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.
Ghostbusters - 29th January 2011
Once one of the biggest summer blockbusters and now both a quintessential family favourite that also has an almost cult following of dedicated fans, some of whom even showed up in costume and with intricate props for the midnight screening that we attended of this classic motion picture.
I don't really need to go on about how funny this film is or how the cast are all exceptional because you've all seen it and you know this. Anyone reading this that hasn't seen it is either 4 years old and probably shouldn't be on the internet or needs to stop whatever they are doing, run home, watch the film however they can and realise that up until now they had been leading a hollow, pointless existence.
The things I did want to talk about is how the film, essentially rooted in the old Hollywood comedies like Abbott and Costello meet Frankenstein, takes a simple yet brilliant concept, which essentially boils down to the comedy A Team take down Casper, and just plays everything to its full potential.
There really wasn't much like it just before it came out and there hasn't been anything anywhere near as big, funny or with as many good special effects in it since. There have been action films that have comedy in and the odd comedy with a bit of action but Ghostbusters and its sequel (which is also good! all you naysayers and doom merchants!!) remain fairly unique in the realm of big budget, big star comedy, action, special effects, family friendly horror, rom-com movies and the film remains every bit as hilarious, thrilling, visually stimulating, emotionally satisfying and even scary as it was the first time we all saw it.
I would like to say that the effects have hardly dated because they are still, for the time, completely stunning but obviously against todays tedious, boring, unimaginative and flat CGI, they wouldn't stand up; also, on the big screen the matte painting work in the finale is a lot more obvious. Still the sets, the models and the physical effects are still genuinely impressive. The film is not afraid to be a little adult, and is all the better for it, it is a little racy and also has the odd frightening moment like the devil dogs and the zombie cab driver both of which I remember giving me shivers as a child.
As a love song to New York the film also succeeds on every level, utilising not just the classic locations (which now seemingly ever predictable rom-com film does) but also the vibe, the attitude, the smell, the sound and the spirit of the city. This is what modern film-makers sometimes forget to do and think that just by setting something in New York they are some how going to have the credibility of being a New York movie but that isn't the case. To be a New York movie you have to have all elements in place, not just the scenery but the people and the heart they give the place. Taxi Driver is a New York movie, The Fisher King is a New York movie and Ghostbusters is definitely a New York movie. This is all pure Dan Akyroyd, it maybe directed by Ivan Retiman but in Akyroyd's writing you get the details, the shape, the size, the sounds and the smell of things. You can see it, from the abandoned and iconic fire station that they set up shop in to the old beat up ambulance they adapt as their transport, from the cabs and street vendors to the grumpy mayor and all his subordinates, the film is just rich with authentic feeling detail.
All the gizmos, for example, while it's never fully explained how they build them or where the pieces and technology come from, feel perfectly real and by the time they start capturing ghosts as a living, you mind has already suspended disbelief and you are along for the ride.
The characters are all perfect too, not a bad or annoying one amongst them and like I said earlier, all played, by probably one of the greatest ensemble casts ever assembled, perfectly. For a film like this to work, with all its flights of fancy and ridiculous humour, there has to be this complete sense of reality and even broader characters like Louis Tully and the pantomime villain in Walter 'dickless' Peck feel just fine when put amongst everything that's going on.
The film is essentially an origin story and is more comparable to something like Spiderman than most other studio comedies, I don't imagine you could pitch an origin story of a gang like this these days without them being established and well liked characters elsewhere, either on TV or in print but then this was the 80s, the last time the major studios ever really took a chance (but that's a rant I have had before). Yet apart from certain bits of music in the film, or maybe the odd item of clothing the film does not feel dated, hardly at all in fact, which may account for some of its staying power.
The only weak moment the film has, at all, is the use of the montage to forward the story along once they capture their first ghost and especially the portion of the montage where there is a dream sequence with a weak ghostly blow job joke in it that should've been scrapped at script stage, when you look at the rest of the movie it's very very odd and out of place. However, is it the first time anyone used the dream sequence within the montage technique? I don't know but I am betting it was definitely the last.
Small quibbles aside though Ghostbusters is just one of those magically, almost perfect slices of cinema that will continue to entertain and amuse for generations onward. It has a place next to everything from Duck Soup onwards as one of the great ensemble comedy films of all time.
I have read, like everyone, that there is a script in the works for part 3 where they hand it over to another bunch of younger comedians and it isn't written by Dan Aykroyd and the sublimely wonderful Harold Ramis. Well, all I can say is don't do it, please please please don't do it and nothing against whoever they pick but the original group is iconic and should not be tampered with. Who wants to see Ghostbusters the next generation anyway? apart from some studio executive who wants to make more money for that swimming pool full of bank notes idea he's had. Leave it all alone, it is perfect as it is, even the second one has some simply amazing bits in it, if you disagree, you can beat it, we don't like your kind round here.
9.5 out of 10 big twinkies
Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2 - 28th January 2011
It's really quite simple, when all is said and done, I am sorry folks but this should've been one single damn movie. The two movies are over indulgent, overly long, filled with needless stuffing and generally just not as interesting as they think they are.
I could leave the review right there and those who get it would get it and the rest could just argue amongst yourselves but I feel the need to explain, so strap in, shut up and let me begin.
First of all, somewhere along the line, I sort of ran out of interest in Quentin Tarantino. I was probably just 15 when my older brother took me to a midnight screening of Pulp Fiction, quite possibly, at the time, making it the coolest screening of any film ever. What I remember most of all about the film was the way it looked, the way the dialogue sounded and, of course, that iconic soundtrack. I can't actually lay claim to, at that age, knowing what anything really meant but I knew that what I was witnessing made me, for that moment at least, very very cool and blasted my mind open to a world of possibilities, as far as film was concerned.
Since then I have seen everything from True Romance to Inglorious Basterds and all that came between and I don't know, at some point, I just began feeling that something wasn't right.
I think, if I am honest, that feeling started with Kill Bill.
I saw both volumes of Kill Bill in the cinema, 6 months apart as they were released and I remember my reaction to the first one was excited amazement, I remember it just being a huge amount of escapist fun, loving the style, the colour, the sound and the way it just seemed to continue to top itself with one brilliant set piece after another.
Now, you have to bare in mind that, I suppose, up until that point, I had been raised pretty much on a steady diet of western or european made films and so, Tarantino throwing all these, often bright, stylistic, eastern, grindhouse or B-movie cinematic cliches at me was a pretty big eye opener, that and I remember leaving the cinema thinking 'shit, when did Tarantino learn how to direct action?!' because, well, we knew he could make people look cool pointing guns but never had he made anything like this before.
My reaction to Kill Bill Vol 2 was, I remember, a little bit more muted. I guess I wasn't prepared for and it wasn't really my sort of taste to watch a slower, more mumbly and, what I felt at the time was a bit of a pretentious film. There were things I liked about it, like the great Michael Parks second role, and a couple more great set pieces but over all I found it to be a saggy, plodding movie compared to the first which seemed over too quickly and the second which doesn't end soon enough.
This is why, for years, I have maintained the first film is the better film, despite the revisionist history I have heard, that has emerged more recently stating that, in fact, Vol.2 is the better film.
Since Kill Bill I have given Tarantino two more chances, first with Death Proof which has a great car chase yes but a wasted legend of a leading man and way way way too many scenes of sassy girls being sassy in sassville, oh and Eli fucking Roth. Then came Inglorious Basterds which proved to be ineptly made, boring, overly long and generally jaw droppingly crass and awful without really any exciting or interesting moments of the behind enemy lines, boys-own adventure stuff that it should've been.
I think, now I may have given up on him. With the announcement that he's planning Kill Bill 3, now may be the time.
That doesn't mean, though, I don't still like his earlier films and for some reason, this particular day I fancied doing something I don't think I have really properly done before and that is watch both Volumes of Kill Bill, back to back without any interruptions.
What emerged from this meagre experiment was basically my assertion that it should be one really good 2 and a half hour movie without all the superfluous waffle and ponderous mumbling with failed attempts at gravitas that come across as slow and pretentious, also that I can kind of see what the Vol.2 worshippers see in that film but I still don't fully agree and finally that Michael Parks is a solid gold genius and that the film isn't called "Michael Parks Kills uninteresting bastard Bill in the first 2 minutes and then spends the rest of the film telling amusing stories and playing the banjo" is a bit of a cinematic crime.
So, taking them separately then, Vol.1, a bit to my surprise, did not hold up very well for me, maybe because I have seen it too much and definitely more than the second one, maybe because I have gone off Tarantino but probably also largely down to the fact that since I saw these films in the cinema I have watched a few more original eastern films and realise where all this stuff originated from. The problem with it is that after a couple of viewings all the exciting flare, style and fun sensibility that it once had is replaced with predictability and the distinct impression that you, as an audience member are being taken on a messy ride by someone who doesn't care one iota for you. This was a film made for Tarantino by Tarantino, so that one evening in the distant future him and Eli Roth can sit around and watch it, probably sipping some annoyingly retro beer and congratulating each other with 80s style high fives on their ability to spot a few heavy handed references whilst perving over Uma Thurman's grotesque feet. Ok so that may be a little harsh, it's really not that bad but it would be nice if there was one single character in this film instead of just a bunch of people in various iconic cat walk knock off costumes spouting a series of well thought out quips or whispering supposedly heavy and important sentiments that are really complete gibberish and wouldn't look out of place in a fortune cracker.
You see, there is cool dialogue and then there is dialogue that is written to be knowingly cool, unfortunately since all the early praise he received was for his unique sounding dialogue, Tarantino, much like M Night Shymalalamama and his twists, thinks he must keep topping himself with each film and in the process has run out of anything to say, in fact in Kill Bill he even starts referencing himself which is a sure sign that the well is running dry.
When you look at his body of work post Pulp Fiction on the surface it appears he is just in pure genre territory: Blaxploitation, Kung-Fu Epic, car chase/horror & war movie, all of which sound vastly different but in fact they are all genres that have their origins mainly in the Grindhouses of the 70s, except war movie and he based his script and his title on a B-Movie from, yes, you guessed it, the 70s, add that to the fact that none of the characters in any of the films post Jackie Brown really leap off the screen and most of them sound identical, it begins to feel like Tarantino continues to make the same film over and over again. Still enough of this rambling and half finished thoughts about the man himself, back to the films...
So in round-up Volume 1 is enjoyable fairly quick paced fun for the most part that after a few watches unfortunately begins to suffer from diminishing returns and flat characterisation. The anime sequence is still outstanding and the whole style of the piece, from the music to the direction and the costumes is still pitch perfect visual bubble gum. Everyone's performance is pretty comic book and/or James Bond villainy, which maybe the point, I don't know, but it blurs all the characters into one none of them particularly as exciting as the next. Uma Thurman though does an excellent job at trying to show the vulnerability of her character and obviously did a ton of training in preparation for the role, so big kudos to her for slogging it through. The big fight at the end, in the house of blue leaves, is expertly done and when I first watched it, I found it genuinely enthralling, now it does feel like it goes on a bit and the Crazy 88 begins to feel a bit like the Flabby 888.
Also, it's a shame that the O Ren Ishii ending, in the snow garden, grinds the whole climax to a halt and it feels that, despite the little tacked on, soap opera, twist ending he just doesn't know how to end the damn thing, even Volume 2 has like 3 endings and 2 credit sequences! and you think he isn't over indulgent?
That sort of segues nicely into Kill Bill Volume 2 which Tarantino likes to claim is his spaghetti western film but mostly it's just more of the same only predominantly in America with a brief flashback to China for the Pai Mei sequence. One of the errors of the film is possibly also one of its minor strengths and that is it contains most of the plot, usually not a bad thing but when you really wish it would just get to the point it takes what seems a millennia to set up something entirely obvious. The first film is really only about The Bride's first two kills, briefly sets up the massacre that started it all and concludes with the briefest bits of important knowledge, in Vol.2 he has seemingly left himself the arduous task of filling in everything else and so while Vol. 1 is fairly straight forward, Vol.2 is all over the place and doesn't know what it wants to be. It basically falls into two sections, one is excruciatingly long set-pieces that ultimately amount in very little or tiresome, irrelevant exposition and that, apart from the brilliant trailer fight between The Bride and Elle, is pretty much that.
It's style, one of the strengths of the first one which helped to glue all of the disparate parts together into some vaguely followable, is a complete mess. It starts with a film noir beginning, for reasons best known only to Tarantino, it features shots and soundtrack stolen left and right from better Westerns, it has a whole flashback in the middle that attempts to be both a serious and sometimes harrowing, authentic Chinese martial arts film and a cheesy, stylistic, montage heavy kung-fu film and then the rest of it is the sort of stuff we've seen QT do a gazillion times before like seedy bars, chats across a table and gangster business gone wrong.
None of it particularly makes much sense, is interrupted by captions and title cards, for very little reason (don't worry, we know what's going on, it's not hard, I don't now need to be told that she's going after Budd, I have worked this shit out!) and in the end are we meant to like or care about any of this? aren't they all, when all is said and done, fairly unlikeable, hired killers?
I wouldn't be the first person to point out that the whole ending, well the first ending anyway, set in Bill's hideout (which, after all this style over substance, looks like a suite at a cheap Holiday Inn), is, well, a bit crap. Nothing is revealed at this point that is in anyway going to change the ending and I am sorry but David Carradine wasn't nearly charismatic or interesting enough to pull off the clunky, Superman referencing final monologue. Why did we leave Michael Parks back at the cantina?
The ultimate conclusion, featuring the laughable, secret martial arts move feels not heroic or dramatic or even particularly emotional, it just feels like a complete cop out. In fact, come to think of it, none of the Viper Squad that she actually kills get very interesting or imaginative deaths. One gets stabbed in the chest, one gets a long drawn out, ponderous and uninteresting sword battle that ends with a fairly badly done scalping and Bill gets to walk away and fall over pathetically. We never know what happens to the now blind Elle, although her fight in the trailer with The Bride is Vol.2's high point and ace in its sleeve, and Budd is killed by her with a snake, which at least is fairly interesting. Even when Budd attempts to bury the Bride alive, in another pretty good stand out sequence, it's more imaginative than anything she does.
Vol. 2 then is still, for me, the weaker of the two films because as the first one tries to cram all the style and action into its running time, Vol. 2 struggles to cram all the substance into its running time. What needed to happen was for someone to march into the edit suite, slap Tarantino around the back of his head with a large wet fish, duct tape his mouth shut and tell him in no uncertain terms to put style and substance together into one coherent film and stop fannying about.
True film geeks are always going to prefer the original eastern martial art's movies than to wade through a carbon copy like Kill Bill and the rest of the people don't care about all the referencing and the long winded waffle, so you have to ask yourself, who is all this for if not just for Tarantino (and probably Eli Roth) to pleasure themselves to.
The second film then has all the stuff with Budd and that's all pretty cool, watchable and interesting, more or less, although bits still do drag on and on, and that's about it. Almost anything not featuring Budd or set around Budd's trailer in the second film is pretty drawn out and pointless. The Pai Mei training sequence could be good but the tone shifts wildly all the way through it, from comical, to menacing, to serious, to violent, to painful and to triumphant stylistic montages which might be the point but still leaves an audience either feeling disconnected and cold or confused and irritated. Michael Parks as Bill's father figure is a wonderful scene but I am not sure how much of it belongs in the film because it doesn't exactly add anything except, finally, some good acting.
So to sum up, I suggest putting the two films together, cutting out all the title cards, the rambling and the indulgent crap, telling Tarantino that he is human, fallible and he needs to edit himself in the future.
Vol.1 - 6.5 out of 10 Royales with cheese
Vol.2 - 5 out of 10 tasty beverages to wash this all down
Dinner for Schmucks - 28th January 2011
With the critical mauling this film took and with the remake factor, you maybe screaming at the blog saying 'well why the blazers did you watch this rubbish in the first place!' or you may use more expletives and less British slang than that in your every day speech but either way, let me defend my position.
Basically it comes down to three things:
Firstly it was a snow/sick day, there wasn't much else going on and on days like that I fancy mindless comedy, secondly I like both the lead actors and all the cameo actors as well and thirdly, often if a film is as terrible as this one was made out to be in the general printed press, I confess to a slight weakness for wanting to see films like that, partly to see how, sometimes, a group of popular people can put a foot so wrong and partly because I don't believe the press half the time. How can a film with Paul Rudd and Steve Carrell be all that bad, really? I don't really need to list their remarkable resumes do I? Ok so I wasn't all that bothered by Carrell in Date Night and I didn't see How Do You Know and I hear it was pretty bad but apart from that they are usually both, good for a laugh.
I will say one more thing before the review, am I the only one who was sort of expecting a Paul Rudd backlash but really glad it hasn't happened? because he is usually the sort of person that generally people get sick of pretty quick, either that or start saying 'I hate Paul Rudd' just to be different but I, personally, think he's brilliant.
He has aligned himself with all the right groups of comedians from the David Wain/State group, to the Judd Apatow stable and also is a vocal fan of British comedy such as Little Britain, amongst others. He also seems to have remained pretty down to earth, which is often a good sign to. So where as I can completely understand people getting sick of Seth Rogen, the voice alone was enough along with his lack of range, I think what keeps people coming back to Paul Rudd is that he is handsome enough for women to like him but goofy and male enough for the men not to turn against his handsomeness, find out where he lives and en masse turn up and urinate through his mail slot.
As for the film, what the hell were all those reviewers going on about?! While it was in no way as genius, original or as funny as Anchorman it does remind me of that situation where a big group of people just didn't seem to get the joke.
Now I haven't seen the original (I know! I will!) but it struck me that firstly, they tried really hard to make it a genuinely amusing and slightly surreal farce in a very European tradition and secondly, they did try to give it a fair amount of social commentary and even depth below the very superficial yet, often times, hilarious surface.
In case people don't know it's about a guy who, in order to get ahead in business, has to find an idiot to come to a special dinner hosted by his work superiors and obviously, in the process has his life pulled apart, realises the truth of the matter, comes to learn real values and then proceeds to put his life back together with said idiot in toe.
The curious thing about this film was how much better it was than the trailer. It feels like, having read some of the negative reviews that they were reviewing the trailer and not the film because after seeing the trailer, I too felt that this band of modern comedians had wildly missed the mark and finally all banded together to make a bad film, however, in my household, a dumb farcical comedy starring people you like has two jobs:
1. To make you laugh
and
2. To make sure you still like the people by the end of the film that you liked at the beginning of the film
Dinner for Schmucks, I am glad to say, succeeded on both counts.
Now were there weak moments? sure, of course, there was bound to be some, for example, David Walliams is not as funny as he thinks he is, not all of the final collection of idiots were as laugh-out-loud as they could've been but sadder than that, the character that the marvelous Jermaine Clement played grew a little tiresome by the end.
All in all though the film had some really inspired flights of creative lunacy, a great pace, Steve Carell, along with Zach Galifanakis in a bonkers cameo, were very very funny, the film juggled the surreal, the light and, sometimes, the very black humour well and the farce, for me, never became annoying and never gave me occasion to shout "No! no please don't do that! no!" as someone did something obviously stupid to a vintage car/house/work of art (as is so often the cliche with these things).
As I started with Mr.Rudd, I will end with a comment about him. while he was perfectly fine in this film and played a good semi-straight man with the right dose of charm and timing, he is better than this role.
He is at his best when he is playing an actual character, like the amazing and smooth Brian Fantana from Anchorman, complete with comedy tache, or the grumpy, world hating and quick witted energy drink salesman in Role Models. At his best, his straight man schtick is the awkward, ridiculous nickname spouting, bass slappin' real estate agent in I Love You Man but at its worst it can be a little dry, flat and bland, which, in the case of Dinner for Schmucks is of course to do with the script but also so that he is the sane little eye of the big crazy storm, if he had a wacky character too then there really would be no one for the audience to hitch their wagon to.
Still, I could do with more Fantana sytle roles for Rudd and less cookie cutter romantic leads.
All that being said, maybe I went in with low expectations, maybe it works better on the small screen or maybe I watched in such a stupidity induced stupor that I wasn't thinking straight but I enjoyed it and would even go as far as to recommend it.
7 out of 10 fake cheeses in a stuffed mouse diorama
Gentleman Broncos - 18th January 2011
In fact I am sitting here about to review it and I can't really make my mind up about it.
In a weird way I want to hate it, I want to hate it for trying too hard to be weird, I want to hate it for being a pretentious pile of self indulgent strange crap, I want to get angry and rant about the need for so-called independent American cinema (read low budget studio fare with a fan base but no real market value) to out mumble, out weird and out quirk not only mainstream cinema but its independant rivals until it generally disappears up its own arse hole but I can't really because I quietly and pleasantly enjoyed this odd little slice of bland Americana.
I am going to try and describe it now, ok, so be patient. The plot is this, there is a quiet, inward, mumbly boy who dresses in either out dated threads, the sort you might find on the rack at a charity shop (thrift store) with stained walls, scratchy carpet smelling of stale coffee, or bizarre concoctions of his batty and incompetent mother, who is one of those insanely positive people that is either hiding some heavy trauma, has one screw short of a complete flat-packed, pine-effect Ikea cabinette or both. He is home schooled, well sort of, I think, but also attends writing seminars because he is a writer and the creator of a very childish, badly written but fairly inventive Sci-Fi story, that in truth is just a way to deal with his absentee Father issues. All the time we cut back to parts of the Sci-Fi novel acted out by Sam Rockwell in a series of ever increasing lunatic set pieces. The boy idolises a self-important, pompous and suitably oddball writer who turns out to be the judge of a writing course he's attending, who also has writer's block, has extended his advance with his publisher and needs something quick. The writer reads his story, changes the names, weirdly and unnecessarily camps up the protagonist (in some borderline slightly offensive and simplistically homophobic gay over-acting by Sam Rockwell that you'd expect from a BBC2 1970s sitcom but not in a modern film like this) and then flogs the book as his own. The boy meanwhile has fallen in with some other charming yet curiously, stupid and simple town folk who have a slapdash enterprise making quirky, no-budget, straight to video films and has agreed to give them the rights to his story. While they set about donning bad wigs, their parents clothes and creating bizarrely wonderful and shoddy props to make their film, the writer has released his book to general fan-based acclaim. It eventually all comes to a head, the writer first tries to buy the boy off but is eventually exposed as a fraud, the original book is published, the other one removed from the shelves, good is victorious, evil is punished and they all live together, happily ever after, in their quirky, non-conformist, out dated but in an obvious, intentional way, mumbly and odd ball household.
You can see how I really struggle with it because on the surface I just want to attack it for trying so desperately hard to be different, purposefully making every character dress and talk in a so-bland it's crazy way and not having any substance but I can't because it does, it has lots of charm and lots of substance. It essentially is all about the American Dream, which is a childish yet exciting idea that anyone can be anything they want and that there is always a corner in this enormous country where you can cultivate creative and enterprising interests if you are dedicated and passionate enough and it manages to say that simple, maybe patriotic, chest thumping and flag waving message without ever being sentimental, mawkish or any of the above. Also, I didn't feel, at any point like it was looking down or judging these small town folks but rather that the film maker is fond of them and considers himself lucky to be one.
It's essentially like Rushmore meets Be Kind Rewind via some wierd bluey green mid western dating agency video from the 1980s.
There are some bits that grate, for example, it would've been better and more likable if the book-come-to-life sections of the film had shown the book in question to be at all well written or interesting, instead of a series of weak, schoolboy sniggering innuendos contrasted with completely nonsensical and beyond surreal flights of fancy but maybe I am just not that familiar with the particular brand of Sci-Fi they were parodying.
The main cast, surprisingly except Sam Rockwell, are all excellent, watchable and game enough to put up with all the strangeness. Especially Jermaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords fame, who is phenomenally good and funny even when he's saying nothing, he just looks funny. Sam Rockwell, however, misses the mark which is unusual for him because he's normally terrific but it needed more of a strong personality in those scenes.
It's difficult to say if it was directed well because I have no idea what the film makers intentions were. I don't know if he knew it was all bonkers or if, for him, a lot of it seemed normal. What I can say though is that the directing style adequately matched the subject and tone of the piece, which I guess is just about all you could ask for. I usually like my satire/parody a little less broad and more subtle too but if its aim was to be exactly like a dingy, end of the high street charity shop (thrift store) come to life, complete with the straight-to-VHS B-Movie sensibility, the someone died in this in the 80s clothes and the script, like a well thumbed Sci-Fi novel by someone with an impressive sounding name but a front cover that depicts every orange-tinged, slightly viking-looking cliche in the book, then it succeeded mightily.
I am not sure if I would ever watch it again as it seemed a bit too slow, bland and needlessly quirky for my tastes but what I will say is, despite my reservations and it's slightly infantile nature, I really enjoyed it, it definitely won me over and by the end of it I was pleasantly happy to see it all work out for this likable group of misfits. It was uniquely American, fairly funny and worth watching if you want something that doesn't look, feel or sound like anything that's in your local multiplex.
6 out of 10 snakes in a baguette
Ira & Abby - 18th January 2011
Written by and staring Jennifer Westfeldt, for the most part it was a charming, engaging, dialogue heavy examination of all things neurosis and relations based.
It doesn't have the joke rate of a Woody Allen film or a "When Harry Met Sally" and it did sort of all fall apart, become a little repetitive and slip into the usual misunderstanding based "if only they'd told each other how they were feeling" cliches towards the end but actually, despite all that it was a fun, easily watchable film.
It's well written, directed much as Woody might have done it and impeccably performed by a talented cast.
There was absolutely nothing new about any of it and didn't leave you any wiser about this crazy little thing called love but for what it was, it passed the hours pleasantly.
6 out of 10 New York cheesecake
Points from The Wife 6 out of 10
The Thing - 7th January 2011
The print for this particular version was excellent and I have never seen the film looking so incredible.
The wife and I are huge John Carpenter fans and apart from Ghosts of Mars and the last part of Vampires (I always fall asleep) I have watched and can watch everything he's ever done. When John Carpenter works with Kurt Russell, it's particularly brilliant and the two of them have created some of the best fantasy cinema available. While Big Trouble in Little China might be a lot more fun and The Escape movies may have the real cult classic status with an iconic character, The Thing is probably their best film together and the one that can stand head to head with any other Horror or Sci-Fi film out there. Based on the short story 'Who goes there' it is a deceptively simple and expertly executed plot about a research centre in the South Pole that unwittingly invites a shape shifting Alien into their midst and the hunt is on to find out who has been infected and who hasn't. Along the way there are shocks, surprises, twists and turns all complemented in a jaw droppingly inventive and innovative fashion by a 22 year old Rob Bottin's special effect work.
At the time it was released audiences and critics were turned off by the incredible effects accomplishment, that and this dark tale of mistrust in the Antarctic came out the same year as ET. Read what you want into the fact I have seen ET probably once when I was young and have had literally no desire to ever see it again and The Thing I have seen repeatedly and it still surprises, amuses, interests and amazes me every time.
After its initial failure I think, actually, it was the effects that helped it gain in notoriety and find its audience, especially after the acceptance of other effects heavy horrors like Nightmare on Elm Street. I think, when I first got into genre pics it was certainly all I heard about in relation to the flick.
Actually, the effects aspect may have overshadowed what is at the core of this film's staying power and that goes right back to the original story. The idea that there's a group of people, one or many of them maybe your enemy and you don't know which one. The mystery aspect of the film and the subsequent surprises it kicks up is by far what is the most entertaining and important part of this film. The fantastical effect sequences, the likes of which have rarely been seen before or since are what help with constant repeat viewings as they are just so wonderfully artistic and surreal in places but even with repeat viewings I can never 100% remember who gets changed and who doesn't.
The ensemble cast are terrific and it's no one person's movie, yes Kurt Russell gets the cool hat and the cool name but everyone in the film plays their part perfectly. The direction too is fantastic. It's subtle, never showy, always on the mark and builds the tension, telling the central story, perfectly. Also, you'd have no idea watching the film that the interiors were filmed on refrigerated sets in LA, such is the perfect blending of interior and exterior filming.
One surprising thing, for all Carpenter fans is that the music credit goes to Ennio Morricone. Known for writing his own scores to a lot of his films and having a very signature style of doing so, it's incredible that with a composer of Morricone's stature that the score comes out sounding like Carpenter himself could've done it. It's also unusual that Carpenter didn't write the screenplay either and was essentially brought on as a director for hire and yet it is completely and utterly a Carpenter film and, not only that, one of his most beloved and celebrated these days (hindsight, what a wonderful thing).
I guess I don't have to reiterate this but if you ever get a chance to see this eerie and exciting film on the big screen, drop what you're doing and go see it because it's a masterpiece.
I spoke before about Die Hard being the perfect film, the perfect action movie, a film that just came along, did what it said on the tin but did it with style, panache and incredible creativity, well, The Thing is to Horror/Sci-Fi what Die Hard is to action movies, routinely imitated but never bettered.
10 out of 10 frozen dog burgers and a shot of J&B over a game of computer chess
Points from The Wife 10 out of 10! It's one of her favourite films of all time.
Clerks 2 - 6th January 2011
I mention this because, it's completely odd when you think that films like the American Pie series or any Judd Apatow or Todd Phillips film do ridiculously and in some cases, unfathomably well and yet, an argument could be made that, without Mr.Smith the dick and fart with a heart humour of recent, mainly male, buddy comedies would not be in vogue or even on the studios radar. It doesn't matter who he works with either because his films contain some incredibly famous, big earning stars and more recently the Zack & Miri/Seth Rogan experiment showed that even Apatow's crew could not shift more seats for a Kevin Smith film.
It's completely ok though because A) Box office should never matter if it's enough to get the artist their next project funded and B) he's in excellent company. The closest example is Woody Allen, an incredibly gifted writer, films chock full with big name famous people (even now when the quality of his films has really veered off) and the same small but loyal audience show up for the annual Woody Allen movie movie every year but with that formula, Woody has managed to make one film a year since the late 60s!
I personally like Kevin Smith films and more or less feel, from everything I have read or heard, that I would like Kevin Smith, he seems like a down to earth, funny kind of guy. I even genuinely liked Jersey Girl, which I wish he would stop attacking or using as the butt of all his self-depreciating jokes, mainly for the father and son relationship, which I am always a sucker for in films.
While his films do, of course, differ in quality and I certainly don't like them all equally, I own them all and have watched all of them multiple times, apart from Cop Out which I really tried to like but just couldn't in any way at all. Also his little View Askew empire, with the merchandise, the Q&As and history of a close group of friends all working together on several flicks appeals to all sorts of parts of the film-maker geek in me.
Now, with that all said, on to Clerks 2 which is the sequel, 12 years later to the film that started it all and made his name. There has, of course, been much debate over which one is better and is Clerks 2 a worthy sequel to the first film, well, personally, I still prefer the original Clerks but Clerks 2 is a fine sequel and, as Kevin Smith himself once said about the John McClaine character in Die Hard, I could happily watch Jeff Anderson and Brian O'Halloran as Dante and Randall get into a new heap of trouble every year, as long as Kevin Smith kept writing and directing them.
Basically, and very quickly because I am sure everyone reading this has seen the film, the plot revolves around Dante and Randall being forced to leave Quick Stop (due to a fire) and transfer to the heady world of fast food service. Dante is engaged to be married and his wife to be has planned to drag his sorry, doughy arse down to Florida and away from Randall. At the same time, it is revealed that Dante has also had something of a fling with his attractive and sassy manager played by Rosario Dawson and so the stage is set again for more vulgar but hilarious hi-jinks, again the question of which woman Dante will end up with and the examination of the turbulent yet touching friendship at the heart of the Clerks' movies.
Now, I mentioned, briefly, earlier about the likes of Apatow and Todd Phillips films both of which, if you have read this blog, you know I like and have no problem with but their films tend to be formulaic in nature, where set pieces and improvisation take a front seat to plot or character. Most of them, then, do exactly what they say on the tin and usually have a very typical Hollywood wrap up. Where Clerks 2 is something all the more interesting and unique in that, underneath it's seemingly childish and rude veneer, it dares to have an actual plot riddled with conflict, characters that are equally crass and layered, thoughtful individuals and shows a very true male friendship which is, arguably, the true love story of the film. It is in this relationship that Clerks 2 finds all its best and most interesting moments, culminating in an excellently written scene where Randall says the things that anyone in a long term male friendship wants to say, deep down, but maybe never says.
What Clerks 2 lacks, which Clerks had in spades, is the funny and well drawn commentary on the customers, who, while they still serve as the foils to Randall's diatribes and flippant remarks, never really have a personality or a point of their own. Also, because of the introduction of Elias as Randall's new play thing and the fact that Dante spends a lot of the film with Rosario Dawson's character, the two wonderful leads are sadly divided in Clerks 2 way more than they are in Clerks where their banter with each other and the customers IS the film. Now, of course, no one wanted to see Smith just remake Clerks in a fast food setting and there is some of what I am talking about, especially in the classic porch monkey sequence but where the film is at its weakest is when these two aren't sharing the screen exclusively together.
The character of Elias, unlike Dante, is too easy a character, the stupid, naive, Lord of the Rings and Transformers loving christian, to be on the receiving end of Randall's comments and so rather than being the brash, bold, amusing character he should be, sometimes it can come off as needless bullying.
Everyone, it seems, loves Jay and Silent Bob as characters, so much so they were in everything up to Jersey Girl, had their own movie, form part of the View Askew logo and have been merchandised endlessly. I too like Jay and Silent Bob but my favourite Kevin Smith characters of all time? Dante and Randall, closely followed by Brodie. In Clerks 2, Jay and Silent Bob are sort of the weak links because, apart from the bit with Silent Bob in pig tails during the dance sequence, they don't really do or say anything particularly funny. The 'Goodbye Horses' sequence seems spectacularly random, curiously not funny and ultimately pointless for example.
This is because there's a dilemma in Clerks 2 which is that by the time the film came about Jay and Bob were big, established fan favourites and also this was to be their last film so they had to be in it and they had to be given something to do but unfortunately, apart from them loaning Dante and Randall the money to re-open the Quick Stop at the end, they don't have any other reason or point to be in this film and sort-of get in the way of the interesting story that's being told.
The last, what could be perceived as negative, comment is that in the first Clerks when some horrific thing happened, it was described in a terrifically amusing way, the coffin being knocked over at a funeral and Caitlin having sex with a dead guy in the bathroom but in Clerks 2, when it comes to the donkey show, we, more or less, see everything. Now I applaud Smith for going as far as he did, the dark little sick person inside me who laughs at such things enjoyed it immensely, it's also incredibly disturbing but outrageously funny, in a black humour type way, to watch Elias apologise to Jesus whilst excessively masturbating in public at the sight of a man having sex with a donkey but, just like in horror, there is a school of thought that says the audience can imagine something more horrific/comic than you can show them and maybe the idea of a man on donkey show was funny enough without showing it. It's just that, like I have already said, once it is underway it detracts from me watching Randall and Dante just be themselves. All that being said, however, it is a very well put together sequence, well edited and with great sound design so that when the shit starts to hit the fan, the music, the lighting, the smoke and the sound all really make you feel the chaos, confusion and also regret that Dante must be feeling.
Overall, in fact, the movie is wonderfully put together. Kevin Smith likes to routinely criticise his directing abilities and while, he is no visual wizard, he has no need to be. He does what he does and he does it well. Clerks 2 is shot well, edited well and pleasingly put together. The montage works, the dance sequence works, the donkey show is fantastically put together and the whole film has no downside, direction and cinematography wise. One small niggle was the use of Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head mainly because it had been used in both Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and more recently Spiderman 2, where I didn't like it and it didn't make sense either. There are so many songs in the world, it always feels odd to me when the same one is used time and time again.
There has been mention of a Clerks 3 sometime in the future, to see what Dante and Randall are up to in their 40s, although kevin Smith has also said recently that Hit Somebody, his hockey picture after Red State will be his last film. I personally would welcome a Clerks 3 and I would also, as many fans would, like to see him write more View Askiewniverse movies, not necessarily focussing on any of the characters before but set in that world with maybe walk ons from those folks, but sadly I doubt he ever will and if Clerks 2 happens to be the last one, at least it ended where it all began with Dante and Randall at the register and Jay and Silent Bob having their rightful place in the world, standing outside of Quick Stop.
7 out of 10 fly filled burgers and piss filled sodas.
Veronica Mars Season One - 1st through 5th January 2011
Ok, so if I had to sum up Veronica Mars for a fan of TV Shows who had never seen it then I would say it is like Twin Peaks meets Buffy meets The OC with whip smart writing, plenty of nods to 50s film noir, quick fire pop culture quotes and a harder, darker and more violent edge than you'd expect.
It has the overall plot of a promiscuous, fun loving but damaged teenage girl's murder with pulp detective sensibilities like Peaks, the clever banter, school out-cast dynamic of Buffy and the soap opera, South California stylings of The OC (only it's better than the OC).
It's faults are few and far between, the main one being that the supporting cast of characters is never as well defined or overly interesting as you'd necessarily like but this is more than made up for by the cracking plots, frantic dialogue and some genuinely effecting moments.
While it does occasionally dip its toes into soap opera territory, it is never preachy, seldom soppy and unlike Buffy, Veronica is never annoyingly self righteous or overly whingy, which is a massive plus.
While the show was always interesting to watch and I can't think, off the top of my head, of any bad filler episodes that can plague other series, just occasionally the individual, week by week stories got a little throw away or convoluted but that's never the really point or the focus of this series because it's all about the murder of Veronica's best friend Lilly and the Chandleresque, twisty, turny plotting that they miraculously manage to sustain through 22 episodes.
What shocked and interested me the most about the show, in the end, was just how adult it was in places and very pleasingly so. It never shies away from violence or mature subjects such as rape, child abuse, incest, disease, alcohol and drug abuse and, of course, death but I never once felt I was being moralised to, in fact while the character of Veronica Mars definitely has her principles, she is not and the show is not moralistic in an over baring, finger wagging way. Where Buffy can fail frequently because of the heavy handed, fairly childish, self important soap boxing and a show like 24 always has to feature people who disapprove of, agonise over and chin stroke about the lead character's decisions, which, while I enjoy both shows, annoys me no end, Veronica Mars is almost a more realistic depiction of what it's like working your way through life, with themes of living with decisions and loyalty without the smug faced posturing.
Despite loving the writing, the noir throwbacks, the cameos and especially the central dynamic between Veronica and her father and while I would urge or suggest anyone who hasn't seen it to give it a go, I can't say I am a hardened fan just yet, let's see what the second and third seasons bring.
Still as a one off set of 22 episodes with one over-riding, well plotted, interesting storyline and a set of ok characters it was continually watchable, funny, engaging and exciting. Definitely a little gem in a sea of similarly set high-school shows.
8.5 out of 10 cookies
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
Die Hard - 24th December 2010
So I put off writing this review for two weeks
A) because it's been Christmas and New Year (Happy New Year by the way!) and
B) because I have no idea how you review a near perfect film.
What do I say? There isn't one thing I would change about the film, it is a sheer genius exercise in seemingly effortless, quintessentially American film making.
The whole set-up is so perfectly simple and it plays out in such a way that, even now, after all the copy cat films, the analysing of the apparently obvious yet deceptively well thought out formula and the 100 viewings it is still a frantically enjoyable, thrilling, exciting and amusing watch.
As far as American style film theory and production is concerned it is a masterpiece, the writing and characterisation has never really been bettered in a popcorn flick (though many have tried), the direction is flawless, the acting a delicious treat with every single cast member both big and small savouring every wonderful syllable and making even some of the most mundane words instantly quoteable and 22 years later, apart from maybe some of the fashion, it hasn't dated a bit, not even the special effects.
I came to see this on Christmas Eve, in a cinema full of fans, some of them quite merry and drunk, at midnight in New York and really, it's one of the best ways to see a film ever.
If there are recurring themes to this ongoing blog it's that I can't say enough good things about seeing films in the cinema, especially classic films at midnight and the other is my theory that we haven't really had it as good as we did in the 80s as far as modern, American movies are concerned.
While the auteurs of the 70s were influenced primarily by European films and the so-called indie directors of the 90s drew heavily and openly from everything that came before, toned down the action and brought up the dialogue, in the 80s America learned to blend invention, craft and box office in such a way that we've had difficulty replicating it since.
Die Hard is a perfect example of this, if not the genuine originator and the high water mark by which all future one-man against an army action movies would later be judged. It has a premise you could explain in under ten words (although the people who designed and wrote the above poster seem to have had a real problem doing this!) and yet in executing that premise, the film-makers are careful to give absolutely every speaking role a detailed character with a subtle and purposeful arc.
For example: In the news station studio, that we really only see twice in the film, we are aware of the tensions between the staff and the foolishness of the preening smarmy anchor, it is all in the quick yet perfectly timed and played detail; detail in the writing, detail in the performance, the set design and the direction. Now there is no real plotting need for any of it but what it does so expertly is it gives you something to watch and enjoy at all times and it sets this high concept narrative, that requires a fair suspension of disbelief, in a realistic setting we can all appreciate, understand, empathise with or laugh at. That is Die Hard's ace up its sleeve, especially when you consider that the action mainly consists of a little gun play, some running, some punching and a couple of sizeable explosions but nothing extraordinary by today's standards.
Also, long before the 'wear your influences on your sleeve', pop culture nodding antics of Tarantino and crew, Die Hard, from the moment stuff starts to go down, immediately acknowledges the updating of its conventions from the old Western genre in the quick fire radio patter between the hero and the villain because what is Die Hard if not a Western, after all doesn't a stranger ride into town and save the town folk from some low-lifes?
It is fantastically fun and a must see, especially at Christmas.
10 out of 10 stuffed and roasted German turkeys. (see what I did there?)
Points from the Wife - 10 out of 10
Starsky & Hutch - 21st December 2010
I can't honestly say I have ever sat through an episode of the original Starsky and Hutch so I can't compare anything in this with the original, which is probably a blessing because obviously I realise this is a highly comic interpretation of the original show and that means I can just sit back and laugh much in the way we all did with Dragnet back in the 80s, obviously this films closest predecessor.
This film came out just as this particular group of comedians were beginning to establish themselves as a successful group, later dubbed the frat pack, in a very similar vein as the post SNL group of Murray, Aykroyd, Candy and Martin did in the 1980s. There have been hits, misses, attempts at different genres, off the wall masterpieces discovered on DVD like Zoolander and Anchorman and serious turns in naval gazing indies like Stranger than Fiction and Greenberg. Each individual, also, has seemingly gone on to have big, multi-million dollar summer and winter blockbuster movies which may have made them very rich but has not necessarily kept them fresh or funny.
Starsky and Hutch which stars Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, with turns from Vince Vaughn, Jason Bateman and Will Ferrell, although barely mentioned anymore (much like Dragnet) is amongst the early funny ones of this group and stands up surprisingly well a few years down the line. It has its weak spots (the cocaine/ dance off scene goes on way too long and has an unsatisfying pay off) but mostly it is a series of ludicrous sketches strung together under the banner of buddy cop comedy.
Stiller and Wilson are at their best playing absurdly stupid yet confident people in ridiculous situations and the way the film is set up, much like Zoolander, it allows both actors to play to their strengths with Stiller being the real genius of the pair, there is something about his ernest leaping about and attempts to be threatening that are just brilliant.
There is not much to say about the film really as it scarcely matters whether the plot holds up or if the acting is top notch, what matters is if it's funny and while it is certainly not as inventive or bonkers as Zoolander or Anchorman, for example, it does have several legitimately laugh out-loud moments, even if a lot of the gags and set-ups are heavily reminiscent of scenes we've seen before in previous comedies.
It's a great touch to have Fred Williamson as the enraged seventies police captain and Snoop Dog is not above donning a silly wig and doing ridiculous scenes with the rest of them.
A fairly good and jolly way to pass the afternoon if needs be.
6.5 out of 10 prancing dragons
Points from the wife 5 out of 10
Couples Retreat - 20th December 2010
I could've done with a Muppets Christmas Carol or a Scrooged but sadly no, I was stuck with this.
Now I have prefaced this review with the fact that I was sick, let me also preface it with the fact it is the second time I have sat through this film and so this is my sicky, second time viewing experience based opinion, ok? good.
I am going to be a little kinder on this film than I might have been if it was my first viewing, I remember leaving that first experience pretty disgusted with all involved because it is true to say that this film is almost entirely devoid of laughs.
The thought that I had this time was, actually, looking at it again, it is a companion piece to The Break Up in many ways. That was a film that was also billed as an hilarious relationship comedy when really, despite some of its more ridiculous and outlandish scenes, it was actually a fairly successful attempt to look at what couples actually go through in a more serious and inwardly comic way than a laugh out loud comedy riot.
Now what you get with Couples Retreat is in no way as well scripted, well thought out, well directed or as well acted as The Break Up and it's a sad fact that its unfunny, outlandish, cliche'd and often vulgar scenes far out weigh any actual drama or comic comment on relationships but those knowing observations are in there if you want to look out for them. It's also a film that if you have absolutely nothing else to watch and you want to kill a couple of hours watching some comedic actors you maybe once liked take a holiday together then put this on, if you want to watch a film in which some comedic actors you may still like take a holiday and discuss relationships then watch Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Which brings us to the cast, a crazy ensemble of actors who have all appeared in some of the funniest films and some of the best TV shows of the 21st century, people you may have laughed at, liked and even admired at one time all show up to prove time and time again that comedy doesn't work when you throw money at it, oh and speedos, not really funny either, just old, embarrassing and desperate. Also, if you want me to care if these people get back together or not, make them either funny enough to forgive their hideous antics or likable enough that you don't want to punch them in their soft-cotton pajama wearing, swanning about on a tropical paradise getting a tan type, podgy and miserable looking faces.
It's actually a little unforgivable that all these people could be so bad. Vince Vaughn has been on a downward slope for sometime and is pretty awful as the lead in most of his movies, he is usually better as part of an ensemble, as a second tier character or as a cameo (see Swingers, Anchorman, Old School etc.) and make no mistake, there's a reason he's front and center on the poster, this movie is all about him. Sure the plot is predicated on the idea that Jason Bateman and Kristen Bell's marriage is having problems and yes usual Vaughn cronies, John Favreau and the others get their 5 minutes in the spotlight but most of the film is Vaughn talking, talking and talking. Well, actually, it's more like him whinging, whinging and whinging and it's repetitive, in a monotone, thoroughly unlikeable and surprisingly unfunny.
I said I was going to be kinder on this movie than I would've been the first time I saw it and this is me being kind, so you can only imagine just how rotten I thought it was originally but it's true to say that I did enjoy it a little more the second time, meaning that, in my ill stupor, I didn't find it quite so wretched but really absolutely everyone involved in this knows better and could do better.
3 out of 10 pineapples with a straw in.
Points from the wife 2 out of 10
The Shining - 18th December 2010
I don't really need to go on and on about how fantastic Stanley Kubrick is, as film scholars and lovers have done that since 'Paths of Glory' in 1957, but one point I will make is that, if you get the chance to see a film that you love, at the cinema, even if it's a film you've already seen a handful of times, then go see it! Drop whatever it is you're doing and head to your nearest retro screening immediately because watching a film you thought you were familiar with from TV, VHS or DVD on the big screen is eye opening, incredible, fresh and, dare I say it, a hundred times better than seeing any new film at a multiplex.
I must've seen the Shining at least ten times in my life, or at least that's what it felt like but I guess it's a film I have actually seen all the way through probably only three or four times but have seen sections of it, either through partial viewings or documentaries on the subject, many many times and it's remarkable how a film as epic in its intensity and craft and as haunting as The Shining can really just be relegated to a greatest hits compilation of oft repeated scenes in your head.
Seeing it on the large canvas is the only way to see it, the cinema screen and surround sound revealing each creepy image, each unnerving sound and each spectacularly nuanced and developed performance in a profoundly rich and absorbing way.
Maybe I am alone in this but when I think of The Shining, I would remember the performances, the sound design and the use of steadicam but I'd really underestimated the sets and colours in this film. The carpets, for example, are menacing, which is a weird sentence to say to begin with, and they seem to become increasingly garish the closer the characters get to danger. The carpet in the feared Room 237 is ridiculous but put it in this film, shot in that simple, stylish yet deceptively difficult and complex way that Kubrick likes to do it and add the increasingly tense and eerie score and it suddenly seems like the carpet is attacking, screaming and biting at Nicholson's heals as he heads into the bathroom to experience his first ghost.
The scene in the very red bathroom of the ghostly Golden Ballroom, where Jack meets the sinister British spectre of Grady, is a vivid delight on the big screen. It's a tremendously brave and bold design choice because if the performances weren't as solid and mesmerising as they are and if the words weren't quite so perfectly sculpted to give you just the right amount of revulsion but also intrigue then the redness of the bathroom could have completely overshadowed the proceedings.
There were also some images in the film, particularly towards the end when Shelley Duvall finally begins to see the hotel's peculiar hauntings, that I had flat out forgotten and that made the whole thing feel like the first time, just alive and vibrant and where you also get to see Kubrick's little mischievous touches at work.
I hate to say it but, as was proven by the atrocious made-for-tv , King produced movie, Stephen King is wrong about the film adaptation of The Shining, which he famously can't stand. I understand it isn't faithful to the book, which, as the author of the book, is a legitimate comment but he has also said that casting Jack Nicholson in the main role took away the journey of a character descending into madness because Nicholson already looks mad and everyone had seen him play mad in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest and hated Duvall's casting because she already looks traumatised at the start of the film apparently but actually both performances seem in perfect keeping with the script and Nicholson's, in particular, is incredibly layered. His character is far from normal at the beginning, having been an alcoholic who damaged his sons arm once while drunk and is now tetchy due to being on the wagon and Duvall's character has been living with an alcoholic and a son who seems to be a little different, going to the Overlook Hotel is meant to be a redemptive and contemplative period for them both. It is a realistic and expertly played set up that adds to the tension and sense of isolation that is so clear in the middle section of the film once they have settled into the hotel, showing that you can't run and hide from your problems.
It was also a delight, after the film, to go with friends and hear their take on what just happened and what the film is actually about. The genius of a film like this and the seemingly diverse nature of its imagery and storytelling is that it can be interpreted many different ways, mostly because of a confusing and open ending that leads you to question everything you have just seen. Is it all just an unfortunate roller coaster ghost story that plays out exactly as we see it, is it all an examination of hell with the character of Jack Torrance reliving his murderous deeds over and over again every winter since 1921, with Kubrick taking inspiration from Dante or is it something else? Kubrick said himself that he didn't believe in hell and saw ghost stories as optimistic because it meant humans can survive death so take from that what you will. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what truth does or doesn't lie deep underneath the overlapping possibilities in the film, just saying that there could be means that this is probably one of the most intelligent horror films you'll ever see.
I don't know who at Warner Brothers looked at Stanley Kubrick and understood him but thank goodness someone did because occasionally, to get films this good, you need a visionary director like Kubrick to be given exactly what he needs: a blank cheque and limitless time. People can call it selfish, obsessed, frustrating, difficult, never ending, uncomfortable and ultimately pointless but it's art, it's personal, it's the sheer craft and achievement of the thing (the entire interior of that magnificent realistic hotel was BUILT on a sound stage!), it's an incredible film that will survive lifetimes and it beats the hell out of remaking Prom Night.
10 out of 10 intrinsically layered but extraordinarily tasty trifles
Points from the wife 9 out 10
The A-Team Movie - 17th December 2010
I have just finished watching this minutes ago and I couldn't rush to the computer quick enough!
I will start by saying that I am an enormous fan of the original series and believe it to be amongst some of the best TV ever written. It has incredible actors, a kick ass, unforgettable soundtrack, well drawn characters and some truly inventive set pieces in it. People who look at it and say things like 'well that could never happen', 'it's the same every week' or 'they never kill anyone but they shoot a lot of guns' are missing the point entirely, ignoring the genuinely well written scripts, I would say have probably never watched more than a handful of episodes and should be strung up in an uncomfortable harness and have the stuffing beaten out of them with a sock full of pennies.
When they started to rerelease my childhood Saturday evening viewing on VHS and then on DVD (Dukes of Hazard, Knight Rider, The Hulk etc.) I bought them all and the only one that could be viewed as an adult, still held up remarkably well, was charming as anything, needed no rosy tint of nostalgia and still delivered one hell of a rush was The A Team, everything else paled in comparison.
When the rumour mill threw around the idea of a movie over the last 10 years, I have to say I wasn't in the least bit interested, without that legendary cast and the fantastic writing they were never going to get it right. When they finally got a director and a cast together, most of whom freely admitted to either never watching the original or, actually downright knocking it in an annoyingly postmodern, I want to kick them hard in the danglies, smug faced, self satisfied way (I am looking at you Joe Carnahan you potato headed, incompetent hack!) my heart sank and my head screamed WHY?!?! repeatedly until I started to bleed from my ears. Then, finally, when I saw the trailer it honestly felt like the makers of the film had all lined up in a circle and taken it in turns to sock me in the gut with a rusty pipe. It was for this reason that I waited till it was on demand on my cable box before I braved what I suspected was going to be a bumpy and possibly sick inducing ride.
However, I was really willing to give it a smidgen of a chance, most of the actors I like, some of the cliched elements seemed to be there (the cigars, the van, BA's hair) and if it could keep the right balance between silly fun and high adventure, I was expecting to muddle through mostly ok.
I knew I down right loathed this film from ten minutes in when there seemed to be a preponderance of bad, ham-fisted, dialogue, inexcusably terrible editing and rap music and during the rest of the film, as the hope of it ever redeeming itself dwindled into a catastrophically bad CGI mess before my very eyes, I grew more and more tense and angry, shifting a myriad of criticisms around in my brain wandering which one would spew forth first. If I didn't have neighbours and if I wasn't conscientious you would've been able to have heard my screams, shouts and bellows from space. If it wasn't chemically impossible I would hunt down the director Joe Carnahan, who has possibly the most punchable face in movies this side of McG and Justin Timberlake, stand in front of him and literally explode coating his smug as tits, shit eating grin covered face in my bile, vomit, blood and fleshy chunks of my physically manifested hatred.
Ok, so as I can't order the following rants into which one annoyed me more I will just go for it and you can all try and keep up because trying to contain my sheer knuckle chewing distain for this film is like trying to ask a really heavy bowel movement to crawl back inside you and wait its turn.
Firstly, how do you make an A-Team movie and never use the Theme tune? How do you do that? Honestly! Christ on a jet-ski! Stop. Think about it, maybe download the theme tune, listen to it and then realise, quite sanely, that you would have to be a baboon eared lover of being anally fisted to the sounds of kittens screaming to make an A Team film without ever using what is one of the finest action scores in television history and possibly second only to the James Bond theme in terms of iconic air-punching, adrenaline increasing and joyously manchild type tunage. Now, ok, yes they play a section of it over the end credits, there is a little orchestral nod to it during the tedious and stinky finale when BA takes off his wooly hat and it is almost played in full, quite bizarrely and out of place during a scene in a mental institutions television room as if it is the soundtrack to an unnamed 3-D film that's being projected on a sheet in the background but apart from that the rest of the action, and I would use that term heavily in air quotes if it wouldn't make you all want to castrate me, plays out against either no music or an incredibly underwhelming, uncatchy, unremarkable, patchy and muted score by the once legendary Alan Silvestri. How is this possible!?
(insert shots of me slapping my head and screaming expletives at the moon here)
Get an old cassette recorder with a beat up microphone on it, put it next to the television while an old VHS copy of the original show's credit sequence plays and then take the new movie, turn the sound off and just play the old theme song over the top of it - hey presto! already it's a better movie.
Second, I am sorry to constantly be getting on the back of idiot monkey boy Carnahan and pummeling his worthless head in but he couldn't direct a decent action sequence if you strapped him naked to a hard wooden chair, waved a flaming baseball bat around and threatened him with some violent orifice intrusion, mainly because he'd probably enjoy that, the little fiend, but also because he is no damn good. In the original TV show, with it's ludicrous slow motion and some fairly dodgy stunt doubles, the action was filmed mainly in a medium or wide shot, you could always tell what was going on and it was always damn entertaining. Now while I am not advocating for a modern A Team film featuring early 80s TV style fight scenes (because even though I would thoroughly love that, I am not stupid enough to imagine any mainstream audience putting up with it for more than 2 minutes), when will these hack, hunch backed, imbecile directors learn that lots of blurry, close up, quickly and badly cut shots of various actors' shoulders, knees or wavy arms does not an action sequence make! Also, filming some actors grimacing on a green screen then drawing a bunch of unimpressive crap in afterwards is also not a substitute for some genuinely impressive real-life stunts.
The only way to have done this film correctly would've been in the vein of a License to Kill style Bond film. In other words some fairly realistic, hard nosed action with an occasionally lighthearted mood and tons of actually achieved, jaw dropping set pieces all played against an awesome and iconic soundtrack. The words hideous, faltering, flabby mess don't even begin to describe how slapdash, disappointing, woefully inept and mind-bogglingly awful this whole film was.
The original show had more fun, excitement and character in the voice over that preceded the show than this entire movie manages to muster in an inflated two hour running time.
Now before I go on, if anyone reading this starts to whinge and whine that I should stop comparing the movie to the sheer simplistic brilliance of the original TV show and I should watch it as a stand alone thing, I have this to say:
"you are a moron and you should probably go and sit in that corner before I phlegm on you in sheer disgust" because if you are going to call a film The A Team and have characters in it called Hannibal, Face, BA and Murdoch then expect people to compare it to a similarly set-up and much beloved TV show from the 1980s. If original integrity is your game and you wish to be critiqued based on your individual merits then A) Don't remake a TV show from the 1980s you bulbous half-wit! and B) this film would still fail miserably in my estimation because even as a 'get the gang together to get the bad guy' action movie it is shockingly feeble, relies way to heavily on really rather poor and shoddy computer graphics and has all the charm of skunk fart.
The whole catastrophic waste of time can be summed up in one image from the film and that's when, escaping from the hospital, the helicopter hits an air con unit down off the roof and right on to and totally destroying the A-Team van, right before your very eyes and not only that, then makes a joke about it! It's like seeing Jennifer Connelly in Requiem for a Dream doing a double anal dildo sequence in the hope to get money for smack when all you know her from previously is as an innocent in Labyrinth, or, to put it another way, it's like tuning into Sesame Street one day and Joe Carnahan suddenly walks on screen and urinates all over big bird, laughing manically. God, watching this thing was stunningly depressing in one way and vindication, in another way, that the original will always be the formula that can't be followed, played with or repeated.
Not even the cast can save this 'I have run out of ways to say utterly worthless' movie and some of them, at least, try really hard. Patrick Wilson steals the show because, despite some appalling dialogue, he comes across as a genuinely morally dubious, greed fuelled, slightly sociopathic and self satisfied villain, this is obviously what he should be doing with his career instead of playing nervous, twitchy, mumbling nice guys and Liam Neeson, although out of his depth completely and staggeringly miscast, is as watchable as ever. The tragedy here is that the usually great, yes, we know you're really brilliant and we aren't blaming you at all, Sharlto Copley, who, not only was one of the few fans of the TV show on set but could've been this film's saving grace as Murdoch, is really given nothing to do, struggles terribly with an American accent and is generally rather difficult to hear under all the horribly sound mixed effects. Bradley Cooper as Face could've been good too but the script is just so damn flat and the film edited like an ADD patient on amphetamines that it's all lost in the shakey, blurry wank of it all. The rest of the cast are uniformly bland and awful, especially Jessica Biel who wanders around spouting utter crap looking ugly and pale like the face of the woman in the film Brazil who is having it stretched out by Jim Broadbent, also in one scene I was completely distracted by the fact that she is wearing a very obviously un-ironed shirt, not unusual in life or the grand scheme of things but distracting in a film.
Lastly, and weirdly there were just a couple of minor plus points to the film.
One, they do throw enough of the original A Team stuff in there to keep recognisable. Things like names, little wardrobe choices, the odd prop including a style of machine gun that they use in the TV show that Hannibal uses in the early 'rescue Face' scene also, there's a little bit of an explanation as to why Murdoch and BA would have a fractious relationship and why the latter would be afraid of flying that isn't as shonky as it could've been.
Then there's the whole subject of the plot, which actually, isn't half bad, not only does it keep it in line with some of the themes explored in the TV Show (where they are convicted of robbing the Hanoi bank on the orders of General Morrison which is very similar to the film) but it does a good job of updating characters like Lynch, exploring them further and actually making the whole thing a little more believable, the moving of the action to present times doesn't jar either and feels just fine.
I think this may have something to do with original creator, the late great pipe smoking beardy, Stephen J Cannell shopping this idea around for ages before hand, they seem to have nailed the plot but completely failed horribly with the script.
Little pet peeve inserted here: I don't need to hear The A Team swear, makes little to no sense and has no place in the film and it's like watching James Bond orgasm in The World is Not Enough, it's just gratuitous and wrong.
All in all though, the plot not withstanding, this is a rancid, heap of steaming effluent that needed someone a million times more talented behind the camera and a little more of an inventive and unexpected cast, Dan Aykroyd as Hannibal for example (think of his character in Grosse Pointe Blank meets Ghostbusters 2 where he is seen with a cigar in his mouth at one point doing a perfect Hannibal 'beautiful!') and while I appreciate I may lose some of you there, at least I have thought about it, can picture it and it would certainly shake it all up a bit.
One of the biggest crimes, though, that our resident arse demon, Carnahan commits is leaving the cameos, from the genuine legends Dirk Benedict and Dwight Schultz, practically on the cutting room floor, sticking them, as he does, at the end of the credits. Very appropriate that when Bradley Cooper asks Dirk Benedict what do you do about the face? and he replies "Don't mess with it kid"
Leave it to a member of the original cast to sum up so clearly what I felt about the film. I absolutely hate and abhor this current Hollywood that rapes our memories and then coughs up these poorly made, rotten CGI filled, modern counterparts all over us. Next time they think about doing it, a big floating Dirk Bendeict head should appear to them in their boardrooms with a big booming voice and say "Don't mess with it!"
1 out of 10 nose blows into a filthy rag
Going The Distance - 4th December 2010
I finish some computer time, the misses fancies a movie, Going The Distance looks harmless enough and I think, eh! what the hey... why not put it on. Big MISTAKE.
Now this is not going to be some big angry rant about how this movie was so abysmal it made me want to regurgitate my spine and then gnaw on it in sheer annoyance and bile filled rage because, truth be told, although this is an enormously tedious slice of beige, it didn't get me angry, it didn't make me anxious, it didn't get under my skin, annoy me, amuse me or engage me and neither did it send me to sleep, although the Wife snoozed a bit through it; It just made me sit there, blank, slack jawed, everything vacant, staring at the screen not able to believe that a usually fairly likable cast with a possibly interesting premise made such a badly made, badly paced, poorly executed, terribly written, atrociously performed, shockingly edited and downright tediously below average movie.
You know how they say that if you took infinite monkeys and put them on infinite typewriters then eventually you'd get the works of Shakespeare? Well put one half blind monkey who is more fascinated with his own genitalia in front of an etch-a-sketch for 5 minutes and you'd get a more film-able script.
I don't know if it's because I have seen way too many of these or if this one just was unbelievably lazy but it was just so boring, bland, obvious, slow and there wasn't one single attempt made to break with the tried, tested and failed more than succeeded (surely!) method of making Rom-Coms.
I honestly believe that good, well made, unpretentious, not too formulaic, genuinely funny, well performed, well observed and ambitious romantic comedies can be counted on about one and a half hands and would somewhere along the line include the names Harry, Sally and Annie Hall.
So I know that just by beginning one that the odds are against me about 99 to 1 but even so, am I wrong to expect a little more than a title that sounds it was thought up, way in advance, by a committee thinking they were being witty... a witty committee if you will, the comically slobby and unbelievable male best friends, preferably one with a humourous fetish, the 'ignore him, sleep with this handsome guy!' shrewish, single or slutty female best friends, the montages round Central Park, the kitsch 50s diner date, the referencing of a retro film, band or video game (or all three), a soundtrack featuring choice picks from "Now that's what I call sounds from the sucky rom-coms pt. 34 - generic yet now widely acceptable 80s pop ballads', the fake tanning scene (in every movie now, right?), the service personnel that, because you say you're in love with a woman in a silly, frantic way will let you do just about anything to get to her, despite heightened security everywhere and the obligatory mischievous kid in a dysfunctional family routine. I am sure I am missing 100 other cliches but I am too tired right now and too just deadened by this whole experience that I can't really be bothered to write for much longer.
There are really no words, I could talk about how Justin Long is more wooden in this film than a heavy mahogany sculpture of a red wood but I don't have the effort as the movie sapped my will to live, I could say how Drew Barrymore is unappealing, badly dressed and made up and keeps looking like she's going to f'ing crack up every 30 seconds but it would involve me somewhere, along the line, caring and I could even go on that for a big studio flick it has more continuity and editing errors than it has intentional laughs and unfortunately the continuity errors didn't cause any unintentional merriment either.
Well I can no longer muster the energy to even sum it up, such is level to which this film reached into my brain and erased anything useful in there and replaced it with a simple pudding-like substance.
1 out of 10 because I can't give it 0 as that is reserved for movies with any sort of pop icon in them.
Points from The Wife - 1 out of 10
Operation: Endgame - 30th November 2010
Yet, despite almost everyone in the cast, except Rob Corddry, being somewhat underused it is a brave mix of movie genres that doesn't fit into any one box and therefor doesn't completely work. 10 out of 10 for sheer bloody effort though.
It had three things I like in a film though, comedy, a surprising amount of gore and some good violent action. Which is funny because I didn't expect it to have any of that in it at all.
Basically it is about an underground (literally) secret society, comprised of two teams of spies and assassins, that maintain the balance of power in The States by one side orchestrating ludicrous schemes and the other side covering it up. In the film, their leader, Jeffrey Tambor in a funny and weird cameo gets killed and the murderer triggers Operation: Endgame which basically gives the facility 90 minutes before it blows up and everyone in is killed. This basically means you have two groups of comedians playing sociopathic screw up assassins mistrusting and attacking each other while the clock ticks away and clues as to an exit are hunted for. It's a nice bonkers set up that allows this fairly low budget film to shoot basically in all one location and keep attention from the audience by using hilariously offensive jokes and fairly graphic and gory violence.
The first fifteen minutes during the protracted set-up to this, video-game alike, showdown plot, I found genuinely as hilarious as anything I have seen of late and some of the quips, jokes and verbal humour is by far funnier, to me, and just pleasingly weirder than a lot of mainstream comedies, also, Rob Corddry is funnier in this than he has been in almost anything he's done.
That's about it though, once the first fifteen minutes are up and Jeffrey Tambor has been offed the film looses a lot of it's quick paced humour in a dramatic tonal shift and replaces it with out and out killing. Which is great if you find horror/action comedies funny but probably made a lot of people going in, thinking this was some sort of Casino Royale (the comedy film from the 60s) for the 2010s, turn against it and hate it so much (because this is not the best rated or reviewed film the world has ever seen, as I am sure comes as no surprise as it went straight to DVD in the State and you are probably all sitting there going "eh? Operation what?").
I thought, no, I liked the opening, I am sticking with this, going with it and embracing what is, essentially, Laurel and Hardy with gaping head wounds. It does loose steam rapidly though, I am sad to say, as the famous and funny people get killed in favour of two nobodies who are obviously the only two actors that did more than three days on the movie; Not that they are the worst actors or anything, just that the comedy dries up, the whole thing gets confusing, they try and come up with some political, twist wrap up ending that ultimately leaves you not caring and a little disappointed that the level of genius quipping and entertaining bloody fisticuffs you had come to enjoy aren't really sustained throughout.
Also, a devise in which two bickering doormen essentially, with a big screen, who watch and comment on the action unfurling in the bunker beneath them ceases to be funny around about the half way point and a sub plot about Jeffrey Tambor's character's phone sex with an unknown spy is annoyingly distracting, desperately unfunny, ultimately obvious and adds nothing whatsoever to the proceedings.
The shifts in pace, plot and tone are not handled smoothly enough either and with one more comedy punch-up re-write this could've been a horror/action comedy destined to become a cult favourite, which is surely what it looked like on paper but unfortunately, while I would happily show the first few minutes to anyone and say "look how genius this could've been, it's hysterical!" I could not stick it in the pile with Re-Animator or Evil Dead 2.
Still at least these first time trio of two writers and a director tried to write something fairly original with a genuinely edgy sense of absurd humour and did it well enough to lure some likable people into small but watchable roles and I will never complain about that.
6 out of 10 sips of whiskey out of a gun shaped glass
Love and Other Drugs - 27th November 2010
It starts as a perfectly ok, throw-away, sort-of-comedy about a guy, played by werewolf faced, bland-as toast, recently buffed up for an action movie based on a video-game, Jake Gyllenhaal who has the gift of the gab, sells people junk they don't need, be it stereos or pharmaceuticals and sleeps with every implausibly attractive woman he comes across in a variety of forehead slappingly predictable and obvious sex scenes.
Then he meets Anne Hathaway's dungaree wearing fantasy woman who seemingly spends all day not working very hard at a crappy little cafe or lounging about in hardly any clothing arranging her, very trendy, polaroid pictures into hipster art in a loft apartment that would make Van Gogh audibly orgasm. She of course, calls him on his crap in a sassy and flirtatious way before explaining to him that all she wants is what he wants, a series of meaningless sexual conquests. Cue a never ending string of fairly graphically naked sex scenes which have little or nothing to do with much except blotting out the apparent oh-so-tragic pain of being them, which, in Gyllenhaal's case means making hundreds of thousands of dollars being number one sales man of, surely-sells-itself, boner pill Viagra and in Hathaway's case having to swan about doing absolutely nothing all day apart from repeatedly showing your breasts and fiddling with a photo.
So far so meh! and not even an over active, man please just loose weight, supporting role from Mr.Comic Relief himself, Oliver Platt could really elevate it much above, weirdly sexually graphic but not very distracting fluff.
Then somewhere along the line we realise oh no! Hathaway's got a disease! Hathaway has Parkinson's! She doesn't want to get close to anyone because she may, one day, need help from that person and oooh noooo she doesn't want to be a burden to anyone because she's so good and volunteers to go with old people up to Canada to get cheap meds and ahhhh she's been down this road with previous men, including, of course, Gyllenhaal's arch pharmaceutical rep rival and whinge, moan, whinge, moan, cry, moan... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
BANG! wake up!
Sorry about that but basically after a few more sex scenes, a break up, another handful of snore inducing sex scenes (including an obligatory one through fogged up, rain dripped glass), Hathaway doing her best shaky hands, I have Parkinson's really! routine and a montage of Gyllenhaal not wanting to accept her fate and so desperately trying to find a cure, followed by another smattering of self-absorbed self destruction with some moping, a ridiculous, I have never told anyone this before because I used to hide my depth behind my abundant shallowness, declaration of love which is followed by another break up and then some more make-up sex, all the time accompanied or interrupted by a not-very-funny sidekick turn by someone who is meant to be Gyllenhaal's brother but looks like a curly haired, fatter and less funny Jack Black, they finally decide, after Jake rides up next to Anne's bus in his porsche, stops the bus, gets on and declares more love while the old folks comically egg her on to just go for it, to be in love and stay together. The End..... and BREATHE!
As if my run on sentence just then didn't just prove that I couldn't get on board with this turgid, tedious, predictable arse belch of a film enough, then let me explain:
On the surface this attempts to be a strictly adult take (look there's nudity and swearing!) on the tale of the selfish philanderer who finds the woman of his dreams and despite her medical condition becomes the man he truly is by falling in love with her and pledging to take care of her because really, medical condition or not, we all need taking care of, even Jake 'oh look I am naked again, this work out regime wasn't wasted then' Gyllenhaal. Ladle in, what should've been, a decent bit of satire about the drug companies and health care in America and, especially timing wise, after the big health care debacle in the States, you'd have a hit rom-com/drama on your hands that will appeal to all women from 25 to 85.
The trouble is it is none of those things and less.
Much like Gyllenhaal's character apparently finds depth by the end of the film (why because he stops selling drugs and decides to go back to what his hugely over privileged family want him to do and go to medical school while also lazing about on Anne Hathaway??), so the film was meant to have become deep I suppose but much as, I suspect, three years down the line, ol' Jake, bored with Hathaway's enormous gob and 17 rows of perfect white gnashers, will scarper back to loose women and the thrill of the sell, so this film's supposed point never really holds any truth and it all ends up being a fairly mundane re-tread of every 'I love someone with a disease' movie.
We learn nothing, nothing changes and we never really grow to care about these perfect people and their perfect hair. All that happens is we are secretly pelted with weak cliches and flimsy scenes strung together by some repetitive nudity all the while supposedly thinking we are watching something that, at least, attempts something a little adult beyond the usually sexually sterile Hollywood Rom-Com but we're really not, it has all the depth and substance of a child's cardboard paddling pool. I, for one, just sat there mostly thinking 'man, Jake Gyllenhaal looks like Eddie Munster, the werewolf child off the TV'
It was also another completely wasted opportunity because a film that could've been a 'Thank You for Smoking' for the Pharmaceutical industry ended up being a film that 13 year olds will watch certain scenes from to masturbate to when their parents are out buying groceries or, god forbid, working.
Also, they seem to have wasted the opportunity to do a good and poignant satire, simply so they could use the registered names of Pfizer and Viagra but by doing this and setting it in 96 to, I guess, give it some sort of historical reality, they were then unable to really go ahead a bite the hand that was, no doubt behind the scenes, feeding the whole thing anyway. Just another annoying trick played on us by the people who brought you restless leg syndrome and anti-depressent medication that can actually increase your chances of wanting to top yourself, i.e. our friends at the pharma companies.
For once the adage, if there is one, that 'tits maketh a movie' does not ring true. I never thought I would sit watching a film willing beyond all hope that Anne Hathaway would put her clothes back on and do something interesting! but congratulations Hollywood you made that very movie! Gyllenhaal is usually a bit better than this and I was really disappointed.
In the end though, obviously, it wasn't my choice of movie and so I was pleasantly pleased, when we got up out of our seats and headed to the diner, to find my wife and her friend were of a similar opinion as to the below averageness of the movie and I would have no problem voicing my opinion about what rubbish I thought it all was. They did, however, want Anne Hathaway's hair and my wife probably wished I looked more like Jake Gyllenhaal and less like a flabby, Lon Chaney style, beardy werewolf, still, can't have everything!
4 out of 10 foam filled cups of what appears to be mocha, cappa, frappa, flappychino but turns out to be just hot air and some dribbly milk.
Points from The Wife 4 out of 10 also as, she too, with a little hindsight had worked out just how this film really lacks substance of any kind.
The Hangover - 26th November 2010
The Hangover is the, I-wonder-why-they-haven't-really-made-a-move-like-this-since-Bachelor-Party-it-seems-so-bleedin'-obvious!, lads go to Vegas and destroy everything film that is fairly funny and watchable if the above idea appeals to you in any way.
Zach Galifanakis is the stand out star because, quite literally, without his character in the film and if his character doesn't work then there isn't a film, Ed Helms is fine but a little one note and Bradley Cooper finally feels well cast in something after starring in absolutely every single film in the last two years.
A quick note about Heather Graham. In this she is reduced to playing a ridiculously stereotypical, unfunny and, quite frankly, boring stripper character, that's basically a cameo, and that may first come as a surprise, considering she was a name before any of the 3 'stars' of the film but you soon see why when it's glaringly apparent that she can't even act that right! She really is truly awful, I know she was never a huge star but this is ridiculously poor.
The first part of the film while they are setting up the premise, Zach G is the best thing in it because of his ability to say something completely ludicrous with a straight face whilst coming across as unhinged but harmless and the verbal comedy is my favourite bit, personally.
Once they wake up the next morning hungover and with a 'Fear and Loathing' amount of debris in their hotel room they start to put the pieces of the previous night back together and what follows are a series of revelations and high slapstick set pieces. Which are completely fine to begin with, the police station and the hospital scenes being the best as they are A) the most verbal B) the funniest and C) genuinely feel like they are putting a puzzle back into place, the whole Mike Tyson's tiger thing is a mildly funny diversion too but the sub plot with the baby, the stripper and the "hilarious" yet completely impossible wedding (you need a marriage license, even in Vegas you can't just waltz in drunk and marry anybody!) is predictable, cliche and fairly dull and the whole build up to the end with an Asian mob boss, that the film makers seem to feel is a lot funnier than he actually is, goes absolutely nowhere!
At a certain point the whole plot of the thing falls apart which leaves the ultimate reveal, of where the groom has been left, feeling underwhelming and the characters too, once clearly defined and funny are sanded down until, by the end, they are all just as good but as screwed up as each other, even Bradley Cooper's character who apparently hates his life at the beginning greets his wife with a big hug and a kiss at the end. It also feels like a completely wasted comical opportunity when the Ed Helms character finally breaks up with his nagging, controlling and downright horrible girlfriend because while it is, again, mildly hilarious, the potential was there, in better hands, for an absolutely hysterical ending.
So, while it may sound that I am knocking it, it is a perfectly acceptable comedy film, featuring just about everything you'd expect and a whole handful of stuff you wouldn't from a lads trash Vegas movie. Everyone but Miss Graham does their part perfectly well and it has a nice wrap up but none of it bares much scrutiny, has any hint of realism and isn't as funny as it could've been.
5.5 out of 10 big wobbly jellies that look a bit like breasts 'chuckle smirk'
Points from the Wife - 5 out of 10 Margarita's by the pool while the men piss about
The Muppets Take Manhattan - 24th November 2010
The Muppets, for me are one of the handful of things on this planet that make life worth living. They are one of the very few times that this sarcastic, cynical, uptight Brit revels in sheer, unapologetic joy.
The movies, especially, have this incredible dynamic that includes sarcastic humour, slapstick, groan-worthy gags but also, through all this and because of all this, I suspect, you grow to really love and believe in the characters so that when they break into a song about love or friendship, that in a Disney movie would be some doe eyed, trite, vomit inducing ballad, it is genuinely touching and, in the best sense of the word, heartwarming.
Now, I will admit that the Muppets have lost some of their edge of late but in the early four films, The Movie, Take Manhattan, The Caper, Christmas Carol and some scenes in the underrated Muppets from Space, you get some of the most surreal and very often, bordering on, adult comedy in what is, essentially, a children's orientated film that definitely paved the way for the mature work Pixar does now.
For example in 'Take Manhattan' there is a scene where Gonzo gives mouth to beak resuscitation to a chicken and when asked if the chicken is alright Gonzo says "I don't know but I think we're engaged!" and then goes right back to, essentially, snogging the chicken! brilliant!
After all, we are talking about a series of characters, geared predominately for children, where one of them is called Gonzo, who takes his name, presumably, from the word most often used about Hunter S Thompson's style of first person, character based, drug induced journalism but that also has come to mean anything weirdly real, gritty, extreme and, in a circular development, can now mean 'with reckless abandon', surely because of the character from the muppets. He, obviously, loves chickens, is something of an exhibitionist and masochist, has weird and wonderful ideas about stuff and despite, until Muppets from Space, only being referred to as a 'whatever', shows that even the outsider can fit in perfectly with the right people.
This illustrates, again, the perfect balance the Muppets have between anarchic and sentimental that is an excellent reflection, in felt, sometimes animal based, puppets, of the best of humanity. It is that level of intelligence and focus on excellent entertainment that, for my money, makes the Muppets the very best 'for-all-the-family' entertainment there has ever been.
Now enough blabbering on about the genius of these character based hand puppets and on to reviewing the movie.
Well, firstly, I would like to state that out of the first four, what I consider, classic Muppet movies I think 'Take Manhattan' is, definitely, the weakest.
There just isn't a huge amount going on, apart from Kermit and Piggy a lot of the other characters are relegated to the side lines, or flashbacks and there isn't really a song in it that compares to Rainbow Connection from the first film or Happiness Hotel from Caper but it still has moments of sublime lunacy: the cafe owner Pete's insane ramblings, Kermit as a west coast agent with open shirt, medallions and a 'fro, Piggy on roller-skates, The swedish chef's version of 3-D and Kermit's amnesiac alter ego Phil and his friends from the ad agency. It also features the introduction of Muppet babies, a genuinely happy Muppet wedding featuring the fantastic and diverse casts of both Sesame Street and The Muppet Show and enough laugh out loud moments to compensate for other areas where it is sadly lacking.
The pace is very slow in places, the actress who plays Jenny is spectacularly wooden and it's a bit unnerving, in a Lea Thompson/Howard The Duck type way, to see her hug Kermit so much and there isn't really a good celebrity cameo in it, although Dabney Coleman gives it his best shot.
All in all though, the happy-go-lucky Muppet spirit is on display all the way through the film and it was great to see it with friends at a midnight screening in New York.
6 out of 10 it's tomatoes, it's city, it's peoples, it's cheese, it's potatoes.
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