Burn Notice: The Fall of Sam Axe - 17th April 2011
Bruce Campbell is essentially playing the Faceman role but in the body and attitude of an over-the-hill Navy Seal called Sam Axe. He is the womanising, heavy drinking, Hawaiian shirt wearing best friend of Michael Weston, the spy played by Jeffrey Donovan, who has the gift of the gab and is occasionally called upon to don a disguise and pretend to be someone else.
I don't want to give some big review or appraisal of the show in general but basically I started watching it for Bruce Campbell, obviously, and as it has gone on over the last 4 seasons, the rest of it has sort of grown on me. The flashy cutting and clips of Miami is a bit too CSI for my liking and it doesn't have the decent soundtrack it needs but apart from that it is good, fun, escapist television.
Now, clearly I wasn't the only person who tuned in purely for the be-chinned one but apparently the producers were a tad clueless about his fanbase because when they first went to Comic-Con two years ago they were actually surprised that their man Campbell was basically like the Elvis of the convention. Long before these Hollywood Superhero pretenders started cynically gracing San Diego with their presence and long after people are finally bored of crap, CGI heavy, men in tights movies, Bruce Campbell will be a fixture at, not just Comic-Con but, conventions everywhere.
Stupid producers for not realising this, you really think we tuned in for the intricate plotting, the relative unknown at the time and the slightly bland, Jeffrey Donovan or maybe for the too bony to be really sexy, highly tanned and slightly annoying Gabrielle Anwar? Now I am sure there were some who enjoyed watching ex-Cagney & Lacey star, the excellent, Sharon Gless as Michael's mother but who are we kidding, this show has legs because of Campbell, or at least that's my story and I am sticking to it.
Anyway it is down to that convention appearance that the producers green-lit an idea that the show creator, Matt Nix, had about a prequel film focussing on Sam Axe's last mission in South America.
It actually makes perfect sense because, as the star of the show, Michael's back story has to be allowed to unravel slowly so you can stretch the concept over more seasons and because Fiona (Anwar's character) and his mother are so closely linked to that storyline, Sam Axe is actually the character you can play with, I mean all we really know about him is he is ex-military, has connections everywhere, loves Mojitos and sugar mommas.
So, enough filling you non-iniated in, go watch Burn Notice and come back, if you haven't already.
The film itself, entitled The Fall of Sam Axe, centers around Commander Axe undergoing a stringent debriefing that borders on an actual court martial because of some questionable antics in Columbia and by framing the action that way it allows the writers to maintain one of the familiar traits of the show, the voice over. So as Sam tells his version of events we get to see them played out in chronological flashback sequences.
Basically, the plot is: he is caught cheating with his superior officers wife, which was unknown to him at the time as he has strict rules about that sort of thing, and as a result of this indiscretion he is sent to Columbia on a simple but annoying observe and report mission. After some twists and turns, Axe ends up siding and helping the so-called "terrorists" that he has been sent to observe, along with some 'doctors-without-borders' types and also finds time to piss off the CIA, which for all in the know, may bite him in the tuckus come season 5. Along the way there is the usual explosions, heroics, device building and the obligatory love interest.
Now all of this was done just fine, the supporting cast were good but bordered on average, the direction (by series star Donovan) was acceptable and the script as peppered with enough zingers that every few minutes you got to have a bit of a chuckle or even a cheer but I have to say, on first viewing, while being very happy that Campbell was in absolutely every scene and while I loved the obvious nods to his previous work, the whole thing was a little underwhelming and wasn't the Campbell does Rambo movie I was hoping for.
The film started off strongly with a lovely bit of comedy from Bruce and indeed, at this point, he can do this sort of stuff with his eyes closed. He has subtly rejuvenated the character 5 years not just by shedding some pounds and dying his hair but by playing him just a little less casually and relaxed than he is in the show but with the same sense of charm and loyalty we all know and love.
As always I can do nothing but sing his praises.
I just always feel after things like this and other TV Movies he has made (Tornado, Screaming Brain, Alien Apocalypse and Terminal Invasion) that more could have been done with him. There didn't seem to be enough Bruce based action or enough witty one liners.
In the TV show format and as simply one member out of a gang, I have grown to accept Campbell in the role of Sam Axe and understand he is not the one who will be doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in the action dept. and a friend of mine, who watched the film with me the second time, pointed out that what the prequel does is establish the character he is in the show, giving us reasons why a washed up old Navy Seal would even bother helping Michael out on his charity missions week in week out. My friend rationalised it saying that if Sam started to pull Michael style action moves it would've been out of character because what he is good at is talking or faking his way out of a tough situation and so that is what we get.
Watching the film or thinking about it with this in mind certainly does relax that nagging feeling, make it a much better watch and make a lot more sense but I am still not sure then why, as a writer, you would choose this setting and this plot. Why put so many action sequences in it then? Why make every other character around Sam Axe fairly inept at action? I would assume that if doing a film of this kind where he is forced to be a heroic leader, as the character is a trained Navy Seal who is actually forced to finish his career early and so isn't actually near retirement or anything, why not mix up the 'talking or improvising his way out of jams' schtick a little with just a bit, a bit of crowd pleasing fisticuffs.
I didn't expect him to be nimbly pouncing out of the bushes dispatching villains expertly with a hunting knife or mixed martial-arting them to death Bourne style but a little bit of braun wouldn't have gone a miss, is all I'm saying.
I guess I am always measuring these different projects against the likes of The Evil Dead trilogy or Bubba Ho-Tep which I know is wrong because they are different beasts with different budgets and so let's put this alongside his other forays into the genre of made-for-TV movie. Well it was better than Tornado, pretty much on a par with Screaming Brain and Alien Apocalypse and I actually thought Terminal Invasion was better.
Overall though I am, of course, incredibly happy that they made it at all, it had enough engaging, good and funny moments to completely justify its existence, the obvious hard work that had gone into it and anything to bridge the long and annoying gap between seasons is welcome.
7 out of 10 ice cold beers and a sweet mojito.
Points from The Wife - 7 out of 10
Wet Hot American Summer - 9th April 2011
These types of films were mostly popular in the late 70s early 80s and then had a brief resurgence at the beginning of the 90s. They fall into three distinct genres: comedy, horror and nostalgic drama, the best example of these would be Meatballs, Sleepaway Camp and Indian Summer.
The interesting and unusual thing about Wet Hot American Summer is that it was made in 2001 but is set at the end of 1981. Unusual because this was the directorial debut of David Wain from 90s MTV comedy group 'The State' and stars many of the members of that group too and it's odd they would pick not only such a random genre but also that they would purposefully do, essentially, a period piece. That is until you watch it and realise that it's a stroke of genius actually. The setting is obvious for the weird, surreal, character based and slapstick comedy that The State specialise in and setting it when they did didn't exactly take a lot more than the clothing (how much have camps changed in the last 30 years?!) and it allowed them the ability to both feel authentic but also subtly pastiche the films that came before. To their credit there are not a lot of obvious and easy 80s music & hair based jokes, the costumes are just subtly ridiculous.
For those not in the know, this is one of those films that didn't do well with the critics on its initial release and gained a cult following on video. Watching it back now I can see why both is true because while I am a fan of The State and much of their work since (The Ten, Role Models, Wainy Days, Reno 911), this maybe isn't as funny or as satisfying, over all, as it could and should be. However, by the same token, the individual set pieces or sketches are memorable, odd and the sort of thing that if you were discovering surreal comedy for the first time would draw you in.
Any sketch comedy troupe that attempt the move to film are always going to be compared to Monty Python, or maybe on this side of the Atlantic, Kids in the Hall and WHAS certainly has both somewhere in the mix of influences however, for my personal taste, I find that this film just misses a beat somewhere and isn't as clever or sharp as it could be but that is maybe the point. A lot of the humour is derived from adults acting like stroppy or emotional kids either that or taking everything from drug use to gay sex to the graphical extreme. I think the uneven tone and unclear story leave the film unsure of what it actually is.
All that said, the performances are very strong by members of The State and other notables like Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, David Hyde Pierce, Janeane Garofalo, Molly Shannon, Amy Poehler and even a young Bradley Cooper but the person who easily steals the show is Christopher Meloni as the strung out vietnam vet chef. Considering his performance in this and other smaller roles I have seen him in, it's a wonder he is not a well renowned comedy character actor instead of playing a generic cop on some Law & Order spin off.
All in all then it's well worth an hour and a half of your time, especially if you are at all interested in where a lot of the current wave of non-SNL comedic performers, writers and directors come from. It's just, it's a bit sloppy in parts, they have all subsequently done better and it's not as strong as a Holy Grail or even a Brain Candy when it comes to the first films of sketch comedy troupes.
I would check out The State first too, either clips on YouTube or invest in the DVD box set. For fans of sketch comedy it's a must!
7 out of 10 talking cans of mixed vegetables
Army of Darkness - 8th April 2011
Army of Darkness is responsible for this blog because Army of Darkness is responsible for me, in some way.
Yes, before it in my life there was Monty Python, the Muppet movies, Gene Wilder's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Indiana Jones, to name a few and yes, in their own way, they all had their affect but Army of Darkness, when I was but 13, started a genuine love affair with movies that has lasted 18 years and counting.
More importantly, that feeling you get after a certain type of film when you know, you've just seen something different. Something special.
I first came across the film at school where, when I think back, we used to rent all sorts of crazy films. Films like 'The Gods Must Be Crazy', 'Beastmaster' and 'Army of Darkness'.
What got me first, I remember, was the dialogue and the second thing was the animated skeleton effects. I was a fan from the very beginning. The thing was back then it was all VHS and not everything was immediately available in the UK, also, being a young teenager I was hardly flush with the old cashola and so, although memory is, obviously, a little vague, I went back to my original mission which was to collect every VHS that any member of Monty Python had ever appeared in ever. You know, as you do.Then, in 1997, 98 maybe I wandered into my local movie/music shop and they were having a 3 for 12 offer on VHS, this was back when you could buy three of anything for 12 pounds, and they had Evil Dead 1, Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness (or The Medieval Dead as it is also titled in the UK) in the offer. Now, by then, I had certainly seen ED2 or parts of it on TV, I was at 6th form college studying film and so, through chats with people there, I was becoming more and more aware of the horror and b-movie genres (I remember one hilarious conversation round a pub table with my technician friends where they told me all about a film where someone was raped by a tree!) and I am almost certain that, weirdly, I had seen Maniac Cop by this stage too. So the pieces were slotting into place.
I purchased the three VHS, went home, watched all three and a new version of me was born. Everything about them I wanted more of, the camera angles, the cheesy yet inventive b-movie dialogue and, of course, Bruce Campbell.
So that, in a vague, mis-remembered ramble, is my story and how I came to be writing this blog years later.
Years later at a point in history, thanks mainly to my generation I would imagine, that horror, B-Movies, the Evil Dead trilogy, Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell are firm fan favourites, with a following, almost common place and at a time when, as Bruce is known to say, Evil Dead is now available in Walmart.
The downside of all this is all the horrible remakes, bad hollywood horror and the fact that the joy of finding a rare Bruce VHS tucked away in the corner of some tiny video shop crammed to the gills with amazingly weird and dusty VHS has been replaced with easy to do 1-click shopping on Amazon.com or EBay but these, I feel, on my good days, are small prices to pay for being able to finally watch and get hold of all of Bruce's back catalogue, more or less, and for being able to make friends based on the one guy out of a hundred you might meet who knows who BC is.
Right, back to Army of Darkness:
Now, it might be worth mentioning at this point that there are five main versions of the film.
There is the American theatrical version which is the version I saw on the 8th of April at a midnight screening (completing my dream of seeing all three films of the trilogy on the big screen at a midnight screening) and that one is the shortest, has the most amount of studio interference and only features the 'Captain Supermarket' ending. There is also an American TV version of Army of Darkness which I haven't seen.
Then there is the Directors Cut 'Official Bootleg' edition which has now been released on DVD both sides of the pond and that features, basically, everything that was shot with varying degrees of quality. This has the full battle, the full windmill scene and the "I slept too long!" ending. The only trouble with this version is they changed where Henry the Red rides into battle at a point where, because there is a burning fuse, it is A) even more ridiculous than it was before and B) stops the flow of the whole ending battle. It seems like one big editing mistake that could've been easily fixed.Then there is the International cut of the film which seems to blend the two. This is the one I own on VHS and has never been released on DVD, to my knowledge. The only DVD versions I can find currently available is the Directors Cut and the American Theatrical release.
Then, finally, there is the MGM Region 3 Hong Kong version of the film and this is an amalgam of all other versions, with the best sound and video quality, running at 96 minutes, same length as the director's cut. The VHS I have had the same cover, this was also the art work used to advertise it in UK cinemas, it was obviously designed to stand alone and appeal to fans of Conan and Beastmaster etc.
Why the recently financially screwed MGM decided to release the best version in this territory and not world wide is a mystery for the ages. Still at least now I have a new holy grail.
Right, so with all that established, I will attempt to give a fair review of the whole film. Firstly, it's faults, if it has any, are obviously due to editing and studio interference. If you couple that with the fact that they were obviously trying to achieve an absolute ton on the budget, which stretched its effects house to bursting point, exhausted its star and frustrated it's director, it may go a little way to explaining why the pacing can be a little off in places and none of it really makes any sense.
Once you accept these things, however, then the film is one of the most endlessly inventive, humourous, bizarre and re-watchable films the studio system has ever produced.
If its success, or rather lack of it on initial release, was based on the American Theatrical version then I am not entirely surprised because, being the shortest of all the versions, it makes the least amount of sense and races at an utterly breathless pace from the start to the finish. What the studio did by trimming it down and trying desperately to make it a straight stand alone action/adventure film was utterly miss the point. It lacks the beauty and clarity of Sam's direction and vision in some places, it wastes a lot of the fantastic sequences towards the end that they probably spent a lot of the budget on and it reduces some of the finer points of Bruce's character and acting so he is just, predominantly a buffoon.
The longer versions, however, give the images and more importantly the amazing Joe LoDuca score room to breathe.
AOD, whilst following on from Evil Dead 2 in plot, it doesn't follow on in tone at all. It is a play on the plot of a Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by way of a Warner Brother's cartoon performed by the Three Stooges and with the dialogue lampooning the quips of everyone from Errol Flynn to James Bond. It probably confused or even angered horror fans at the time because of it's departure from the gross out antics of the first two but this trilogy of films, if they're about anything then they are about Sam as a director and Bruce as an actor. The pair of them infuse every frame of each film with their considerable talents and while Evil Dead 2 might be the best film out of the trilogy, Army of Darkness is the best all out Bruce Campbell movie, maybe ever made.
It's where the longer versions again succeed as they seem to manage to contain Campbell's incredibly funny, frantic and dextrous performance better, although, to be fair, it's him and the character of Ash that win out in every single one of the edits.
Its continued success now, I would say, is based almost entirely on him, his ability to turn the mock-heroic dialogue into a sort of amazing poetry and the way that he makes us like and sympathise with this cowardly, idiotic braggart.
Everyone made a big hoot about Jim Carrey in The Mask two years later but I honestly feel that Campbell is a more capable, more complex and more adventurous actor and he did it all without the use of CGI.
Hollywood would most likely have softened and marginalised Campbell, much as it has Raimi, had he got the recognition for Army of Darkness and indeed, the Evil Deads, that he deserved. What it has given him, eventually, is a loyal fan base that has allowed him longevity and the chance, occasionally to do an interesting or quirky script the likes of which other actors may only dream of.
Another reason to watch Army of Darkness is that it sort of represents the last of Raimi as a truly innovative and creatively original director. Yes, The Quick and The Dead was covered in his trademark camera work but the performances in it are far too earnest and serious, Spiderman 2 had glimmers of his deft use of sound and video editing but the rest of the trilogy had so much money behind it that the sense of effort and innovation wasn't there and it's true to say that Drag Me To Hell returned Raimi to his gross out and mischievous roots but without a strong script or a Campbell, a lot of it looked like he was treading water.
In AOD though, he took studio money and a serious supporting cast and peppered it with absolutely everything he had ever learnt from the super 8 days onwards, filled it full of friends and family cameos, wrote in Stooges gag after Stooges gag, strapped cameras to everything he could think of, put Bruce's name above the title of the movie and utilised, not just every old technique he could find and muster from stop motion animation, prosthetics and puppetry but tried to incorporate the latest techniques that were being attempted at the time too, like the Introvision front-projection system.
AOD stands as one of the last movies to use all these fantastic, mostly entirely practical effects all in one spot. A year later Jurassic Park would come out, showing the world this new thing called CGI and sadly movies have been using it ever since. Occasionally it is used in an inventive and exciting way but mostly it is half-arsed, boring, repetitive, unimaginative and unrealistic. Give me talking skeletons animated through stop-motion techniques any day of the week.
It's true to say that while every version of the film is a bit of a shambolic mess for one reason or another and that may, indeed, be some of it's charm, it is obvious that everyone's time, energy, blood, sweat, tears and passion went into every single frame. There isn't a wasted moment, they thought big and then on a small budget, made big, as big as they could go.
The reason there aren't hundreds of films out there like this, the reason that this film leaves you with such a feeling of 'man I wish every movie was as good and as entertaining as that', the reason it has stood the test of time, grown into a cult, spawned comic books, toys, t-shirts and all manner of merchandise and the reason why the rumour of a fourth one will never die is because:
A) studios rarely give a chance like this to film-makers and they take it with such boundless creativity and enthusiasm and
B) I can't think of a film since, in this genre and with this style, that has even come close to rivaling the weirdness, the wildness, the laughter, the action, the adventure and the energy of Army of Darkness and if some have tried they have done it with that horrible 'we know we are being wacky, look at us being wacky' post-modern, winking at the camera crap that boils my blood and drains my soul.
Into the pit with them!
10 out of 10 a big fist full of hearty medieval, tasty, sweet and never sour grapes.
"First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me... blow!"
Points from the Wife - 8 out of 10.
Icebreaker - 6th April 2011
At first, second and even third looks you might be scratching your head and saying to yourself, how in the name of Robert Davi's pock marks did this atrocious, hack D-list director manage to get Bruce Campbell, Sean Astin and Stacey Keach in this piece of ludicrous nonsense huh? You might also wonder how, considering this was pre-Lord of the Rings (but only just), Astin still comes away with top billing?
Well I don't know the answer to either of those questions any more than I know how you manage to get funding for a film like this in the first place, still there is precedent, at least for the main two actors. Campbell played a similar talky, arch villain in the instantly forgettable and utterly shonky 'Chase Moran: Assault on Dome 4' and Sean Astin had played a cocky yet dependable hero in the underestimated gem 'Toy Soldiers'.
The only thing Campbell has ever said on the subject is that he was offered the hero part but took the villain role as it got all the best lines, boy is that an understatement, poor Astin hardly gets any lines and does very little in the way of action too, unless you consider skiing action.
Ok, now let's play "Weird B Movie link ups", shall we?
The world of B-Movies, independent film and straight-to-video genre fair is a fairly incestuous world by all accounts, with the likes of Bruce Campbell, Jeffrey Combs, Andrew Divoff, Robert Davi, Joan Severance and Corbin Bernstein, to name a few, forging whole careers out of the second tier, often non-theatrical world.
Well, let's see how the cast of Icebreaker do then. Bruce Campbell starred in Brisco County Jnr with Sean Astin's Dad, Campbell would go on to star with Keach again in Man with a Screaming Brain and both Bruce and Suzanne Turner (the female lead of Icebreaker) had appeared as guest stars in Weird Science the TV Show. Admittedly that last one was a bit weak but, you know, it's fun to find this stuff out.
So the film itself is pretty awful and in parts thinks that it's funnier than it actually is, for example by having the highly effeminate ineffectual head of the slope first send holidaying normal folk into a blind panic, by announcing point blank at a press conference that their our terrorists about to blow up a mountain, and then later turning into a gun toting, quip making nutcase.
In fact you're not sure, watching the ridiculous performances of all concerned, whether the director was trying to make a straight faced normal movie but was plagued with hammy acting and a bad script or if he went out of his way to make a tongue in cheek pile of laughable dung and the hammy acting and bad script were intentional.
Seeing as all the name actors have been far better in other things I would maybe consider the latter but whatever the intentions that's definitely the way to watch this movie: Get a group of friends round, keep the alcohol flowing and laugh your way through this very flimsy excuse of a movie or watch it to see Bruce Campbell with a shaved head come very close to majorly embarrassing himself (no mean feat!) by seemingly strain to maintain seriousness in the face of some truly atrocious lines.
The third option, of course, is probably the best advice, unless you're a hardcore Bruce Campbell fan, don't watch it.
3 out of 10 still frozen salad drizzled in weak sauce.
Points from the Wife - 4 out of 10.
Paul - 27th March 2011
Lots of talk of compromise with the studio and mentions of going mainstream didn't sit right with me and not because I am a stubborn Hollywood studio basher but because this is Simon Pegg and Nick Frost writing and starring in a film about two Sci-Fi loving Brits, road tripping in America, who happen to pick up a real life Alien in New Mexico, because this is a film with a cast list that reads like a comedy nerd and a film geek's ultimate wish list (throw Bruce Campbell in there and you'd be completely set) and because these are the guys who made Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz on their terms and were hugely successful with that, if they don't know exactly how to do this movie right then nobody does.
The idea that this film was in anyway tampered with so that some family of Reality TV fans from Butt-crack Idaho (no offense Idahoans, just picked a state at random!) would more understand the jokes or be less offended by the science vs. religion debate that re-occurs in the film makes me sick up a little in my mouth with pure fury because it means there is a good version of Paul out there, possibly, and instead what we got was this watered down, fairly amiable but predictable comedy that could've starred Eric Stoltz, Lou Diamond Phillips and a box on a stick for all that it mattered.
They made two statements as to the reasoning behind working within the studio system and one was they needed the money to realise Paul as a fully CG character, which is completely understandable and two was because they wanted to see if they could write and star in a mainstream Hollywood comedy.
Now this second part isn't understandable at all because firstly you'd write something a little more crowd pleasing than this, somewhat niche, idea and secondly, when you already have legions of loyal dedicated fans who love your work and will happily lap up any similarly interesting and inventive stories, why would you want to throw some of that away to get a passing glance from a regular schmo just trying to find something not very challenging to do on a Friday night in Sweaty Crevice, Nebraska? and yet it is apparently the goal of lots of other independent minded geek heros such as Sam Raimi, Peter Jackson, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp and even the director of Paul it seems, Greg Mottola. They all, seemingly, want to be Steven Spielberg, who, to my mind, while he has done plenty that I have liked, is one of the least exciting, creatively intelligent or challenging directors ever to work in film.
Simon Pegg too, especially, is attempting to be a cross between Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise rather than be content being himself and while I am in no place to judge and cannot possibly imagine the tempting offers these people get to helm great big movies or star in blockbusters, I just think it's a crushing shame we seem to get a shorter and shorter period of these unique voices doing what they are good at before they are swallowed whole and become just another mass-produced, supposedly crowd-pleasing sound bite.
I don't want to see Pegg in Star Trek 12 or Mission Impossible 4, neither do I want him attempting to forge a successful rom-com career in a series of bland, irrelevant farces and while I accept you can't make Spaced forever, just like that series ended too soon, so has the partnership between the three geniuses behind Shawn and Fuzz. The carrot they dangle in front of fans of a third film together is akin to the Evil Dead 4 rumour that Raimi won't shut up about. If any one of these, now successful, people actually wanted to make these films, they would. They would pursue them with passion and verve instead of, in the case of Raimi, scrabbling around to find a star for a Wizard of Oz prequel nobody wants! Christ on a 3 speed street cleaner it gets me so annoyed I could tear my own teeth out bare handed.
It is possible this is why I gravitate towards the works of Bruce Campbell, Kevin Smith, Terry Gilliam or Tom Waits because while each of them has certainly had brushes with big fame, their time in the spotlight, the opportunity to maybe follow that A-List path if they changed a little and compromised or in the case of Gilliam, Smith and even Campbell noticeable big failures with studio films, they have each forged careers that rely on their abilities, who they are, what their voice is and sticking true to what people love about them without, seemingly and in an overly vulgar way just chasing the almighty dollar.
Anyway, back to Paul and while it may seem like I have strayed from the point somewhat, it actually all factors in to why, for me certainly, Paul was a bit of a failure and a decidedly missed opportunity. Maybe my expectations were too high or maybe I misunderstood it all but it just wasn't engaging enough.
The main problems with Paul is that it's not very funny, there is no character development and the title stinks. Now this may very well be down to studio medalling, a bad editor or a freak occurrence in the space time continuum or it could also be down to the fact that they just didn't write a very good script but whatever the reason, it was a decidedly chuckle free affair with only a few scenes, most notably any time Jo Lo Truglio and Bill Hader are on the screen, worthy of a murmur of hilarity.
In the case of the two leads, Pegg and Frost, this duo, that usually have an enormous amount of screen chemistry because of their close friendship in real life and who are usually hilarious working together, were pretty shockingly boring if I am honest. Simon Pegg had stated that while it is true to say that Frost usually does the comedy and Pegg handles more serious lead man acting, in Paul the roles were reversed whereas actually what happened is neither appears to be the funny one. They don't have carefully defined characters, or much characters at all to be honest, Pegg still handles the bulk of the dialogue and has the romantic lead and the funniest thing Frost does all film is fall over and you saw that in the trailer.
It is just so knee crunchingly annoying that Edgar Wright made Scott bloody Pilgrim and didn't decide to come on board for this because I think after he had a more carefully structured go at the script and with a bit of his visual flair there was enough potential and story here to make a great fan favourite and not the inbetween, not quite one thing nor the other, flip-flopping mess it ended up being.
I am not a jumper on band wagons and I certainly like, watch and own some of the films he has been in but what is it about Seth Rogen that I am missing? He's not particularly a good actor, he has an annoying voice and is neither particularly witty nor gifted as a physical comedian and yet for the last few years he has been everywhere like a particularly pungent gassy emission. His best role was in Superbad as the crazy policeman and he was a little more expressive in the underrated Zack & Miri but I do not think his voice performance here fit the bill, maybe his voice is too recognisable or maybe he wasn't given a lot to work with but a lot of his supposed jokes fall flat and after a while the voice does just begin to grate. The CG creation of Paul though is spot on and he does seamlessly blend into the film without any of the problems that plague a Jar Jar Binks for example and considering his distain for the character in Spaced, it could be considered brave that Pegg would write a totally CG character like Paul.
Also one more bit on the acting and that is, inexplicably filling the film with famous funny people doesn't automatically mean you get a funny film, geek points or hard laughter of recognition and I don't know what's going on but why can't anyone give Kristen Wiig a decent role in a film? she is such a funny comedienne and seems capable of so much but every film she is in, except maybe Adventureland, she has absolutely nothing amusing to do. The running gag in Paul that she discovers swearing has a couple of moments but it would be nice to see that Pegg and Frost could come up with something funnier than finding different ways to say testicles and tiny bladder jokes.
The direction is pedestrian and average at best, which is also annoying as I like Mottola's other films but with Paul I guess he is fine with some of the more normal scenes but anything that required action or a little bit of speed and it was pretty woefully inept unfortunately.
Sci-Fi geek comedy has been done better and funnier both in Free Enterprise and Fanboys, which was also a road trip movie like Paul, and I think the reason for this was those two movies had very set characters that you cared about and didn't shy away from totally immersing themselves in the references and, of course, therefor are cult favourites with a fan base rather than opening across the country in multiplexes everywhere to a distinctly muted reaction and fairly poor box office. Why would a studio, presumably, say "we want to be in the Pegg & Frost business" and then try and tell Pegg & Frost what they can and can't do, it seems illogical to the extreme and absolutely mind boggling. In the press tour interviews I have seen the pair seem less happy and jokey than in the past, I wonder if this has to do with the film they had their arm twisted to produce.
I am so sorry to be so harsh on what is a fairly harmless road movie with a CGI alien, a half-arsed but appreciated attempt to bring up the 'aliens defy the idea of a single deity/religion' debate in something mainstream and some mildly amusing cursing but, for me it had all the ideas and possibility to be a great, great movie without ever actually, really delivering or committing to any of it.
I love the cast, love the plot, love the setting, love the references and I am an atheist, surely this film should've been 10 out of 10 but unfortunately, if it's fun and laughter you're after then I suggest you bypass the movie altogether and go straight to the behind the scenes vlogs they shot using Flipcams, which certainly prove the old adage that a film that is fun to make is hard to watch.
5 out of 10 re-animated dead bird sandwiches
Points from the Wife 6 out of 10
Jane Eyre - 26th March 2011
I used to be, growing up I read a lot and now I will read biographies and the occasional novel but since I discovered movies I am afraid I am a watcher and a writer, not so much a reader.
So ask me to tell you the difference between Charlotte, Anne or Emily Bronte and I'd be stumped. I don't even know how I know their names, or know they wrote books, or know which books they wrote, I probably saw it in a movie once.
I am afraid my male Neanderthaloid mentality tends to throw your Pride & Prejudices, The Tess of the D'urbervilles of this world and the Jane Eyre's all into their own sack, much like now one might assume Twilight, The Vampire Diaries and The Sookie Stackhouse books are all the same and to some extent, if I am to be perfectly honest, to me they are but if we were talking about the well respected TV & film adaptations of the first three and the laughable and bemusing TV & film adaptations of the last three then I would be able to clearly see the sometimes obvious and sometimes subtle differences between the styles. It's just the way my mind is wired I guess.
So when the Misses said she wanted to go and see this, having seen the trailer I have to say I was sort of intrigued as it played up the darker, edgier sides of the story but also, like anyone who grew up and started dating in England post 'the Colin Firth Pride & Prejudice BBC adap' knows, as filled with dread as you might be to sit through hours of the costume drama abyss, if you want to keep your woman on your side and happy it is something you just have to do.
I have noticed since writing this blog that I am more likely to have my hopes dashed by a film I had high expectations for than I am likely to be disappointed by one I have no expectations for. This may sound obvious but what I mean is, when I either don't know what to expect, or when I am simply not expecting anything I very often have a much better time at the cinema. Such was the case here.
I will enjoy the experience of being at the cinema I thought, what happens on the screen I will enjoy for films sake if nothing else. Luckily this would be easy for two reasons: one, our cinema round the corner has a phenomenally good high def digital screen that you could project sick on to and it would look good (projectile vomit if you will) and two, Jane Eyre wasn't bad, wasn't bad at all.
I am assuming everyone but me knows the plot to Jane Eyre already but basically it's to do with this brighter than average girl who has a horrible upbringing, goes to a very harsh school, eventually grows up and wants more for herself, gets placed at the large house of a well-to-do business man, as the governess to a little french girl, meets rich man, falls for him, he falls for her but he has a dark secret that threatens to keep them apart for ever.
I haven't seen other adaptions but this one played up the misery, the abuse, the underlying mystery, the dark side of the story and also the creative and sexual repression of the time while highlighting the Jane Eyre's education, desire to break free from society's trappings and the quick witted nature of her and her master's exchanges.
What was very nice is that there seemed to be no attempt to tone down or slow done the antiquated yet eloquent speech patterns the character's conversed in and while it wasn't necessarily as dense and occasional impenetrable as something like Shakespeare might be for a modern, youthful or American audience ears, it was at time very quick fire and full of imagery that was beautiful to hear and refreshing that the writer, director and producers actually had faith in their crowd.
So the direction and shooting of the piece was just lovely and made me think over and over that really, recently, the films I have been watching have, for the most part been just stunningly beautiful. It's nice to know that the films that obviously compete with the 3D super hero movies do so by quite simply making their 2D images look absolutely incredible. Like I said, the screen I saw this on is fantastically crisp and so every bit of contrast, every colour palette, every bit of weather and every corner of the grounds of the castle and the castle itself were just an unbelievable treat for the eyes. Here's hoping tremendous cinematography is the way of the future and 3D goes the way of Vanilla Ice.
The acting was uniformly good too with the two leads building up pretty staggering chemistry and tension, both equally at home with the fizzing repartee that any woman wiser than her station and land owner who can't keep his eye off young bits of stuff, in these sorts of films, rattle off effortlessly and almost as everyday speech.
There was a sort of, almost confused or hurt to tears expression that Mia Wasikowska did in order to convey her disdain for being treated as an inferior, or her rebellious nature against him courting another woman etc. that started to get a bit on my nerves the 58th time she used it but basically she does a solid job and her English accent was pretty spot on too.
In the role of Rochester, easy, initially, I would imagine, to make Mr.Darcy clone, Fassbender, who just about resists this urge, wasn't bad either and did the desperately crazed and lovesick stuff pretty well. Jamie Bell needs to stop looking 12 in order to convince in the part as, despite a recognisably good turn, I didn't believe him at all in this character and finally Judi Dench who has it written into her contract and probably sewed into her rented BBC bloomers that she legally has to appear in these sorts of adaptations. The part here as head of the staff of the house was no great stretch or shakes for the seasoned professional stylings of The Dench and the odd humourous or motherly turns she has in this, are carried off seemingly effortlessly and totally flawlessly.
All in all then an enjoyable, quite pacey in places, adaptation of an old costume drama fan favourite with the twist being that not just fans will enjoy it. Don't move along, there is lots to see here!
7 out of 10 crusts of oaty bread and the thin soup servants get before the master falls for them and proposes. After that one gets whole pickled moose and swan on toast.
Points from The Wife 8 out of 10
How Do You Know - 24th March 2011
if 30 minutes into it you want to yank your own eyeballs out and eat them to save you from this sort of floundering mess in the future.
What is so completely shocking about this amateurish weak arse dribble of a film is that while Reese Witherspoon is never top of my list, she's not exactly atrocious and almost everyone else involved in this film has done much much better and will probably do much better again, we can only hope.
Yes once in a while Paul Rudd will stumble into a howler or two ("I could never be your woman" anyone?), Owen Wilson faltered his steady stream of watchable, enjoyable romps with Marley & Me and even the sheen has slightly faded on old Mr.Nicholson after The Bucket List (although his resume is still extraordinarily respectable and lacking the massive Blunders of pears De Niro and Pacino) and yet what were the chances that all four of these established Hollywood actors would show up in one almighty blunder? How would I know! I can only imagine that the usually reliable James L Brooks roofied them all, filmed them all engaging in lurid acts with a penguin and has it hanging over their heads.
The plot is utterly redundant, tedious and devoid of laughs. Basically Reese Witherspoon can no longer play softball or something and instead of just getting one of those sports-personality endorsement deals for a shoe or something, decides instead to shack up with air-headed, insensitive, womaniser Wilson and is then hideously shocked and surprised when it continually doesn't work out. One to many softballs in the face apparently.
On the other end of the banality spectrum there is Rudd and his father Nicholson. Rudd runs Nicholson's company, what that is we are never told or fully explained but the company is being investigated, again for what, no one really ever tells us that either. Rudd, being head of said company, is therefor in the firing line but we never really see this either, we are just told it and so he has plenty of time on his hands to wander about while Nicholson occasionally shows up to rain a little more on hapless Rudd's parade with little to no information other than it's bad news and Rudd should panic. Rudd is never once interviewed by the IRS or the Feds or anyone and the whole strand of the narrative seems unnecessarily sloppy, confusing and pointless. What is even more frustrating is the storyline is never entirely or satisfactorily concluded which makes you leave the cinema even more dumbfounded and gobsmacked that you sat through the whole sorry disaster to begin with.
Rudd and Witherspoon contrive to meet on the worst day both of them are having and in a very not-very-cute "meet-cute" Rudd decides he likes the gravestone chinned Witherspoon and rather than anything resembling hilarity or romance ensuing we spend the rest of the film knowing they'll get together but have to watch two hours of worthless and pitiful crap where the only obstacle to their groinal happiness is the never faithful and imbecilic Wilson and the fact that Witherspoon continues to claim they are boyfriend and girlfriend, despite her spending all her time with Rudd and hardly any with him!
The whole thing is comparable to being flogged with chicken wire while a dwarf anally batters you with a fence post and at least in that scenario the fence post has a point.
All of this twatting about would probably be bearable if the whole film didn't look like it was put together by the same team that put together the sets for televised puppet shows in the 50s. Considering the pedigree of it's director, Mr. James L Brooks, it looks like he is trying to take tips from the people who make daytime soaps in which evil twin brothers steal the ruby of eternal life from the nuns only to find out the girl he had a crush on in high school is really his aunt.
So slam bad writing and bad directing together with impossibly poor production values and a cast who all look like they could do with a long lie down, some strong drugs or a damn good talking to and you have this years worst romantic comedy so far, mainly because it's neither romantic nor at all funny in any way at all. The bit in the trailer about the lamp is the best bit in the film and it's funnier in the trailer.
Unfortunately a sad day for all involved, Witherspoon will take this in her stride, she's used to this sort of mindless, inconsequential project that's not unlike being forced to smell the flecks from big foot's arse hair but the rest of them, not unlike actors thinking that working with Woody Allen now is still something to be happy about, need to read the script closer in future, it's only worth doing if it's any good.
Next up Owen Wilson works with Woody Allen (I slap my head with despair).
2 out of 10 sneezes into a salad that's already glazed liberally with giraffe shit
Points from The Wife 2 out of 10
Get Low and The American - Films at 30,000 feet - 21st march 2011
I thought I'd write them up as one blog because despite being very different stories and with very different tones they are the sorts of films you definitely need to be in the same, mellow, cerebral mood for and, when in the appropriate mood, if you ever want to watch brilliant actors, stunningly shot, working with minimalistic, simple scripts but creating literal moving pieces of art then you could do a lot worse than these two movies.
Get Low is about an old man, the always excellent Robert Duvall, who lives in a cabin in the woods, more or less as a hermit, behind a strongly defended 'Do Not Trespass' sign and about whom thousands of stories have developed over time. When he gets news that a friend of his has passed away it gets him thinking about the end of it all and the one last thing he must get done before his time is up. He devises the first living funeral where he invites everyone to come tell stories about him and he enlists Bill Murray's funeral home to help him when the church turns him down. We eventually find out all sorts of stuff about this complex yet down to earth individual and he has time to face the public, crush any silly rumours and make amends with the people he needs to.
It is simple story telling at its finest, nothing too flashy here as it is the characters that we are drawn in by, that and obviously solving the riddle of the story he has to tell. It is beautifully filmed, some stunning cinematography and some excellent work with light and shadows.
Obviously from the accents to the folky soundtrack all the 1930s, small southern town cliches are in place and there's nothing necessarily new about any of it but much like Duvall's last film, Crazy Heart, it is all in the performance, the mood and the desire to go from A to B with a sturdy tale, a bit of humour and a slight dash of old-timey philosophy that basically all adds up to an engaging, sweet film, the sort that it seems unusual now get made amongst all the pirates, robots, 3D animations and horror remakes.
If you fancy an early Sunday evening film that will make you crack an occasional smirk and put you in a calm, contemplative mood then Get Low is for you.
8 out of 10 squirrels roastin' on a spit outside this 'ere barn of mine
The plot is simple, the script is almost non-existant and the message of the film, if it has one, is vague at best but, like I said before, if you're in the right mood and through the right eyes this is an engaging, gripping and stunning piece of film making.
Clooney is 'The American" a gunsmith/gun for hire working in Europe and sort of sick of either killing people or working on the guns that eventually kill people, after being hunted down by some Swedes from a previous, possibly botched job, he is sent to a small Italian village where he is told to wait for instructions and to get professional again, as it is his recent lapses into attempting a social/private life have jeopardised his cover. Well he sort of ignores that advice as the lure of being a normal human again is too strong and he befriends a local priest and a prostitute.
He agrees to one last job, the making of a highly specialised automatic gun and goes about possibly making a home for himself here, or at least somewhere away from all the death.
Like most European movies there is nudity and existential conversations but also, along with that, there is quite a bit of action too, some of it reminiscent of recent films like Bourne and The Transporter series while hardly being as adrenaline fueled as either. These show us that even at his age and with the worries his bosses have of him becoming sloppy, he is, actually still a highly effective operative.
There are also lots and lots of montages of George building the gun and these serve to humanise the character that, as an audience, we might not like very much considering what he does and how little repentance he has for it all. We see that first and foremost he is a craftsman, a skilled labourer and, in some ways an artist. It just so happens his art of choice is also capable of violent death.
Like most films of this ilk it is all left open enough and vague enough with all mumbled half sentences and wistful prose that you can read any sort of philosophical message into it that you like but also, it is filmed beautifully and acted just right that you really want to see Georgey boy succeed, get the girl, buy the priest an enormous new hat and ride off into the sunset.
It'll depend on how many 70s films or art-house films you've seen about assassins whether you think that happens or not.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy it and I did, a lot. I thought this and Get Low were just wonderful, calming, interesting and pleasingly different films both with familiar stories that benefit hugely from simple clear direction and superb acting.
8 out of 10 bowls of 'what's it all about?' spaghetti
Points from The Wife 8 out of 10
The Adjustment Bureau - 7th March 2011
Sorry, for anyone who cares and enjoys this blog, not that I am delluded enough to believe that's anymore than 2 of you but sorry nonetheless.
I have quite a few reviews stored up and this first one is actually a film I saw a whole month ago, before I left on a trip across seas.
So I am sorry again but please take into account that I am writing this one from memory and my memory isn't so good.
What is most telling about the film is that it is based on a short story by Philip K Dick, the man who wrote the stories that ended up being Blade Runner, Total Recall and that classic Nic Cage film... er... Next (which actually I didn't mind so much). The reason I mention this is because, try as they might, they can't really pad out the script or fill it well enough to make the idea feel anything more than a short story idea.
I would say, therefor, that the main problem with this film is the script because the acting, the cinematography, the direction, the locations and the soundtrack are all spot on, some exactly what you'd expect and other things, especially the acting, far better than you'd expect.
The short comings with the script are mainly that, like I say, it strains and sags at points attempting to crank this out to 2 hours which only goes to highlight the contrivances in the story and the fact they have to dance around using the word God or admitting, really, the existence of a higher power.
Basically the plot is this:
There is a young senator who is embarrassed on the last night of the election by some tabloid nonsense and so must admit defeat, despite being the better man for the job (of course). Then just before his concession speech meets Emily 'bum chin' Blunt, who is crashing a wedding upstairs, in a man's bathroom where, like all good Hollywood meetings between beautiful people, they throw chemistry about the place like children with spaghetti and end up sucking face before she has to dash off to escape the fuzz.
We then leap forward some time and he is running for election again and still fixated with The Bluntster, after a lot of will they/won't they shenanigans, some men in hats show up and tell Damon he can never be with Em so he should get her out of his mind. They are from this shadowy omnipresent organisation (basically angels) and they help keep all of us on our right path, which is whatever they determine it to be.
They have decided that for Damo and her Bluntness to be together it would be a catastrophe (despite, apparently, being destined to be together in the past) and it would also mean neither of them would succeed in their chosen professions, he as a gasbag politician and her as the next Black Swan (she's a ballet dancer). Damon doesn't accept any of this and runs around trying to prove them all wrong.
Like in any circumstance like this, who you really need is, of course, Terrance Stamp who is despatched as a ruthless hard-nut to try and convince Mathias Damonias to see the error of his ways, this doesn't work and the film rumbles on towards its inevitable conclusion.
It is a wonder, considering how silly and pointless it all sounds, that actually the film is such a good watch and not a bad attempt at a slice of philosophic sci-fi. This is mainly down to the actors who were absolutely superb and the director who manages, when it's needed, to keep the pace up.
It focusses far more on their love story than it does the be-hatted men and is all the better for it. You need to care about these two for any of the other mumbo jumbo to matter or seem a threat and so the film takes its time making sure you see them as good honorable, yet kooky and individual people that you'd like to have a drink and a laugh with. Although I am not sure anybody needs the scene where Blunty tries to get Matt to loosen up at an industrial rave, not only does it seem woefully outdated but also out of character for the pair of them.
It could do with being 30 minutes shorter and maybe having a slightly darker, thoughtful ending but for what it is, which is a rom-com with some Sci-fi and not the other way round, it works, is watchable but by no means essential.
7 out of 10 not quite mysterious enough boxes of heart shaped chocolates from the future.
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10
Red State (live at Radio City Music Hall) - 5th March 2011
I have been a fan of Kevin Smith since seeing Clerks and apart from Cop Out, which I don't feel necessarily counts, I have pretty much enjoyed, liked or loved everything he has ever been involved in and yes, that includes Jersey Girl.
There are many reasons to like the man and his work: he is funnier and cleverer than he or any of his critics give him credit for, his candid, foul mouthed honesty, he keeps his friends close, the fact he can seemingly turn his hand to anything (Film making, blog writing, shop owning, podcasting, stand up, hockey, TV & Radio show hosting and now distributing), he gets the best from the casts he works with especially Ben Affleck who is rarely better than when working with him, his films attempt to and very often achieve a balance between crude comedy and a heartfelt message without being sentimental and, after Red State he may just have shown himself to be a better writer than Quentin Tarantino.
Yes, when I hear a detractor or critic of his I can see where they are coming from but very often they have either missed the point or a simply not wired the right way to appreciate Smith's little corner of the entertainment business.
I first heard of Red State as this horror movie idea he had been kicking around for some time, it seemed odd because while he is vocal about many things, politics was not one of them and yet, to me the idea of a film that was seemingly going to go after the extreme religious right got my liberal leaning atheist saliva glands excited but then with another thought I wondered how Kevin Smith could even pull it off, not being a director known for dark, moody, horror films.
Then, I had been ferociously absorbing the myriad of podcasts on his ever expanding Smodcast network for the past couple of years. Years which certainly seemed to be a bit turbulent for Mr.Smith, I don't know how much the public are even aware of any of it or if they care but for dedicated Smod listeners like myself it has been a hectic soap opera of dashed hopes over the box office for Zack and Miri make a Porno, of Kevin Smith doing the unthinkable and directing a film he didn't write with a star who turned out to be anything but helpful and of being kicked off a plane for being too fat to fly. Then, seemingly as if his life was an inspirational film about a schlubby kid from New Jersey who made good and because an audience demands a happy ending, he bought a bus to continue touring, built an entire network of increasingly popular podcasts that included getting a theatre, a regular spot at a famous comedy venue and which are soon to become a live streaming radio station, announced that he had the funding for Red State, makes Red State with an all star cast, gets Red State into Sundance 17 years after he debuted there with Clerks, confounds, confuses and amazes people by announcing that he will distribute the film himself (why that upset anyone I have absolutely no idea, that was just plain weird) and finally on March 5th, only a few months since they started shooting the thing, Red State premiered at Radio City Music Hall in New York City.
Pretty bloody incredible by all accounts and the fact that he did it without, seemingly, stepping on anyone's neck, I personally think is admirable. I honestly scratch my head when people criticise him. You can criticise his work, of course, you can debate his talent and you don't have to like his films or shows but nitpicking, bitching and moaning about the man himself and his actions when he is a fairly shining example of the American dream that everyone bangs on about and getting stuff wrong about him when he is also a completely open book who is always explaining himself clearly and eloquently, is just plain odd.
Now, during all this time, listening to the podcasts on my daily commute I have attempted to keep up with all this stuff but without finding out too many spoilers about the film itself. I have to say, with all honesty, I turned up at the theatre last night with very mixed thoughts and not knowing what to expect. I wanted to be there to have the experience and then see the Q&A but I was not expecting a brilliant film.
For me the warning bells started sounding way back when it was obvious Scott Mosier would not be involved with first Cop Out and then Red State, couple that with the fact that I had been lead to believe it wasn't at all funny, that it was Kevin Smith working outside of his usual genre and some of the reviews out of Sundance that I just glanced at (so as not to get any spoilers) seemed to be less than stella and I have to say my expectations were, by no means, high.
Well, of course, I was dead wrong, it is a fantastic film.
I don't want to give away too much at this point because I really want people to see it but basically it is a horror, action, religious satire that is both completely unlike anything Kevin Smith has ever done and yet, through the script, decidedly and obviously Kevin Smith.
Actually, scratch that, what Red State ACTUALLY is, is a brilliant independent spirited exploitation film, the kind which Tarantino and Rodriguez have been desperately trying to make these past few years and have failed miserably because they keep screaming at the audience through the films "look at how grind-house this is! look we are making ironic exploitation films, aren't we clever!" well Red State doesn't do that, it doesn't have to because it IS an exploitation flick that harks back to the amazing gritty B-Movies of the 70s instead of trying so desperately to be that. I call it an exploitation film because they were the ones that had the freedom to happily blend genres, tackle taboo subjects, could feature violence and black humour, looked different and took chances. Well that's what Red State does and a whole lot more. Yes, of course, like an exploitation movie, there are parts which are cliche but it also succeeds in being dark, disturbing, violent, exciting, unflinching and also, surprisingly, hilarious. From saying it wasn't a comedy but a horror movie what Kevin Smith does is set aside the dick and fart jokes that were Jay & Silent Bob's stock in trade and reveal himself to be very clever and even, in places, witty.
So, it centers around a small nondescript, fairly redneck town in the south where there is a family of religious extremists that are modeled on both the Westboro Baptist church (those vile hate mongers who protest the funerals of gay people) and the Branch Davidians from Waco. Three boys from the local high school, who are looking for sex in all the wrong places, answer an ad online from some dodgy website and through a series of circumstances actually end up inside the church's fortified land and in deep trouble. From there all hell breaks loose and the film takes a number of unexpected turns. I really don't want to go on because the fresher you can see the movie the so much better that it is.
Overall it has a vibe that I would pitch somewhere between the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Fargo, if you can imagine such a thing. Now, pretend those two films got in bed with the more serious parts of Dogma and you're probably half way there.
The cast in this film, which includes John Goodman, Stephen Root, Kevin Pollack, Academy Award winner Melissa Leo and the sublimely perfect Michael Parks, are, each one of them, just wonderful.
On his Red State podcasts, Kevin Smith was saying that he used to think he had to work actors like a puppet, give them line readings and instruct them what to do, especially when he was working with initial amateurs like Jason Mewes but on Red State he just took a step back and watched the monitors, trusting his professionals to bring their best game to the screen. Well whatever he did it worked, I mean you can always trust these actors, which include some of my favourite of all time, to be marvelous and this time they were fairly flawless, wringing every drop of either dopey innocence in the case of the boys, charming malevolence and brainwashed insanity from the church folk and anger and sarcasm in the case of the cops out of the well crafted words on the page. The younger cast members too are uniformly excellent and watchable, more than up to the task of keeping up with their older, more established cast mates.
To see them all up on stage last night and to hear Goodman drop 'Shut the fuck up Donny' onto the crowd was a joy.
A lot has been made about the look of the film and it would be fair to say that this is Kevin Smith's grainiest and grubbiest looking film since Clerks and I mean that in a good way, that's what they were obviously going for, the colour palette of the movie also is very interesting tonally, being filmed on what seemed to be exclusively overcast and grey days but the real revelation here is the camera shots and movement in this film. When it needs to be the camera work is frenetic and exciting, other times, when it's called for, the camera is hovering and eerie, like a fly, almost, buzzing about inside this gloomy, foreboding church trying to find some sort of light or warmth.
If I have one criticism of the film at all, it is that it almost zips along too quickly, after it finished, I personally felt I could've spent at least another 20 minutes with these characters.
In fact, in an alternative reality, an HBO style gritty TV Show about the subject would not have been a bad idea, plenty of things could be stretched out to fill a 10 show run. You've got a possible murder mystery, religious extremists, people's reactions to the antics of the church, the horny teenagers and John Goodman's agent and his relationships with the bureau, his men and his home life. Sort of like Big Love meets True Blood meets Homicide. Just a thought.
The opening build up and the 'horror' section of the film could've been expanded, the film could've been more violent and more suspenseful before the second act gets underway.
A lot of critics, especially after Sundance, who appear to critique Kevin Smith and his fans rather than the film itself, do go on and on about the changes in tone and plot that take place in the film but like I said earlier, it's an exploitation film with a heavy dose of satire, it's meant to cram a hundred unfinished ideas into it's running time and bombard the audience with different imagery, that's its genius. To call it a mess or uneven is to entirely miss the point. These are the same people who probably went on and on about the Social Network being the greatest work of cinema last year. The films structure is actually solid and while it raises more questions than it answers, the few it does answer, it does with style, wit, charm and good grace.
It all basically boils down to good writing being said by good actors with a camera pointed at them and I don't know about anyone else but I find that refreshing nowadays and when I come across it, I could watch it forever.
Lastly, to the family, friends or whatever the four muling, brain dead, arse clowns were in front of me that apparently thought Radio City Music Hall was the best place to go in New York just to drink beer and text, I hope you all suffer slow and agonising torment possibly involving some garden implements and your rectums. They didn't spoil the movie so much as not really watch it, leave half way through for beer, then come back to their seats for the start of the Q&A only to talk very loudly through it, some of which involved repeating jokes and comments to the person sitting next to them who would've heard them by themselves if these flappy-mouthed bastards had shut up for a second.
I wouldn't mind but the tickets weren't cheap, all in all I worked out the probably spent about $20 a beer and sat in their seats a grand total of an hour out of the three. I wish their drinks had sedatives in them!
Suffice to say we moved seats quickly so as to watch the Q&A in peace.
9 out of 10 strawberry flavoured communion wafers (well they are red and religious right?)
Points from The Wife 9 out of 10
SEE MY PHOTOS FROM THE NIGHT
B-Movie Double Bill: It's Alive and Blazing Magnum - 4th March 2011
He stared out a writer and series runner for run of the mill TV Shows such as 'Branded' but when he did branch out into directing features it was with 'Black Caesar' one of the famous Blaxploitation films of the early 70s. It wasn't long after this and 'Hell Up In Harlem' that he penned and directed the demon baby classic that spawned not one but two sequels, 'It's Alive'.
Basically the film revolves around a family who own possibly the most ludicrously decorated 70s house ever, the mother tarts herself up to go into labour and the husband wonders around the hospital waiting room with other would-be Dads, smoking heavily and lending morons money for the vending machine. His wife then gives birth to a deformed, crazy baby that kills all the attending staff and escapes through the roof. Just another normal Friday night in a Larry Cohen film.
All this mutant baby hullabaloo leads the mother to be branded as crazier than bucket of miniature Piers Morgans, which, let's be fair, she is and she spends most of the rest of the film wondering around her home in an orange paisley nightie strobing with the olive green paisley wall paper while her husband, who is inexplicably fired from his job for having a ugly, violent offspring (surely that would result in 80% of the human race being unemployed but anyhew...), believes himself to be in a serious melodrama and, with the police, goes on the hunt for the demented sprog, over-acting his weirdly odd little face off.
The beginning and end of the film are rather exciting, dealing, as they do, with the birth of the malevolent little quisling and then of course the inevitable capture of the mutated, toothy brat. In the middle, however, not much happens. This is most likely due to budgetary restraints, as we hardly ever see more than just bits of the deformed, veiny headed, midget oik and it doesn't so much run amok as it does occasionally leap out of hedges and kill milkmen.
The film is played more as a family melodrama than an out and out horror and in order to drag the thing out to the requisite 90 minutes the police have to do ineptly stupid things like wonder into a school where they know it is for certain without turning any lights on, also it doesn't quite have the intelligence, beyond an obvious 'child-birth is hell' subtext, that it appears to be reaching for.
Still, that said, when watched with a rowdy group at a B-Movie night it's a bit of good fun and while it isn't exactly The Brood or Rosemary's Baby, it has it's own sort of demented charm and John P. Ryan, the lead actor is a pleasure to watch as he mugs and grimaces throughout the proceedings.
6.5 out of 10 very hammy sandwiches
Points from The Wife 6 out of 10
At first glance this is a B-Movie Dirty Harry rip off written and directed by some nutty Italians and filmed, no doubt for monetary reasons, in Montreal and it's interesting to note that everywhere but America sold it under names that hinted as such: Blazing Magnum, Tough Tony Siatta, The 44 Specialist and Big Magnum 77 (Which, in Britain, sounds like a new addition to the ice cream brand and everywhere else sounds like a ridiculously large sex aid). In America, however they sold it more as a horror/thriller, calling it 'Strange Shadows in an Empty Room' which I mention because, while there are certainly elements of Dirty Harry, Bullet and French Connection in there, the plot is also typical of Giallo, which is an Italian form of cinema, dabbled in most frequently by Dario Argento and his ilk, that deals with twisty turny murder and crime thriller stories, usually featuring nudity and gore, which Blazing Magnum has too, just not in abundance.
The truth of the matter is that it's a bit of both, part 70s, ruthless cop caper, part bizarre crime drama. It is curious and certainly interesting to note, however, that America and not Italy sold the film with a much more authentic Giallo sounding title and with a poster that depicts a blind woman and the feet of an obviously hanging corpse.
The plot, as far as I could figure it and not that it is relevant, had to do with a hardbitten detective, Stuart Whitman, whose wayward younger sister is killed at a party where she is being implausibly sleazed all over by Martin Landau's lips and, with John Saxon in tow, he must find out who killed her and why. Along the way they meet a blind girl, do battle with transvestites, lock up a doctor without any evidence, have one of the most ridiculous foot chases in the history of cinema, abuse possible suspects only to find they know absolutely nothing, turn up some information about some expensive and mysterious Oriental black pearls that may or may not be important, trash apartments, damage several cars during a chase sequence that is completely and utterly legendary, putting many modern big budget films to shame and, eventually, shoot down a helicopter over a city full of people with a hand gun.
In the end, the detective learns the deep, dark truth about his not so perfect sibling, they save blind Mia Farrow's sister and Martin Landau's lips are free to continue practicing medicine and dribbling all over healthy young co-eds. The city, I presume, foots the bill for all of Whitman's ridiculous and destructive crime solving methods.
So what we are talking about here is a film that has some of my favourite elements of all time: crime, mystery, horror, action, car chases, ridiculous one liners, stern men in brown 70s suits not taking shit from anyone all wrapped up in a crowd pleasing B-Movie bow. They honestly don't make them like this anymore, they would try but it would be hapless, self-referential, obvious, soulless pap and there'd be no slow motion shots of tits either.
Stuart Whitman's performance is a suitably snarling, gruff, heavy handed affair and as he is the only one with anything to do really, he makes the most of it. He seems to be literally one step away from actually chewing some scenery. John Saxon and Martin Landau, however, while it's always a bizarre pleasure to see them in a mad movie like this, don't have a whole lot to do at all and the less said about the somewhat drip-tasticly bland and weak performance of Tisa Farrow the better.
It is just a fantasticly ludicrous film, with absolutely no real morality (except it's wrong to kill Whitman's sister), a good dollop of over the top, brilliantly done action and a phenomenal 70s soundtrack complete with a funky full orchestra, perfect to watch in a group as a seriously amusing evening's entertainment but I suspect also a bit of fun as a Sunday afternoon action caper to watch by yourself.
The real shame is that it only seems to exist in a bad video to DVD transfer on the "Grindhouse Experience, Vol.2 Box Set" someone needs to do a special edition of this, possibly as a double bill with Gone With The Pope. It has completely whetted my appetite to just hunt down and watch more and more of these brilliant, old, curious B-Movies.
I will arrange another night like this one soon I think!
9 out of 10 gravelly voice creating shots of hard liquor
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10
Unknown - 21st February 2011
Gun in hand, check.
European city, check.
Women in peril, check.
The poster even has the word take on it for cocks sake!
Do you think the people who marketed this movie had seen Taken's box office results?
Proving once and for all that marketing people are completely worthless shit-heels with no grasp on reality, here comes an ad campaign and a poster purely designed to get bums on seats that opening weekend by convincing us all that, essentially, Taken 2 is out, after which, once word of mouth spreads about what a disappointing, sub-par Bourne rip off, Euro-thriller snoozefest this whole mess of a film is, I will imagine there will be considerably less bums on seats come next weekend.
Without giving too much away, Neeson comes to Berlin with January Jones and leaves his suitcase at the airport. On his way back to get the suitcase the cab he is in crashes, plunges into the river, he goes into a coma, wakes up 4 days later and nobody will acknowledge who he really is. It is now up to Neeson to find out who he really is and to stop the bad guys. Only he doesn't really do that, he sort of wonders about not doing very much, screaming at the police to have total strangers arrested.
It's an absolutely ludicrous set up but instead of being played with an action, b-movie, shits and giggles sensibility it is instead played like a ponderous, straight faced, tedious re-telling of the Bourne Identity, in fact in Germany it is actually called "Unknown Identity"!.
In the beginning I personally didn't mind it all so much, Neeson's always fun to watch and the appearance of Bruno Ganz is always a welcome adition because not only is he a terrific actor, his face is also pleasingly ridiculous but to have him as an ex-stazi gumshoe was pretty inspired, the movie should've been called "Bruno Ganz knows who you are and if he doesn't right away, he will!"
Sadly this promising premise gave way to Neeson's most goggle-eyed, hammy acting since Darkman as he followed a bloated looking Aidan Quinn, of all people, round Berlin shouting at him. Apparently when Hollywood can't get Neeson or they want someone to play 'the other Neeson' they flick through the rolodex and say in a loud American voice 'Get me Aidan Quinn!!'
I did go with it all, as best I could, during this first viewing but by the time the fairly obvious yet whoringly implausible twist rears it's bedraggled head and I realised what I was actually watching, it did loose me. Big time.
It's one of those films that very VERY quickly after it's done you can pull it a part in a manner of seconds. The plot unravels quicker than a cheap woolen jumper and it suddenly dawns on you that nothing makes any sense and it's all hung by the very flimsiest of threads. To go into why here would necessitate not only revealing vast chunks of plot but also writing a ton of wasted paragraphs explaining why a not very good thriller is just that, a not very good thriller. Then when you throw in the fact that from Total Recall to the Bourne films via any number of straight-to-TV movie of the week offerings, you have pretty much seen this all before, it begins to leave a very bad taste and be a rather disappointing experience in general.
You see, I don't mind a hokey, silly thriller full of unbelievable nonsense if it's played like that, if everyone is obviously there for the fun hokeyness of it. As it is everyone in this flick thinks they're making an incredibly tense and serious art film or something as it contains more crinkled brows and quizzical looks than a meeting of 75 year old nuns being shown an episode of Footballer's Wives, the only person who escapes with a modicum of dignity is Herr Ganz.
A disappointing 5 out of 10 bland and soggy bratwursts
Points from The Wife 5 out of 10
The Oscars - 27th February
As for this blog, I will do a bit before and a bit after, so this is the before bit.
THOUGHTS BEFORE:
Well I have no idea what to make of the utterly random choice of hosts this year, I wait with baited breath to see if they pull it off. I know Franco can be funny when he puts his mind to it but he can also be a pretentious weird swine and as for Hathaway well, it could just be hideously embarrassing. Why doesn't Billy Crystal just do it every year, it's not like he does anything else and he was always the best at it.
As for the nominations well it's a mixed bag of pretty good choices, I have no idea why they have decided to continue with 10 choices for best picture and then make 1 of them something that is already nominated in the Best Animated film category, that seems pig-headedly redundant but anyway, no big surprises really except Christopher Nolan NOT being nominated for best director, that does seem a bit odd.
I haven't seen The Fighter (David O. Russell being nominated over Nolan for this) but I am pretty sure it is a predictably boring and gritty portrayal of aging boxers that we have seen a thousand times, with some fine acting but not much else, whereas Inception, while I didn't think it was as clever or as wonderful as everyone else, is clearly a fascinating and an expertly directed piece of work.
So I will now present two lists, one of the people and films I would LIKE to win and the other a list of predictions of people and films that I THINK will win. The Oscars normally either reward one film 100 times needlessly and tediously or they spread the love, I am hoping this year, with all the good films out there, they spread the love.
Films and people I would LIKE to win:
Best Picture - Inception (because of Nolan's snub as Best Director)
Leading Actor - Colin Firth (because it's his time)
Supporting Actor - Christian Bale (will take Mark Ruffalo too)
Leading Actress - Natalie Portman (although none of them I thought are that great, why didn't they put Hailee Steinfeld in THIS category and then I could've gone for her as Leading and Melissa Leo as supporting???)
Supporting Actress - Melissa Leo (because she's incredible, was in Homicide which is one of my all time favourite shows and because it's her time. Hailee Steinfeld will be my second choice because she was mindblowingly good too)
Animated Feature - Toy Story 3 (I guess, I don't really care)
Art Direction - The King's Speech or True Grit (though it will probably go to Alice arsing about in Wonderland! bleurgh!)
Cinematography - True Grit or Inception
Directing - True Grit
Documentary - Restrepo (I know one of the editors!)
Music - The King's Speech (made me proud to be British)
Visual Effects - Inception
Adapted Screenplay - True Grit
Original Screenplay - Inception
and now...
Films and people I THINK will win:
Best Picture - The King's Speech
Leading Actor - Colin Firth
Supporting Actor - Geoffrey Rush
Leading Actress - Natalie Portman
Supporting Actress - Hailee Steinfeld
Animated Feature - Toy Story 3
Art Direction - Alice in Wonderland
Cinematography - True Grit
Directing - The Social Network
Documentary - Exit Through The Gift Shop
Visual Effects - Inception
Adapted Screenplay - The Social Network
Original Screenplay - Inception
let's see what happens....
OK, so here we are at THOUGHTS AFTER:
Firstly the list,
Films that ACTUALLY won the Oscar:
OK, so here we are at THOUGHTS AFTER:
Firstly the list,
Films that ACTUALLY won the Oscar:
Best Picture - The King's Speech - This one I got right (wish I hadn't)
Leading Actor - Colin Firth - Obvious, This one I got right
Supporting Actor - Christian Bale - This is who I wanted to win
Leading Actress - Natalie Portman - Obvious, This one I got right
Supporting Actress - Melissa Leo - This is who I wanted to win
Animated Feature - Toy Story 3 - Obvious, This one I got right
Art Direction - Alice in Wonderland - Wish I hadn't got this right
Cinematography - Inception - it only won technical awards and I was dismayed Christopher Nolan didn't get recognised in any capacity
Directing - The King's Speech - This was a legitimate surprise, as was Best Picture, it didn't really deserve either. It was good, yes but best picture?
Documentary - Inside Job - another surprise but a worthy win, shame Restrepo didn't get it though! Everyone go watch Restrepo!
Visual Effects - Inception - Obvious and I got it right
Adapted Screenplay - The Social Network - again, Obvious and I got it right
Original Screenplay - Honestly, another surprise, really too many awards for this film in total.
Right, so I didn't do badly, called most of them in some way, maybe I should've put money down! It seems that apart from Inception the Oscars did a little of both what I said they usually do, they spread the love around a little and sort of blanket awarded King's Speech all the big ones. Which, if I am honest, was a bit of a disappointment.
Now I liked the King's Speech and it's obviously nice to see Brits win but my favourite film out of the nominations was True Grit, which because it features and was made by lots of previous winners was never in the running really, after that for its sheer originality and the passion and skill that went into it, Inception should've been nominated better and actually won something on and above the technical Oscars it won. Still, I suppose at least it won something, in fact everything sort of won something that we were expecting to win something, except True Grit.
Now onto the ceremony itself.
The opening 'stick actors in the best picture noms that we stole from Billy Crystal' wasn't bad, not as funny as it could've been but perfectly serviceable. From then on the hosts were 'ok' with Anne Hathaway doing most of the actual legwork, changing dresses more times than most people change underpants in their lifetime and James Franco just being flat out weird.
In fact you know you're in trouble when Billy Crystal comes out to pay lip service to the first ever Oscars (some bizarrely tedious re-curring theme) and also former multiple times host, Bob Hope and is funnier and more welcome in a 3 minute intro than Franco and Hathaway manage in the whole show, still Hathaway, at least, had an air about her that was 'awwwww look the kid's trying REALLY hard, look she sings too!' and James franco had an air of 'what the hell am I doing here... I shall just be stilted and weird, see if anyone notices' which culminated in him coming out in drag at one point for little or no reason. Still I actually blame the writers over the hosts as they could've been much better with good material.
So the whole ceremony was fairly zippy, lacking anything too dull or slow but was also lacking anything particularly exciting or interesting either. There was no funny bits from Ben Stiller, Jack Black or Will Farrell, in fact there were no really funny presenters at all and wheeling out Kirk Douglas to do the 'oh look I am old but can still walk without pissing myself' speech, that has become a trend at the Oscars because they think they may die soon, was ok but got grating quickly and maybe it's just me but I always feel a bit odd and think 'ah shouldn't he be home in bed with some tea?' still he too was funnier than the hosts.
As for acceptance speeches the best was Colin Firth who gave the most wonderfully British speech filled with pleasingly stiff upper lip repressed emotion and tremendously funny dry wit and maybe, just for her sheer surprise, Melissa Leo as for a moment there everyone held their breath for something embarrassing to happen and then she said fuck in front of a billion viewers, perfect! Plus she looked like Elvis and that's a cool thing.
Christian Bale was refreshingly English and chummy in his speech with a good use of the word bloody and everyone else, predictably and tediously, thanked absolutely everyone in the world ever and their mums (literally) till their mums probably fell asleep, no one have any Dads then??
Lastly, Celine Dion needs to be buried up to her neck, have her head glazed in jam and some wasps released, whoever thought her French Canadian pretentious warbling was a good choice to have over the In Memorandum portion of the show needs to be dragged out into the street and have their arse introduced to a large flaming hot kebab. There was almost vomit. Also, why does Halle Berry get to show up and spout on and on about race every 30 seconds? I understand that Lena Horne was an important figure, not just in Hollywood and music but with civil rights but why is the place for Berry to come on and go on and on about being African American, the Oscars? Nothing to explain it except white guilt and the fact that Berry doesn't have a career anymore except to turn up places and remind everyone she's black. I thought the whole point about equality was that it didn't matter what colour your skin is at all... or did I miss a meeting?
All in all then it was a fairly bland, average affair with mild jokes, one instant of embarrassing swearing and an obvious, expected list of winners. It could've been worse but it could've been a whole lot better, stop trying to re-invent the wheel every year and bring back Billy Crystal, PLEASE! if not get actually inventive and have Billy Murray and a performing cockateel in a sequin jumpsuit host the awards from the inside of a large polystyrene effigy of Bob Hopes chin.
Still, nice to see so many Brits representing at the Oscars tonight and for that, at least, I am happy, still, I will never understand how the hell they forgot Christopher Nolan!
Points from me and The Wife a very bland and average 6 out of 10
Taken - 20th February 2011
Headed up by producer Luc Besson, the writer of everything from The Karate Kid, Leathal Weapon 3 and Kiss of the Dragon, Robert Mark Kamen and the Cinematographer of Jason Statham classics, The Transporter and War now graduated to Director, Pierre Morel, the three of them have created a simple, perfect, taut action Eurothriller and some how turned lanky Irishman, Liam Neeson into a bona fide action star at the age of 57.
The story is a perfectly simple set up for an action film, Liam Neeson is an ex-whatever for the government and/or military and him and his ex-whatever friends occasionally do security work for famous peeps to pay the bills when they are not sitting around barbecuing and nattering about the old days. Neeson has an ex-wife who is married to a self-important rich fella and the most childish, spoilt and whiny 18 year old daughter ever committed to screen. The daughter whinges, cries, storms off and strops about until Neeson gives his fatherly consent for her to go to Paris with a tearaway friend. They get to Paris and barely an hour has gone passed and the daughter and her friend are abducted by big tattooed Albanians which, you know, happens a lot in Paris.
Now, of course, before she gets grabbed she has had time to call her ex-whatever Dad and explain to him enough of what was going on, giving him the chance to record the call, send it to his friend who has lots of technical gubbins, allowing him to work out which Albanian group has her and so on and so on and so on until Neeson turns up in Paris and kills absolutely everyone. It's just sheer brilliance.
It is brilliant because it is exactly what I want from an action movie, a film where the main character has an objective, is wound up and off he goes. This film is not hampered by the abundance of moral debate, logic or villains that constantly out fox the hero until the end. In this film the hero doesn't flinch, doesn't waste time, doesn't debate and doesn't exactly think, he just is good enough to always get out of every situation and does what needs to be done to get his daughter back.
It is directed well, acted as well as it needs to be, with Neeson particularly good and surprisingly adept at the action scenes where he makes you believe, without a doubt, that he is the pro he claims to be, is written well enough, despite the leaps of logic and doesn't focus particularly on touristy Paris but rather the seedier but still beautiful and artistic, crumbling side of the old city.
I just love the film, everything is such a heightened reality that I have no problem going with the flow while watching it. I can understand if people find it a bit grimy and gruesome in parts, the subject matter of trafficking girls by pumping them full of drugs and selling them off as sex slaves is grimy and sickening enough, but I actually find it refreshing because it's an adult action movie with proper violence, unlike the family friendly crap we are so often subjected to.
You see I like 24, the TV series. Well, I say 'like' I know it's completely ridiculous, a Republican's wet dream, repetitive, borderline racist, totally unbelievable and has way too many filler episodes, however when the character of Jack Bauer is allowed to be Jack Bauer then it is fantastically watchable TV, especially in a group. Sort of like 'Die Hard' the TV show.
The trouble with it is that everything has to have semi-realistic consequences and Jack is, despite having saved everyone at great personal expense a hundred times, constantly questioned, mistrusted, hampered by the powers that be and stopped in his missions by a bunch of silly bureaucrats, moralists or needless debate about the real effect of torturing someone when it is just a silly action TV show. Taken avoids all that and just lets Neeson do what we all wish jack Bauer would do and run amok with all manner of weapons and cool martial arts moves at his disposal.
It is written in such a way that the bad guys are so disgusting and a father's search for his daughter is so pure that you completely excuse Neeson punching, kicking, shooting, torturing, strangling and setting fire too anyone with so much as an Albanian sounding name, or at least I do. At one point at the beginning of the film Neeson says to his french contact, now a Police officer with a desk job, that he would tear down the Eiffel Tower if he had to, well by the end you certainly believe he would be capable of doing it.
It's exciting, silly, fast, endlessly watchable, packed with great action and looks fantastic. It has so much potential for sequels galore that I hope Neeson just spends the rest of his life making one a year, sadly though the only sequel news we have is that they are still trying to come up with a script! What?! it's simple, Famke Janssen gets kidnapped or the pop singer does or something and Neeson is off again... there are talks about it being shot this Spring and I, for one, can't wait! Just, please, no morals... just action!
10 out of 10 baguettes in a bag... this is Paris after all, we ALL walk round with baguettes
Points from The Wife 10 out of 10
Jurassic Park - 18th February 2011
This screening of Jurassic Park, for example, was sold out but not by a regular mainstream audience that you'd expect for, what was once, an enormous blockbuster but by the people who were kids or early teens when the film came out and are now, many of them, shlubby, crazy haired fan boys (and I say this with love, as one of them) that have some how turned this multi-million dollar film with, at one time, state of the art special effects into a cult B-Movie. I am sure Spielberg would be delighted as that is exactly what the film is, it's a hokey, cheesy, exciting, thoroughly cliched yet thoroughly enjoyable monster movie. It features thin stereotype characters and an unbelievably weak plot, it is really no more than a stalk and slash movie with dinosaurs, but is all the better for it.
Lastly, to keep its B-Movie credentials, while everyone in the cast, minus maybe Bob Peck, is a recognisable name to most movie fans, none of them are exactly A-List. All of the three leads (Neil, Dern & Goldblum) are known for quirky, left-of-centre, performances in art house, cult or genre films and Richard Attenborough fills the staple of the monster/B-Movie genre as the older, yet very well known character actor and statesman of film making that makes you say 'wow! what are they doing in this film?!' A role usually reserved for someone like Vincent Price or Donald Pleasance.
His appearance is also Spielberg maybe having a bit of an in joke because, basically, Spielberg makes two types of films with, in my opinion, varying degrees of success: One is the blockbuster popcorn genre flick (normally with a focus on fantasy, aliens or monsters - basically anything he once saw in 1954) and two is important and worthy films, usually on a grand scale and in a very similar vein to the films of Richard Attenborough, between the two of them, when it comes to these types of films they could leave you feeling depressed and guilty for days!
I have a mixed relationship with Spielberg, mainly because he falls into the realm of 'things I just don't understand really why they are so successful' along with Star Wars, Harry Potter and Football (soccer if you are American), not because he doesn't make populist films, of course he does and so on that level, I get it but I just don't see how he makes populist films any better than anyone else makes populist films and I don't understand why he is held in such high regard by other film-makers.
He gets bigger budgets, the latest effects, normally a big name cast or at least a good cast, he works with the best screenwriters and from some of the best source material it's true but, as a director, I don't see, on screen, what the big thing is, I just don't understand.
I think, for me, it's because he doesn't have much of an edge, isn't cynical at all and isn't particularly thoughtful or deep. Even his, supposedly serious films will basically come down to a story of good versus bad, this is right and that is wrong and rarely is, if ever, on a subject on which we don't all agree, the Nazis were bad, right?
His best film, in this regard, is the under appreciated 'Catch Me if you Can' which has a much more anarchic and interesting sensibility to it.
Lastly, another reason why I think Spielberg isn't bad, in fact he often makes good films but he isn't particularly that interesting to me, is that his out look and humour is child like and enthusiastic, often heavily sentimental rather than genuinely touching or romantic and with the visual or verbal jokes that he has in his films more likely to generate a groan or a polite laugh of knowning recognition than anything resembling a more difficult or challenging joke that might illicit a hearty guffaw. That is certainly true for Jurassic Park, where the jokes range from the knowing groan (A T-Rex being seen in the rearview mirror of a car that reads 'objects in this mirror maybe closer than they appear') to the childish (a little girl gets sneezed all over by a 'friendly' vegetarian dinosaur).
Despite all that, though, I do like a handful of his films and they tend to fall into his blockbustery popcorn work rather than when he attempts to do anything with any purpose, those films are Close Encounters, Jaws, The Indiana Jones trilogy, the aforementioned Catch Me if you Can and now, Jurassic Park.
I can admit that I had probably only seen Jurassic Park a couple of times on TV when I was younger and, for whatever reason, was never one of those films I carried with me into adulthood. While Jaws and Indiana Jones remained close to my heart, I am not sure my young self saw or appreciated what I now understand and that is, like I said in the beginning, it's one big, glorious, silly monster movie. You see, weirdly, growing up I was and still am a huge fan of Westworld.
Now Westworld was also a Michael Crichton project, which he also directed, about a theme park, full or robots, that goes wrong. The idea of man creating something through technology or science, greedily trying to make money off it and it turning out to be an enormous mistake is where both films obviously parallel but where they mainly differ wildly, is in tone. Westworld is a thoughtful, dark, unnerving, intelligent piece of science fiction and Jurassic Park, the film, is a big, effects filled romp of a monster movie that feels like a theme park ride itself, both in style and also in the fact that, while there are jumps and thrills you never fully feel like anyone is in actual peril. All of the main cast survive (in the case of the little boy this is ludicrous!) and the four people who do get eaten, one of them is a lawyer hiding in a toilet (funny death), one of them is a smoker and nonchalant who goes down into a dark basement by himself (so in Hollywood logic must either be the lead hero or die), one of them is a legitimate surprise because you actually like him (Muldoon) and the last one is not only fat and silly but also caused the whole Park malfunction in the first place (meaning he is not only a funny but also a justifiable death, using Hollywood logic).
It is this last character, Dennis Nedry, played by Wayne Knight that also separates Jurassic Park from Westworld because it is the idea that greed and the selfish actions of one man cause the creatures in the park to run amok. Yes, of course, all the way through the experts are questioning Richard Attenborough's ideas and safety procedures (why would you genetically develop a T-Rex, for what purpose ever?) but the plot still shows that up until Newman from Seinfeld tries to steal some biological dinosaur samples, seemingly without really thinking any of his actions through at all, everything was fine with the park.
Once I eased my mind off the problems I have with Spielberg films generally and realised it was just a fun b-movie, I relaxed and completely saw what all these other t-shirt wearing, larking about fans in the cinema saw in the film. Firstly the effects still completely hold up, the CG work, in parts, even pleasingly mimics the animatronic work of previous dinosaur films, especially in the movements and the way they were shot and I think the genius in it was using so many actual dinosaur puppets/robots created by Stan Winston because they look terrific.
There are some splendid set pieces and I especially like the scene with the two raptors in the kitchen chasing the kids, there is, however, one problem with all the action scenes and that is there really isn't much the humans can do but run away, stay still or be eaten because they never really got the better of the dinosaurs or had any weapon that you could possible imagine bringing the T-Rex down save a bomb or something and that never happens, of course it makes little to no sense that if we are in a world that can genetically develop dinosaurs from blood found in an ancient mosquito, that they haven't also developed a big dinosaur gun or something but anyway.
The score is magnificent as well and has just the right amount of whistle-ability, adventure, excitement, tension and blockbuster booming to keep the film moving along at a pace pleasingly. It means you never really feel any of the movie's 2 hour running time and there isn't, exactly, any boring bits when John Williams can help it.
I talked a bit about the actors earlier and they are all very good, the part of Dr.Grant, played by Sam Neil, unfortunately doesn't have the Inidana Jonesy, hero feel to it that it could've done, despite him doing some heroic things and whilst Goldblum is pleasingly Goldblum, I am not sure whose idea it was to have him get injured and then to be out of commission the rest of the film, so all he does is lounge around, greased up, with his shirt open to the waist, what did the dinosaur pull all the buttons off his shirt? Still it's all part of the cheesy, hokey fun of it, especially with a live audience because they always laugh when he appears.
So all in all, while it'll never be my favourite Spielberg movie, it was a lot of fun and a great midnight movie.
7.5 out of 10 T-Rex T-Bone steaks
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
Just Go With It - 14th February 2011
To me he is like the slightly more childish and yet more successful, male version of Sandra Bullock. They are both industries unto themselves, they churn out a self produced film every one or two years that is a watchable, wacky and throw away comedy and then very occasionally do a 'proper' acting piece like 'Punch-Drunk Love' or in The Bullock's case 'The Blind Side' and every single, overly-serious, chin stroking pundit around the globe mutters "well this is what they SHOULD be doing surely! not that other rubbish..."
Well I am here to say they've all missed the point because give me 'Don't Mess with The Zohan' over 'Punch Drunk Bore' and "Snoozelish' every day of the week.
Now I personally wish I could've written all this Sandler based mild praise at the head of a review for a film that was one of his better ones like an 'Anger Management' or something but unfortunately not. This was one of those Sandler movies that was ok but only just ok but we'll get into that in a minute.
I am going to make another comparison and I am going to say that Adam Sandler is like Woody Allen.
"Now steady on!" all the chin strokers say, appalled that I have compared this, what they think is a neanderthal, dick & fart joke comedian with their Oscar winning, thoughtful, neurotic New Yorker, Jewish friend.
Well, if they give me a moment to explain then I will.
Adam Sandler is specifically like late period Woody Allen, like Allen he has churned out one, sometimes two, self produced films a year since 1995 and this is not counting the films of others he has also acted in, this is only including the 'Billy Madisons' and the 'Waterboys' of his acting CV, like Allen his hit rate, in terms of good content, is a little bit up and down, for every 'Little Nicky' theres a 'Mr Deeds' (I am sorry but Mr.Deeds is funny, for John Turrturo and Steve Buscemi if for nothing else, go re-watch it and I dare you not to smirk) and like Woody Allen he can get good, famous actors you've always liked to turn up, openly just have fun and do the sort of stuff they don't get to do on other films.
I guess, when all is said and done, Adam Sandler movies are a bit of a guilty pleasure for me and that's just the way it is, not every film can be a Godfather part 2 or an Apocalypse Now, sometimes you just want some nonsense you can laugh at and I don't see how Adam Sandler is any different to 'The Producers', 'Caddyshack' or even something like 'The 40 Year Old Virgin' and Sandler manages to make people laugh without a lot of gratuitous swearing.
The final and general good thing I will say in my case for Mr.Sandler is he keeps all his friends around and I have a real soft spot for groups of friends doing things together, from the Mel Brooks regular cast, the Apatow lot, Kevin Smith or the Pegg, Wright and Frost trio. For me, anyway, this aspect of it is the most fun and I love the movies the most when the same group crop up in it and play different parts, maybe because it is the dream to get up everyday and go to work with your friends, just spending each day laughing and larking about. That's something to actually aspire to.
Anyway, enough of all this pontificating, maybe there was no need to make a case for Sandler, maybe it's just my imagination that people keep their like for his movies hidden because they feel he isn't important enough or something, I don't know but whatever the case at least I have established that I like his stuff and I have seen a whole lot of it.
Now we come to 'Just Go with It' which is both the title of the film, one of the plot points, a line actually said out loud in the film and finally what I would suggest all audiences do when watching this. I am afraid that, for me, this was not one of his better films, it was ok and there were some funny parts but ultimately it's not one I would need to see again.
Where to start? Well, unusually, considering he is using Dennis Dugan as director who, for people not in the know, has been a frequent collaborator with Adam Sandler for a long time, the direction is just a bit off. It feels plain, stale, beige, unimaginative and lacking the vibrancy and silliness of a 'Zohan' and even a 'Chuck & Larry' and it's this slow, pondering and amateurish looking camera work, lack of a soundtrack and overall style that bogged down the film and made the jokes harder to laugh at.
All the actors try their hardest in this to wring out all the jokes and comedic performances they can from the script but try as they might with the farcical set-up, silly accents and ridiculous costumes it can get very weary watching them try so hard and get back so little. I have said it before and I will say it again that I think Jennifer Aniston is a great comedienne but much like The Switch before it, this film does not give her a whole bunch to do, still when she is required to gain in chemistry with Sandler she comes across as believable.
Nicole Kidman, on the other hand, is not a great anything anymore. When she shows up as the arch rival and old nemesis of Aniston's character not only is she painfully not funny but now, after what must be years of plastic surgery abuse, looks absolutely ridiculous. Her face looks like a muscle! her nose appears to have been stolen from Michael Jackson's corpse and her lips look like Nathan's hot dogs, also she simply can't act! Oh now I am sure if you go see her in her Rabbit Depression Dead Baby Hole movie she probably weeps and looks vacant and solemn with the best of them but actual acting? not sure she has done that in a long time.
Kidman, in this film, is acted off the screen by two actors whose combined ages is probably less than any of the caps on her teeth or her weirdly unlined, plastic looking, alien forehead. I don't know where they found the kids for this film and, while they are obviously precocious little brats, they were completely perfect and a hell of a find. The little girl does a funny Dick Van Dyke-esque accent the whole way through, which does become grating but is, none the less, very impressive and the little boy is an example of dead pan brilliance.
I could now go on about the convoluted plot and bad farce that would easily unravel if any of the characters said a simple sentence but like I said at the beginning of the review, just go with it. These things hardly, if ever, make sense because it is too hard, time consuming and complex to actually develop a farce that would do and especially hard in this case as it feels like a standard rom-com script, with little to no imagination, has been taken by the producers and cast and 'Sandlered' up a bit but unfortunately just not enough. When the film suddenly uproots its whole cast of characters and sends them to Hawaii you realise that the screenwriters had basically just given up as Hawaii is becoming as repetitive and common for sub-par Rom-Coms as tourist post-card areas of New York are.
Now, while I agree that picking holes or looking too deeply into a film like this is redundant, I do wander what the film is saying about women when the plot initially hinges on the idea that any women will sleep with a sad married man and not even after too much effort either, then goes on to indicate that buying lots of shoes and dresses will make up for invading yours and your kids lives with lies, then feature scenes where the actresses are forced to disrobe and wonder around in bathing suits, reducing them to little more than body parts and finally have the most intelligent character in the film fall for a guy whom, since she has known him, has only ever been a liar and a user of women for his own personal, shallow gratification and his only excuse for that is that a woman once did that to him, once, ages ago.
I can't really comment either way but it did sit slightly uneasy with me and yet I saw the film with two women and neither of them were really bothered with it, also the film did seem, weirdly, to be aimed at women, so maybe I have been infected with that nasty politically correct bug but just maybe it had to do with the fact that all the women in the film were all supposedly beautiful and very successful and all the guys were schlubby, lying, insecure buffoons and that makes it all ok. Guess I should just go with it.
Ok, so that was most of what was wrong with the film, that and it didn't have enough of those Sandler moments, those surreal gags, those little weird asides that are cleverly written and make me hoot with laughter.
However, despite all that and despite being in a screening where inexplicably someone brought a baby into the theatre (these people need to be slapped around and then forced to live in huts in the northern territories until they learn how to be good parents and behave), I actually had an ok time, laughed a bit and wasn't really bothered either way about the film.
My wife had an incredible time as I am English and the friend she was with was German and when, in the film, two characters started to portray a mockney English person and a daft German respectively, tears of laughter were pouring down both their faces and so for that reason alone, we all had a good time. Also the scene in the plastic surgeon's house was great too, with the guy who couldn't move his face, that kept me chuckling too and turned out to be ironic when bug-eyed Kidman showed up all weird looking and mental.
I appreciate that I have been a little hard on the film in places but it is because I am generally a fan of Adam Sandler's, I do look forward to his films and so I reviewed this one based on his others, not based on cinema as a whole because there are way too many critics out there who are way too serious, judging these sorts of films unfairly, based on some high standard that I am not sure anyone could reach with a comedy. Yes I was a little disappointed but mainly because there weren't enough Sandler touches in it and not because of any bias against people like Sandler.
Still, in the end, it was harmless fun tosh that I don't regret seeing and ended up, over all, being a fun evening out for me, my wife and our friend.
6 out of 10 coconuts
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10
The King's Speech - 9th February 2011
The things that were great about it, first and foremost, were the central performances. Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, when on screen together were both spectacular and I think that was one of the areas where the film, for me, didn't live up to it's trailer or the press, there simply wasn't enough of Rush and Firth. They really make this average British costume film swing and soar in all the right ways and I came out wishing the film had been twice as long and simply just stuffed from start to finish with the Firth/Rush pairing. Helena Bonham Carter is not bad either but she doesn't really have much of a part to play with. What part she does have, however, she plays perfectly well and also, there was a fairly decent attempt made to make her look quite similar to the Queen Mum. Next and probably last on the list of central pleasing performances was Guy Pierce who I didn't think was too shabby in the part of the infamous King Edward, you know, considering he's Guy Pierce.
Michael Gambon and Derek Jacobi get fairly thankless roles (although if a film has stuttering in it Jacobi has it in his contract that he has to be there) and I didn't understand why they couldn't have found Gambon a realistic beard, probably because they'd spent half the budget on fattening up an already ludicrously jowly Timothy Spall in what is one of the most hilariously misjudged Churchill impersonations ever committed to screen.
Still these really are tiny nitpicks in a grander, better film with strong watchable leads.
As well as Firth and Rush the film is worth seeing for its sumptuous cinematography and well judged recreations of pre-World War II London although, apparently, before World War II, London was draped continually in a thick grey cliche fog, which, I am sure, was actually a cheap way to allow the film makers to cover up anything that wasn't 'of the period'. The direction isn't bad and the framing of the scenes is very often purposefully artistic and almost like a painting, especially in the scenes in Logue's sumptuous office; however, in an attempt to make every shot a winner, the director occasionally messes with the eye lines of the characters and the sides of the screen on which they sit, which is annoying for the viewer and can sadly drag you out of the action.
The last thing I really loved about the film, and this is probably a personal thing as I am an ex-pat Brit living in The States, although I am not particularly a royalist and am fully aware the film is, at least in part, a work of fiction, seeing Britain back then during that dangerous and nervous time but also with it portrayed as brave, unapologetically proud, filled with proper English gentlemen all with a sense of duty and honour did make the old stiff upper lip quiver a little with the odd bout of patriotism.
You see there is an England, or I guess a Britain in my head, that lives in a place outside time, that probably never really existed but is instantly recognisable and appealing. It's Britain as a decent, polite, benevolent rather than an aggressive empirical nation full of green hills, country pubs, rousing music, culture and honest salt of the earth workers. Far from the sad image of council estates filled with underaged smoking single mothers watching pop idol and reality TV in a privatised, mismanaged and feeble country that leans too heavily on it's American cousins. Instead it's the fantasy of the Britain of Shakespeare, Dickens, Conan Doyle and Rudyard Kipling all set against the music of The Kinks and The Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, with a few belted out verses of Jerusalem thrown in for good measure.
A list like this would, ultimately, be too long to go into here and I guess I find it a bit hard to find any real value in what goes on today, who knows maybe time will be kinder but A Stuttering Firth really brought all those rose tinted ideals and possibilities out in me again along with a deep rooted patriotism that I think all Brits should carry with them and which is far more important than simply football.
Back to the film and on the downside I would say that the film struggled with whether it was a historical retelling of a fairly forgotten story during a very well known period or an embellished and some what made-up work of semi-fiction about two men, one who happened to be an ex-actor speech therapist and the other the King of England. I only say this because I felt that they didn't focus on the two men enough for it to be the latter but missed out way too many important bits of information, especially for those not in the know about who everyone was meant to be, for it to be the former and so, for me, what ended up happening was, whilst I appreciated the back drop and context that the story of Bertie and Logue was being set in, every time they weren't on screen together I felt a lot of the scenes became superfluous. It was almost like the script didn't have the confidence in itself to just be a smartly written comedy-drama double header and so tried to cram in snap shorts of historical information that really, while sort of relevant, with all that was going on at that time, could've filled three movies, or a mini-series.
I am also amazed it's played as well as it has done in America because while something like The Queen did a great job of explaining the pomp and tradition of royalty, I felt there were big gaps where, if you weren't knowledgable about the era or the nature of a monarchy, you'd possibly get quite lost.
So, all in all, it was a fairly well written, ok directed, tremendously performed film with beautiful cinematography that completely deserves the acting awards it has won and been nominated for but I am not sure it should get much else. It's always nice to see an essentially British film doing well though.
7 out of 10 swan casseroles
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10
Hot Fuzz - 7th February 2011
Firstly, I like all the people involved in this film and I do like Hot Fuzz as a whole. It's a silly, but it the best way, action comedy thriller with a cracking cast, sturdy but wild and inventive direction and a great soundtrack. I consider myself a bit of an Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost fanboy, someone who got and appreciated all the references in Spaced, loved that they did a zombie movie with slow moving living dead and generally would turn up to watch the three of them do pretty much anything (Yes I sat through How To Lose Friends... and I'd even give Edgar one more chance after the disappointing Scott Pilgrim).
So please bare all that in mind when you read the next bit which may seem less than positive.
After many viewings of both Shaun and Fuzz while they are both great and rarely out of my player for long but with repeated viewings some weak spots do emerge that, unfortunately, grate a little more each time I watch them. In the case of Fuzz one of the main things is I am just not sure how funny it is. Yes there are some hilarious moments but at times it feels like there are so many characters and quite a dense plot that constant exposition, while I would never knock anyone for having too much thoughtful plot, can mean that you sacrifice the gag rate.
Also while it's, of course, completely in keeping with the plot, having Pegg be the very solemn straight man for 95% of the film means that they are sort of missing out on 50% of the funny. Now, that does mean that the wonderful Nick Frost gets the limelight to be as fantastic as he has always been and it is true to say that their dynamic is that Simon always plays the foil to Nick's characters be it Mike, Ed or Danny but I still feel Pegg is restricted by his part a little.
The third part of the team's humour was always Edgar Wright's little visual gags or references, some of which, if you've ever listened to the commentary's or watched their pop up info bits on their DVDs can get a bit involved and while this does add a whole other geek infused layer to any of these movies, I am not sure how funny or apparent any of it is. Plus when he tries to do a gag for gags sake, like in Fuzz the idea of the killer always being in plain sight, I am not sure how well they come across as actual jokes. Lastly on the subject of the humour of the piece, I am not sure how funny, interesting or clever it is for the characters to actually talk about openly, and in one scene even watch, other action movies. The whole scene where they watch Point Break and Bad Boys 2 (neither of them personal favourites of particularly good examples of the genre in my opinion) is my least favourite scene in the movie and the things it is meant to do in the plot, highlight Danny's love of action movies to explain why by the time he's in one, he's a natural, point out the fact that all action movies are silly so accept it when the climax of this film happens and to provide the impetus for Angel to go back to the village in the first place could all have been said better and done better without having to ever mention, or show them watching, those movies. Also, they spend all this time setting up all the clever subtle homages like the names of the characters, the names of the places, in the sound effects and in some of the visual flourishes and then they have this one big clunky, creaky reference that doesn't add and actually subtracts from the proceedings.
Leading on from that, the movie spends a lot of time setting up the action heavy climax and referencing a million different action things when the movie is not really an action movie. A quarter of the film is an action movie, the rest of it is a sort-of quintessentially English, Whicker Man style, Agatha Christie type murder mystery plot. Unlike Shaun of the Dead which took the Zombie genre conventions and the Romantic Comedy genre conventions and blurred them seamlessly (because the Zombie genre works perfectly as a metaphor), the same can not be said for Hot Fuzz which has a harder time working out just what it wants to be that, in a way it ends up being none of those things. Now, that also maybe one of it's strong points because it keeps the tone interesting and it keeps you guessing. When I went into the cinema the first time I had no idea about the murder mystery plot, it surprised me and ultimately it gives you a lot more to think about than if it was just a straight action piece but I am not sure how well the genres gel or how it works as a comical or satirical look at either genre.
Lastly, while the cast is completely excellent and almost an in-joke itself, it is a double edged sword because, with so much going on, their screen time is obviously diminished. Timothy Dalton is, of course, the stand out and why he isn't in 100 movies already is beyond me because he's incredible but so many others, while they obviously give it their best, aren't really allowed to show off what they can do. I mean how do you have Bill Bailey in a film and give him absolutely nothing to do?
I also think it's lazy that they gave Edward Woodward one joke and then he repeats it!
All that said though, Hot Fuzz is a fun, interesting ride which teeters on the edge of Edgar Wright's 'throw everything including the kitchen sink' approach of direction without quite falling into the messy and confused abyss of something like Scott Pilgrim, I think when he writes with Simon Pegg they are possible more focused on the story and he uses his camera tricks appropriately.
The thing is and I think a lot of people feel like this, the three of them should stick to making films together in England. After Spaced failed to go to a third series there was a sense of unfinished business and disappointment and then Shaun and Fuzz came out and people thought 'oh, ok then, they are going to continue the dynamic in film, great - but where's Jessica Hynes nee Stevenson???' and now it's been a while since Fuzz and they have moved on to other things but nothing has been as satisfying as when they work together.
I am not sure I care about Pegg being in Star Trek or Mission Impossible, not that he shouldn't do those things but he's better in films he develops himself, we wait to see if Paul is any good when it comes out soon.
For a couple of films though it looked like the three of them could've not just saved but become the British film industry, showing Hollywood that we can do stuff every bit as big and bombastic as they can. Sadly though, with the third part of their 'Cornettos trilogy' looking further and further off and with them all having decamped, albeit temporarily, to the States, that dream, like Spaced season 3, will have to wait. It's great they made the films, disappointing right now they are not making more of them. Right away.
8 out of 10 crumbling cookies.
Points from the Wife 10 out of 10
The Social Network - 6th February 2011
I honestly couldn't see why, I am dumfounded, baffled, perplexed and, my personal favourite, flabbergasted.
I feel like I watched the wrong film because the film I watched was, while being as well written as a thing like this could be (so hats off to Aaron Sorkin), utterly pointless, tedious, irrelevant and unredeemable. The tag line on the poster is as thought provoking and interesting as this film gets.
You see it all comes down to, I suppose, what a big deal you think Facebook is because if, like me, you were happy pootling along with e-mails and MySpace before suddenly all of your friends made some unexplained mass exodus to what, appeared to me to be, the less exciting and the less creative Facebook, you probably think Facebook is hardly the enormous social awakening everyone else thinks it is and you probably, again like me, only use it because everyone else does and you live thousands of miles away from your friends and family, well maybe not the last bit but you get the idea. The true shame is then MySpace and all other social media then tried to be more like Facebook and the internet became awash with bland, beige, marketing driven arse. Still it is nice to keep in touch with my mateys across the pond, so I won't knock it all too much.
I mention all this though because when I initially heard about this film I was completely confused as to why anyone would want to make Facebook the movie, least of all the usually reliable and brilliant David Fincher, then those abstract and random trailers started appearing and being very annoying and that sort of sealed it for me, I thought, well I never have to see this movie, I really don't care one bit about any of it. I didn't even really look into what it was actually about.
Then, towards the end of last year, it was The Social Network that was one of the first films to pick up a lot of possible award buzz and people started talking about it like it was this incredible piece of cinema that had fallen radiantly from the heavens into our multiplexes and shone on all of us like the shiny piece of wonder that it was. To which my response was "are they really talking about that damn Facebook movie? hmmmmmm that's interesting"
Now I would put three of David Fincher's films into my top 50 films of all time, Seven, Fight Club and Zodiac, so any awards buzz about one of his films and I slowly began to take notice. Then I heard an interview with Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, on a podcast I listen to and he really sold it to me. Firstly, he explained what it was about, the notion of the man who invented a social network being very anti social and he made it sound like this interesting sort of courtroom drama and I like courtroom dramas so I thought "hmmmmm I have obviously got this film all wrong, I should watch it" and so we did and it stunk.
The one thing everyone failed to mention about the film is you need to believe in what a big deal Facebook is as a concept, or as a thing and I don't care. I simply don't. The internet itself is a big deal, like the telephone before it but Facebook to me really was a simpler and therefor more tedious and frustrating MySpace but I realise I am very much alone in that opinion to the tune of 1 Billion to 1.
The other day when I put a status up on Facebook (appropriately enough) about having been to see The King's Speech (review coming soon) a friend of mine said "It was ok, but I can't get too excited about the problems of rich people" well I disagree with that statement about The King's Speech but about The Facebook Movie it is 100% accurate.
This film has absolutely nothing satisfying or remotely thought provoking about it. It is about over-privalaged, overly-educated, self important, stuck up, rich kids going around and being arrogant, entitled pricks to one another. There isn't one character in the film that has a remotely interesting arc featuring anything really resembling an actual dilemma, for all their so-called heightened intelligence they all act incredibly stupidly and selfishly throughout the film and it all boils down to a bunch of people who want some money because they may or may not have had anything to do with inventing or financing Facebook, they get some money, sign something that says they won't talk about it and that's it. Nothing at all revelatory or resembling any kind of exciting climax happens, absolutely nothing. Astoundingly dull and awful. Mark Zuckerberg is the worst culprit as he seemingly walks around being pretty much an annoying self aggrandising arse sandwich to everyone he meets but because he can write computer code with some speed and an unhealthy dollop of superhuman aloofness and nonchalance he manages to become the worlds youngest billionaire.
This is why I say you have to care about Facebook or buy into all the hype that it is this fantastic thing. It would be like going back 25 years and making a movie about the Rubic's cube, it's a wonder anyone cares at all.
The film focusses on two main cases, one in which a pair of Harvard rowing twins, who asked Mark Zuckerberg to build a Harvard exclusive dating site, claim that instead of that he invented Facebook and that somehow it was also their idea.
As far as I understood it he never took their money, he never signed anything and he didn't use any of their computer code, maybe I am wrong but it seems like the only reason this wasn't laughed out of the board room by some semi-capable lawyers is because of their privileged upbringing, standing and who their father was. So you have a storyline that takes up 65% of the screen time and I am sat there thinking "oh they are going to kick this case to the curb, urinate on it and be on their way" but no, they entertain this half baked hogwash and you have to sit through deposition after boring deposition of a case where you don't agree with the plaintiff but you downright loathe the defendant and which ends with these arian youth bastards being awarded a bundle of ready cash for their mouths shut!
All of which I present as exhibit A, your honor, as to why I didn't give an armful of BALLS about any of this mind-numbing crappery.
The second case, which is honestly the more vaguely interesting of the two, but only quite, focusses on Zuckerberg being sued by his best friend Eduardo someone-or-other (at this point I was half asleep). This case isn't particularly solid either as it again features two aggressively mundane and arrogant people, one of whom "invented" Facebook and the other one coughed up $1500, pocket change to these wealthy turds, to pay for the servers. Eduardo is named CFO by Mark, in a way that resembles two children playing business, but anytime he tries to do anything remotely CFO-ish he is either hampered by Mark's enormous ego or by his own staggering ineptitude.
It all goes tits up when Mark falls under the spell of a slimy west-coast, silver spoon in rectum, overly confident waste of hair gel who "invented" Napster played by Justin Timberlake (how can anyone take any of this bilge seriously?!).
For a bit, while Eduardo is on the east coast doing something not very interesting not very well, everyone else hangs out in a house in the LA 'burbs and have strippers round doing enormous bongs of pot while several nerds sit about, unaware of any of it, 'wired in' to computer programming.
It's all exceptionally predictable, unrealistic and just simply snooze-worthy.
Deals are made, friendships are stretched, people are arrested and shown to be the drug addled losers we all expected them to be and after what seems like an eternity of pompous swanning about and masturbatory back slapping, Eduardo is being sort of written out of the company, or something and getting all angry and litigious. To be honest at this point I was so past caring I started to debate internally what colour socks to wear tomorrow but I never felt that it was really fully made clear or properly explained what the hell was going on but you understand, that whatever it is, he's upset about it.
Quite how he has a leg to stand on when he signed the original paperwork without a lawyer checking it first and therefor happily agreed to the terms that allowed them to downsize his interest in the company is beyond me but apparently he gets a fat wedge of sweaty bank notes too and goes about his day.
We are now 17 hours into this, I've run out of words for tedious, movie and still nothing remotely resembling a worthwhile story line has emerged and I am sitting there, jaw to the floor, scratching my head as to what it is I am missing, how is it anyone liked this, let alone the huge numbers that do? This was nominated for awards?? by whom? Insomniacs who are showing the gratitude at finally being put to sleep by something?? What is this patently ridiculous world coming to?
The last piece of the puzzle that is this, not at all puzzling film, is Zuckerberg himself. Made out to be an overly sensitive, rain man like, obnoxious, grudge carrying, snot nosed, fanny fart of a man who apparently, despite being obviously and knowingly rude to everyone, really just wants to talk to girls and be touched in the boy parts like everyone else. Now, unless I missed something, I did mentally wander off after all, the man doesn't have aspergers or autism or whatever, nothing that could make him remotely sympathetic or even maybe an anti-hero, no he is just a plain bastard who doesn't deserve to be touched in the man parts unless it was swiftly and repeatedly with some steel toe capped, army-issue boots.
Which brings me back to my point, you have to care about Facebook, believe that it is this amazingly connective, beautifully cool thing that just wants to bring about world peace and understanding and not that it is a forum for people to discuss their bowel movements and nose pick habits while advertisers tell you what useless tat to buy and politicians get to pretend to be like the commoners by telling everyone what brand of shampoo they use or their latest outdated and meaningless opinion on universal healthcare in the United States. The only thing Facebook has achieved is to get Betty White a hosting gig on SNL and to sell all your private information off to the highest bidder.
Without a positive view on Facebook there is nothing else redeeming, likable or worthwhile about this surprisingly awful film.
I also want to point out that a film doesn't have to have complicated character arcs, likable protagonists, a cliched wrap up at the end or even much of a point, films can be whatever they want to be but having at least one of the above would help.
As for the directing, writing and acting, well all are fine. Unlike previous efforts of Mr.Fincher, the direction is nothing to get excited over, it is just perfectly adequate, although the boat race scene isn't bad as a stand out piece of technical wizardry (shame that the entirety of the scene was completely devoid of any reason for its existence but there you are). The acting, likewise is fine, everyone does an ok job and everyone involved makes you hate them in the first 5 minutes, which I suppose is their worthless task at the end of the day.
The writing, though, is the stand out of the three because, considering everything I have said above about how stiflingly average and, in the grand scheme of things, relatively uneventful the whole sorry affair is, Sorkin does at least manage to work it into something resembling something (just what I don't know!) He does write pretty cracking dialogue too.
So I am sorry folks, haul me over the coals, argue with me, defend this overly long self important piece of tripe if you must but I am not sure I will ever be able to see whatever it is everyone else liked about the movie. My gast will just have to continue to remain flabbered, I guess.
2.5 out of 10 rather perplexing and tasteless radishes.
Points from The Wife 4 out of 10
Wake Up Ron Burgandy - 5th February 2011
Mainly linked together with voice over and alternate takes this attempts to be the unofficial sequel to the comedy genius that is Anchorman.
I have said it before and will happily say it again to all that will listen, I believe Anchorman to be the funniest film in the last 15 years, a truly hilarious character invention and performance by Will Ferrell, his supporting cast and various cameos and the best thing Adam McKay and him will ever do. So for me the idea of there being more of that is an idea worth going with, savoring and imaging the film that could've been.
Essentially and almost unbelievably, there is a whole bank robber subplot, with crucial scenes and fairly large set pieces that was ditched in its entirety from the original film and I can only imagine that it was that stuff lying around that prompted the DVD only release of this. The plot, the cast and the scenes are resurrected here as the driving storyline behind this patchy, yet in its own way, pretty special and fairly good movie. Throw in scenes of Ron Burgundy trying his hand at being a roving reporter, a visit to his mentor Jess Moondragon, some truly inspired stuff with the team in the San Diego mountains and a borderline disturbing scene where Champ Kind, ignored mercilessly by the rest of the crew, declares in loud and raw terms his special love for Ron and you have your new film.
It's all completely slap-shot, not as polished or finessed as the footage that wound up in the finished film and some of the hundreds of jokes, inevitably, fall flat but when you consider the rolls and rolls of film that must've been shot to make both movies possible it boggles the mind box. Also, arguably, this film has more of a traditional plot! In the original, the love story obviously takes more of center stage and informs the plot arc of the picture, with the denouement in the zoo really not adding anything plot-wise to the proceedings but it is all the better for that, here when they do go back to the robbing gang and away from the Channel 4 news team, it's unfunny and you lose interest quick.
Ultimately though, if you are a DVD movie extras geek like me then you will love this innovative way to string all of the out-takes together but if you didn't much care for the original then save your breath, your money and buy something else, you know, like a gimp mask and a grapefruit or something.
Wake Up Ron Burgundy is way funnier than it has any right to be, great to see the cast happy to try just about anything and if Anchorman the special edition doesn't have enough of Papa Burgundy and the boys then pick this up and revel in silly for 2 more hours. I don't know about you but I'm sort of a big deal, my apartment smells of rich mahogany and I have many leather bound books.
7 out of 10 used coffee filters with cigarette butts sticking to them that Brick mistakes for food