonight with anything more than a glimmer of hope.
Well after what felt like 5hrs but was really, a still ludicrous, 2hrs 45mins later I left the cinema utterly frustrated because while half of me wants to scream, shout, break things and write Tarantino off completely as a tired, old, unoriginal, repetitive, long winded, self congratulatory, masturbatory hack, the other half of me found a lot to enjoy in this saga of a film.
Whichever way you slice it though, it's TOO DAMN LONG. It's not one film, it's about eight and like all of Tarantino's stuff it's ever so pleased with itself and the way it sounds. For the first 3 films Christoph Waltz wanders around with a case of, sometimes amusing but mostly incessant, verbal diarrhea and in the second 5 films he is joined in his eloquent verbiage by Leonardo DiCaprio. They both swan about spewing out endless dialogue for ages and ages and ages.
Then, after all the talk, there's lots of shooting and blood letting, just like there was at the end of the previous 7 films that make up Django Unchained and also at the end of Inglorious Basterds because, in the absence of plot or momentum, violence will do.
I felt like I was actually living the year that this film takes place in, every single day of it, every moment.
I firmly believe that Tarantino is so surrounded by sycophantic dribbling nerds in his infamous screening room in LA that no one has the balls to read one of his scripts and say to him "MAKE IT SHORTER" and no the answer, in this case, just like it wasn't for Kill Bill and isn't for the Hobbit, is not to make this two films, three films, eight films, whatever. It's to have an editor or a script doctor go over his work and tear vast useless chunks out of it and then say "there... go make that movie"
So enthralled is he with his own repetitive, obvious and not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is dialogue that he believes every word must be left in, clearly! because, if not, explain to me how a fairly run of the mill rescue and revenge film takes almost 3hrs to finish.
Ok, so enough about the bloated running time, what about the whole 'making Django African American' thing, well considering the time period this film is set in (2 years before the civil war) it's an absolutely brilliant idea if he hadn't already done the same thing with the far superior Jackie Brown. Also, before everyone goes and gets confused, thinking that Django somehow has some big important statement to make about racism, slavery, hatred etc. it doesn't.
Honestly, it really doesn't.
I don't know about you but I didn't need 2hrs 45mins of N words and racist violence from Quentin Tarantino to know that slavery was wrong and despicable. Ok?
This is how the conversation went at Tarantino towers:
"The original Django is set just after the civil war and this is going to be a prequel. Well, you know how I like black people and am best friends with Samuel L Jackson? how about Django is black and we set it before the civil war... am I a genius or what"
That's it people, seriously.
If the film was more serious then I would completely take your point but, and I hate to sound like Spike Lee because he's an over reactionary idiot who needs to get over himself, sitting watching the film is a bit like watching a white guy relish getting away with a ton of harsh racist slurs and referencing things like Mandingo fighting while patting himself on that back for being oh-so-clever.
And on that subject, Tarantino, just because you know one German opera does not make you a cultural scholar, ok?! especially when you have so little faith in your own audiences intelligence that you spell out EXACTLY your incredibly obvious plot references.
Lastly, and then I'll get on to some good stuff about the film, Tarantino needs to pick: either you're making an exploitation film or you are making an epic western with a serious message. Never before have a mix of genres and styles from someone who is supposedly a master at it, been so all over the place.
Man it was a frustrating vast chunk of my time I will never get back.
On the good side the acting is showboaty but entertaining, the script has some genuinely funny and exciting moments and the direction, when he can be bothered, is decent. His use of titling and soundtrack however, is, by now, completely tedious and irritating.
The exploitation elements are fantastic, the gore is excessive, the gun play enjoyable and the odd comic asides, like a scene where early Klan members dispute their poorly made eyeholes in their hoods, are genuinely surprising and funny but would be perfect if included in an exploitation film length film.
Despite the length there was enough going on to keep me watching but it felt like plowing through a miniseries on a Sunday afternoon rather than watching a film. The cinematography was pleasing and there was some interesting use of the camera but if I am honest, I am struggling to come up with lots of really positive things about it.
We all know that Tarantino rips off other films but when he starts ripping himself off (the exploitation violence and Tarantino cameo of Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, the African American switch from Jackie Brown, the epic length and revenge plot from Kill Bill, the shoot everything ending from Inglorious Basterds - shall I go on) it's maybe time someone call him on his bullshit.
All I can say is, despite how this review sounds, I didn't hate it and the things that are wrong with it come completely from Tarantino (and others) believing that his shit doesn't stink. There is a GREAT film in there screaming, kicking, clawing and endlessly nattering trying to get out but until he either gets an editor or someone cuts him down a peg or two, he's not going to make one again it seems.
As to whether I will ever watch another QT film in the cinema (I have seen every single one since Pulp Fiction) well when the next one comes out, if it's below 2hrs long then I'll think about it.
5 out of 10
This year was no exception.
Saturday December 22nd we strolled in and watched new Tom Cruise vehicle, Jack Reacher.
1) Action Cruise tends to be good Cruise and
2) Werner herzog as a Bond style villain with a comically milky eye.
Apart from those things I had fairly low expectations and they were further lowered when I was set upon on Twitter and told that it was a load of old rubbish and I should avoid it.
Well I'll tell you the problem with Jack Reacher the movie and no, Lee Child purists, it has nothing to do with Tom Cruise's height you bunch of negative whiny bitches. The problem with Jack Reacher the movie was the marketing. As always marketing companies (who should really change their name to mismarketing companies or talentless hacks, they can take their pick) have fouled this up and advertised it as a relatively dumb action film. This is to do the film a disservice as it has a clever witty script, it trundles along at a decent pace, the performances are excellent and it's a good old fashioned pulpy, unpretentious, wise-crakin', ass-whuppin' good time of a conspiracy thriller.
It has a twisty-turny-yet-fairly-obvious-if-you-know-how-these-things-go type story to tell and it gets in and out with no fuss. The action is good, clear, tight and to the point too with a great finale that manages to amuse, thrill and surprise in a satisfying way.
In the shadow of the events recently in Connecticut it's a little tricky in parts because it does fall squarely on the side of the right wing where guns are concerned but, to be fair, that is hardwired into its western style, dime novel sensibility.
Lastly the casting of Werner Herzog is a stroke of sheer genius, every word he utters (and that's not a lot as he doesn't have nearly enough scenes) is the sort of nonsensical yet deep sounding babble that drips from the Bavarian's lips as easy as if he were reading a shopping list. It's an absolute wonder to behold and, actually, a little went a long way where he was concerned, any more and it would've veered into really questionable and confusing Bond style villain antics and that would've derailed the simplicity and succinctness with which Christopher McQuarrie told the story.
The wife and I thoroughly enjoyed this, sorry if you didn't that is a real shame because this movie is fun, aware of its cliches but written well enough to not over play them.
8 out of 10
Next up was This is 40 on Dec 24th
Ok, let's get started. I have a love hate relationship with Judd Apatow. I love that he has made possible some really great comedy films and that without him comedy in the last 10 years might have been just whatever Tyler Perry finds funny this week but I hate Judd Apatow because of his clear belief that, in his own directed films at least, that he is some Woody Allen like exposer of deep truths and a witty commentator on the silly little flaws of human nature. I also hate him because he seems to think showing naked bits of people that are usually, thankfully covered up is somehow hilarious and daring... oh and he produces that shitfest of incessantly pointless whiny drivel and mind numbingly shallow pile of arse 'Girls'... oh and he puts his famous musician friends in movies... oh and he needs someone to tell him to fucking stop once in a while.
Lets make something clear, hardly any film needs to be over 2hrs long and certainly not a comedy. OK. There are only a handful of stories in the world and the art form of film used to have a 90min standard because it worked. If you can't tell your story in a three act structure over the course of 90 minutes then you really shouldn't be working in film. You want to ramble? write a book, do a podcast anything but make a movie, let alone a comedy movie that is LITERALLY ABOUT NOTHING.
Are there exceptions to the 90min rule? sure - plenty.
Is there wiggle room where a movie at 105mins or even 120mins can be good or better? of course
Can you name a time you laughed for longer than 90mins? Probably not very frequently and certainly not at this Crate & Barrel catalogue looking mound of beige whining arse.
In fact John Cleese, the far too psychologically minded member of Monty Python, once said that, on average, people can laugh happily for around 40 minutes and after that there better be some plot, action or emotion going on to maintain momentum into the third act. The easiest example of this is Four Weddings and a Funeral because you laugh at the first three weddings, then there's the quiet bit where you are a little sad at the funeral, then end strong with a big, funny ending that ties all the story-lines together.
The trouble with 'This Is 40' is actually not that it isn't funny, it's actually, in places, very funny and when it comes to actual funny lines it is funnier than Apatow's previous effort 'Funny People' but the problem is it's not about anything.
The movie starts and two very annoying, idiotic, pretty people who live in a wonderful home, spend money like it's going out of style and with two daughters who are far cleverer and less annoying than them, have two Dads both of whom fucked up their first marriage and are now living with second families with varying degrees of success. When the movie ends this is all still true, except that Leslie Mann's Dad, played by John Lithgow, is a little more sympathetic and that's it. Nothing is learnt, nothing has changed and no one has said to these two whiny, whingey, stupid people "Shut the fuck up and sort yourselves out!"
The performances are fine too, although Leslie Mann, because of her high pitched nasaly voice, gets to points in this film where I could've quite easily beaten her to death with a shovel but all round there's nothing really bad about the way it's acted or shot.
It's just we're talking about a film where two people, because of their woeful communication, utter inability to manage their money and staggering lack of personal awareness and insight decide that selling their beautiful home is the solution to their problems rather than, I don't know, not spending $12,000 on flying a band no one has ever heard of ever to play in a tiny bar, not spending $10,000 on a catered Birthday party and suing the pilled-up, drippy girl who just robbed them of another $10,000.
I don't care about any of the people in this film and if the ending was that they were all mowed down by a hail of machine gun bullets from the arseholes of 8ft robot destroyers it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest and, at least, it would've been an ending.
4 out of 10
Lastly, Django Unchained on Dec 25th
Then came Django Unchained. I have seen the original, Franco Nero starring, film which is an ambiguous, rambling, strange, pulp, cult spaghetti western and like it, for what it is.
So, there, a few sentences and you understand where I am coming from and can probably see I didn't enter the screening tonight with anything more than a glimmer of hope.
Well after what felt like 5hrs but was really, a still ludicrous, 2hrs 45mins later I left the cinema utterly frustrated because while half of me wants to scream, shout, break things and write Tarantino off completely as a tired, old, unoriginal, repetitive, long winded, self congratulatory, masturbatory hack, the other half of me found a lot to enjoy in this saga of a film.
Whichever way you slice it though, it's TOO DAMN LONG. It's not one film, it's about eight and like all of Tarantino's stuff it's ever so pleased with itself and the way it sounds. For the first 3 films Christoph Waltz wanders around with a case of, sometimes amusing but mostly incessant, verbal diarrhea and in the second 5 films he is joined in his eloquent verbiage by Leonardo DiCaprio. They both swan about spewing out endless dialogue for ages and ages and ages.
Then, after all the talk, there's lots of shooting and blood letting, just like there was at the end of the previous 7 films that make up Django Unchained and also at the end of Inglorious Basterds because, in the absence of plot or momentum, violence will do.
I felt like I was actually living the year that this film takes place in, every single day of it, every moment.
I firmly believe that Tarantino is so surrounded by sycophantic dribbling nerds in his infamous screening room in LA that no one has the balls to read one of his scripts and say to him "MAKE IT SHORTER" and no the answer, in this case, just like it wasn't for Kill Bill and isn't for the Hobbit, is not to make this two films, three films, eight films, whatever. It's to have an editor or a script doctor go over his work and tear vast useless chunks out of it and then say "there... go make that movie"
So enthralled is he with his own repetitive, obvious and not-as-clever-as-it-thinks-it-is dialogue that he believes every word must be left in, clearly! because, if not, explain to me how a fairly run of the mill rescue and revenge film takes almost 3hrs to finish.
Ok, so enough about the bloated running time, what about the whole 'making Django African American' thing, well considering the time period this film is set in (2 years before the civil war) it's an absolutely brilliant idea if he hadn't already done the same thing with the far superior Jackie Brown. Also, before everyone goes and gets confused, thinking that Django somehow has some big important statement to make about racism, slavery, hatred etc. it doesn't.
Honestly, it really doesn't.
I don't know about you but I didn't need 2hrs 45mins of N words and racist violence from Quentin Tarantino to know that slavery was wrong and despicable. Ok?
This is how the conversation went at Tarantino towers:
"The original Django is set just after the civil war and this is going to be a prequel. Well, you know how I like black people and am best friends with Samuel L Jackson? how about Django is black and we set it before the civil war... am I a genius or what"
That's it people, seriously.
If the film was more serious then I would completely take your point but, and I hate to sound like Spike Lee because he's an over reactionary idiot who needs to get over himself, sitting watching the film is a bit like watching a white guy relish getting away with a ton of harsh racist slurs and referencing things like Mandingo fighting while patting himself on that back for being oh-so-clever.
And on that subject, Tarantino, just because you know one German opera does not make you a cultural scholar, ok?! especially when you have so little faith in your own audiences intelligence that you spell out EXACTLY your incredibly obvious plot references.
Lastly, and then I'll get on to some good stuff about the film, Tarantino needs to pick: either you're making an exploitation film or you are making an epic western with a serious message. Never before have a mix of genres and styles from someone who is supposedly a master at it, been so all over the place.
Man it was a frustrating vast chunk of my time I will never get back.
On the good side the acting is showboaty but entertaining, the script has some genuinely funny and exciting moments and the direction, when he can be bothered, is decent. His use of titling and soundtrack however, is, by now, completely tedious and irritating.
The exploitation elements are fantastic, the gore is excessive, the gun play enjoyable and the odd comic asides, like a scene where early Klan members dispute their poorly made eyeholes in their hoods, are genuinely surprising and funny but would be perfect if included in an exploitation film length film.
Despite the length there was enough going on to keep me watching but it felt like plowing through a miniseries on a Sunday afternoon rather than watching a film. The cinematography was pleasing and there was some interesting use of the camera but if I am honest, I am struggling to come up with lots of really positive things about it.
We all know that Tarantino rips off other films but when he starts ripping himself off (the exploitation violence and Tarantino cameo of Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, the African American switch from Jackie Brown, the epic length and revenge plot from Kill Bill, the shoot everything ending from Inglorious Basterds - shall I go on) it's maybe time someone call him on his bullshit.
All I can say is, despite how this review sounds, I didn't hate it and the things that are wrong with it come completely from Tarantino (and others) believing that his shit doesn't stink. There is a GREAT film in there screaming, kicking, clawing and endlessly nattering trying to get out but until he either gets an editor or someone cuts him down a peg or two, he's not going to make one again it seems.
As to whether I will ever watch another QT film in the cinema (I have seen every single one since Pulp Fiction) well when the next one comes out, if it's below 2hrs long then I'll think about it.
5 out of 10
Get Low and The American - Films at 30,000 feet - 21st march 2011
I thought I'd write them up as one blog because despite being very different stories and with very different tones they are the sorts of films you definitely need to be in the same, mellow, cerebral mood for and, when in the appropriate mood, if you ever want to watch brilliant actors, stunningly shot, working with minimalistic, simple scripts but creating literal moving pieces of art then you could do a lot worse than these two movies.
Get Low is about an old man, the always excellent Robert Duvall, who lives in a cabin in the woods, more or less as a hermit, behind a strongly defended 'Do Not Trespass' sign and about whom thousands of stories have developed over time. When he gets news that a friend of his has passed away it gets him thinking about the end of it all and the one last thing he must get done before his time is up. He devises the first living funeral where he invites everyone to come tell stories about him and he enlists Bill Murray's funeral home to help him when the church turns him down. We eventually find out all sorts of stuff about this complex yet down to earth individual and he has time to face the public, crush any silly rumours and make amends with the people he needs to.
It is simple story telling at its finest, nothing too flashy here as it is the characters that we are drawn in by, that and obviously solving the riddle of the story he has to tell. It is beautifully filmed, some stunning cinematography and some excellent work with light and shadows.
Obviously from the accents to the folky soundtrack all the 1930s, small southern town cliches are in place and there's nothing necessarily new about any of it but much like Duvall's last film, Crazy Heart, it is all in the performance, the mood and the desire to go from A to B with a sturdy tale, a bit of humour and a slight dash of old-timey philosophy that basically all adds up to an engaging, sweet film, the sort that it seems unusual now get made amongst all the pirates, robots, 3D animations and horror remakes.
If you fancy an early Sunday evening film that will make you crack an occasional smirk and put you in a calm, contemplative mood then Get Low is for you.
8 out of 10 squirrels roastin' on a spit outside this 'ere barn of mine
The plot is simple, the script is almost non-existant and the message of the film, if it has one, is vague at best but, like I said before, if you're in the right mood and through the right eyes this is an engaging, gripping and stunning piece of film making.
Clooney is 'The American" a gunsmith/gun for hire working in Europe and sort of sick of either killing people or working on the guns that eventually kill people, after being hunted down by some Swedes from a previous, possibly botched job, he is sent to a small Italian village where he is told to wait for instructions and to get professional again, as it is his recent lapses into attempting a social/private life have jeopardised his cover. Well he sort of ignores that advice as the lure of being a normal human again is too strong and he befriends a local priest and a prostitute.
He agrees to one last job, the making of a highly specialised automatic gun and goes about possibly making a home for himself here, or at least somewhere away from all the death.
Like most European movies there is nudity and existential conversations but also, along with that, there is quite a bit of action too, some of it reminiscent of recent films like Bourne and The Transporter series while hardly being as adrenaline fueled as either. These show us that even at his age and with the worries his bosses have of him becoming sloppy, he is, actually still a highly effective operative.
There are also lots and lots of montages of George building the gun and these serve to humanise the character that, as an audience, we might not like very much considering what he does and how little repentance he has for it all. We see that first and foremost he is a craftsman, a skilled labourer and, in some ways an artist. It just so happens his art of choice is also capable of violent death.
Like most films of this ilk it is all left open enough and vague enough with all mumbled half sentences and wistful prose that you can read any sort of philosophical message into it that you like but also, it is filmed beautifully and acted just right that you really want to see Georgey boy succeed, get the girl, buy the priest an enormous new hat and ride off into the sunset.
It'll depend on how many 70s films or art-house films you've seen about assassins whether you think that happens or not.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy it and I did, a lot. I thought this and Get Low were just wonderful, calming, interesting and pleasingly different films both with familiar stories that benefit hugely from simple clear direction and superb acting.
8 out of 10 bowls of 'what's it all about?' spaghetti
Points from The Wife 8 out of 10
True Grit - 4th February 2011
Then there are the exceptions, which is a short list but, in no particular order, would include Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70s version), Scarface, John Carpenter's The Thing, Peter Jackson's King Kong and The Coen Brother's True Grit. These are exceptions because in the case of most of them the remakes come from a book, or source material and usually remain more faithful to it and in the case of all of these they were made by truly intelligent, visionary Directors for, what I believe is, their own motivations and not, and this is crucial, NOT just for the money.
I know everything is essentially made to make money but when it is the original motivating factor behind a trend of remakes, like we have seen in recent years, then it usually churns out films for the simple reason that no one involved had any better idea and they thought it would sell. The sad fact of the market place is that halfwits line up round the block for these pale imitations of legitimate classics.
However, on to one of the aforementioned exceptions and a film that had me involved, enthralled and fantastically giddy from beginning to the very end of the credits, The Coen Brother's True Grit. What was most wondrous about this film was that it was so good, so majestically put together that it made me stop on my way out and remember all the classics the Brother's Coen have made and say, right, these guys, now happily in my top 5 all time best directors of all time.
I must confess that while I am sure I have seen the original at some point, or at least scenes from it, I can not really claim any worthwhile remembrance or knowledge of it so I can not compare the two films, neither have I read the book. Now that may make me a bad reviewer if comparing and contrasting is your game but personally I'd rather just comment on this one for now, I have every intention of revisiting the original sometime in the future.
True Grit, as far as the Coen's previous work is concerned, is probably what would happen if Fargo, Miller's Crossing and No Country for Old Men collided, in terms of style, landscape photography, atmosphere, violence and music and as such has all the class, thoughtful vocabulary and assured direction that we have become used to with the Coen's when they are doing their 'serious' work.
The opening 30 minutes, as they establish the town and the characters, almost plays like theatre rather than a film, in a way that makes you aware of the performances and the dialogue, something that usually would not be a good thing as cinema tends to attempt and reward naturalistic performances but with True Grit the enjoyment comes from watching the performances, deep and involved as they are, and listening to the words.
It is a wonderful experience to go to the cinema, to watch a film so beautifully and supremely professionally put together, each lighting or camera trick appearing effortless, relishing each actor's delivery, which, in true Coen fashion, is enhanced with ticks, mannerisms and quirks making each character rich and interesting, taking time to observe their costumes and surroundings, sets which are fastidious in detail and era yet never intrusive, the whole thing is tremendous.
As if all this creative, stylistic and impeccably crafted beauty wasn't enough you have a first rate script telling an exciting and emotional story, never pulling any punches, remaining faithful to the attitudes of the times and containing as many wince inducing violent action scenes as hearty laughs. All in all it's pretty much a triumph.
Jeff Bridges, who I could quite happily watch reading the phone book for 2 hours, is his usual, uninhibited, curious, hilarious and mannered self. His Rooster Cogburn is a joy to watch and while it does occasionally come dangerously close to almost pantomime or parody proportions, ultimately he is the one we are rooting for. He does, out of all the cast, have the showy role and Bridges doesn't disappoint, bringing in a performance that's as if The Dude met Jack from The Fisher King and considering, in my mind, those two are Bridges at his best, I was bound to love him in this.
I haven't read up on how they found her but Hailee Steinfeld is a revelation. The fact that she is nominated as best supporting actress is a bit of a gut busting hoot because the film attempts to rest but ends up teetering on her scrawny tween shoulders. The whole thing succeeds or fails on her performance and while you would forgive a child actor who was trying hard any small slip ups when surrounded by Bridges and Damon, there is no forgiveness needed here as she is every bit the picture of a head strong, determined, intelligent, stubborn, sensitive and freely spoken girl you could imagine. Especially in the early scenes where she is sorting out her deceased father's estate and rustling up some money, she storms through the film chewing up not just scenery but whole chunks of film stock, it's quite the most interesting and, unusual for a Coen's film, natural performance I have seen this year.
Matt Damon, however, threatens to steal this film from under the nose of the showboating Bridges and the remarkable new comer, Hailee Steinfeld. This is because he has to try three times as hard as everyone else to end up where he is by the end of the picture, in the audiences affection. He has the non-showy, almost-villain, sidekick role that could've been played as fairly throwaway by a lesser actor but in recent years Damon has shown himself to be on the way to becoming genuinely terrific and versatile, far more the gifted character player than a bland leading man. His pompous, verbose Texas ranger, the wonderfully named LaBoeuf, is the perfect foil for Bridges' braggart Cogburn and in his perfect and patient performance you can also see Damon behind the man he's playing thinking "stick with it, stick with it, you hate me now, sure, and I won't ask for your love, but by the end of the film, you'll see..."
Finishing up the cast is the usual, intriguing, 'only in a Coen Brother's movie' type players with a late in the day appearance by a fantastic Josh Brolin. Everyone is pretty marvelous all round and it's always a pleasure watching a Coen's movie because of the varied, authentic looking and interesting faces they find, some with funny hair, or a funny build, wonky nosed people and folks who you could go trick or treating in their jowls. Including a cameo by the Irish actor from the original Day of the Dead (I hate how I have to say original... there should be no other Day of the Dead!!).
Which brings us full circle back to remakes, see what I did there?
So all in all it is pretty bloody smashing. A good and proper pulp, boys-own-adventure, western filtered through the radiant and mesmerising beauty of Roger "give him a damn Oscar already!!" Deakins' lenses and invented, built and nurtured every step of the way by the simply marvelous The Coen Brothers.
9 out of 10 bowls of ratty looking slop stew cooked over the hearth in an old log cabin
Points from The Wife 9 out of 10 as well.