'Favourite book ever' is a very bold statement and should not be thrown around lightly, but I can honestly say that Richard Matheson's 1954 novel is one of the best books I have ever read. I am not the only person who rates it so highly either. Before the most recent cinematic effort, it has been adapted into two films with different names, The Last Man on Earth (in 1964, starring Vincent Price) and The Omega Man (1971, Charlton Heston), it has been very influential in the growth of the zombie genre and in making popular the idea of infectious disease being an apocalyptic possibility. George A Romero cites it as an influence for Night of the Living Dead and 28 Days Later clearly relies heavily on the book.
This particular adaptation, and I must stress that it is loosely based on Matheson's book, has been in the pipeline for a long time, at one stage during the 80's Ridley Scott was to direct with Arnold Schwarzenegger as the lead , but ultimately it fell to Francis Lawrence (Constantine) to direct and with Will Smith as Robert Neville, the last man alive on earth. Set in New York City, 2012, a viral cure for cancer has mutated and turned human-kind in to zombie like creatures, hungry for blood, vulnerable to daylight. Neville, colonel/scientist in the army, goes about his daily survival tasks (hunting deer in Times Square) during the day, while at night, hiding in his modern fortress of an apartment while he tries to find a cure for the plague.
The first part of the film sets all of this up, and I must say, it does it very well. The explanation of the virus is done nicely, with Emma Thompson in a nice cameo as the doctor responsible. We then leap forward 3 years. Manhattan as a wasteland looks brilliant, abandoned cars, overgrown foliage, eerie silence, it really does feel like a ghost town. Very much like the opening section of 28 Days Later, but less apocalyptic, more as though people gradually gave up. The idea of hunting deer in the centre of New York is also a nice little touch. Neville's isolation is ramped up as his only companions are Sam, his dog, and mannequins that he has named and left in local stores, engaging in banal chatter as he yearns for a semblance of normality. Well executed flashback scenes showing the chaos that erupts when the disease takes hold, add a bit more meat the story and also more depth to Neville's character.
At this stage I think it's worth mentioning Will Smith and his central performance. The choice of actor in this film is perhaps even vital than most other films, as the whole thing rests on their shoulders. This would not be a role for Keanu Reeves. Smith has come a long way from his days as the Fresh Prince and the drivel that was Wild Wild West, he really is an accomplished actor and he shows it again here. He does the pumped up action man stuff well, as you would expect, but it's the other moments that really stand out. There is a constant look of resignation on his face, no hope whatsoever. There are some very touching scenes where he tries to pluck up the courage to approach one of the mannequins, just to say hello. He also manages to portray the maximum amount of emotion possible in a scene with a dog. Turner & Hooch has nothing on this.
So far so good. Then the 'Darkseekers' (a.k.a. the infected) come on to the scene, which of course is when it should really hot up. Now I have two criticisms of the creatures, one is cosmetic and the other is a lot more important.
Firstly, for a reason only they will know, the makers of this film decided to have computer generated creatures. It just doesn't look right. The creatures are essentially zombies, and we have been so used to seeing the undead over the years as actors in (advanced) make up and prosthetics, the action feels physical and textile. It's what we know, and it's what we like. The CGI here isn't exactly top class, and you can tell it isn't real, it takes away from the threat of danger. It's all rather distracting. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The second point, is the decision to make them zombie-like. One the main reasons that the book is so interesting and arresting is that the creatures (in this case vampires) are by appearance, almost exactly the same as humans. Your neighbour John, still looks like John, sounds like John, still engages in the same banter that you had with John, but now he wants to kill you and is beyond saving. The enemy in this film is faceless, generic, bland, we've seen it all before. A huge chunk of originality has been removed and left in a wheelie bin outside.
So once the scene is set so well, it becomes a standard action/monster film that rattles along to its conclusion, which, I admit is not in the usual cannon of Hollywood cop-out happy endings and is quite satisfying, but does massively deviate from the 'Legend' that is meant in the source material, which as possibly my favourite ending to anything, is annoying to say the least.
So I was excited when I first heard about it, I was excited when it first came out, I was excited after the the first half an hour, but then it all quickly evaporated. 28 Days Later was influenced hugely by the novel I Am Legend, but the irony is, despite a promising start this adaptation feels like a dated rehash of Danny Boyle's film which is packed full of more originality and fresh ideas.
Right, I'm off to read I Am Legend again.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Wednesday 29 December 2010
Tuesday 28 December 2010
DEADLY CROSSING (2010)
Hope you all had a good Christmas - here's a review for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Deadly-Crossing&nItemID=239
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Deadly-Crossing&nItemID=239
Friday 24 December 2010
THE BOX (2009)
Donnie Darko is one of the most opinion-splitting films in recent years. For every person that thinks it's a modern classic, there is another that thinks it's a pile of pretentious drivel that disappeared up it's own backside. Whatever you think of the film, it did put Richard Kelly on the map and made him 'One to Watch' for the future. His follow up Southland Tales wasn't particularly well received, both critically and at the Box Office. Which brings us to his most recent effort - The Box.
Based on a short story, 'Button, Button' by the legendary Sci-fi/Horror writer Richard Matheson (who also penned I Am Legend, also brought to the screen in a number of different incarnations), which was also subsequently adapted into an episode of the Twilight Zone, it begins with a simple concept that seems as though it has the potential to run a lot deeper. 1976, Richmond, Virginia, suburban couple (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) receive a visit from Arlington Steward (the once again brilliant Frank Langella), a mysterious, facially disfigured man. He gives them a box, containing a button, and a choice. Press the button and they will receive $1m in cold hard cash in a brief case (as is always the way in the movies - no one writes a check or asks for bank details), but someone in the world, that they do not know will die. Or they can leave the button and go about their life normally with no change. It's a brilliant idea to base a film around as the couple wrestle with their conscious and decide what to do. In all honesty though the execution lacks - the writing is clunky and the acting is average at best, plus the financial situation of the couple never leaves any doubt as to what they will decide to do, so much of the tension is lost.
Once the decision is made, the film becomes a very different beast. A Twilight Zone episode. A sub-plot about a Nasa research centre, Langella's mysterious 'Employees', a supposed after-life of some sort, it all just goes a bit mental.....not in a Dusk 'til Dawn, enjoyable kind of way though.
I had no idea what was happening for much of the second half of the film, and I'm not convinced I was meant to. I'm all for being mentally challenged at the cinema and being asked to form my own ideas on whats happening on screen, but this all felt as though Richard Kelly was trying to be a bit too clever. Having said that, I was never bored, I really was eagerly waiting for it all to unfold, but I wasn't fully emeresed, as though I was watching from afar, slightly removed.
Often with these 'ball of string' films, it's the end that is important as the plot unravels. The Box is interesting because it is both unsatisfying and satisfying at the same time. There is a resolution of sorts, and it's not the happy ending you might want, but much of the mystery is left unexplained and I couldn't help but feel annoyed - like being given complicated directions to a recommended pub, only to arrive and realise it's a Wetherspoons.
I saw the film a couple of days ago, I'm still playing it over in my mind, and now I don't think the majority of the film is actually important to Kelly. It's more about the decision made by the two leads and what that says about human beings. And when you look at the film on that basis it is very thought-provoking and interesting. But was it really necessary to bury that central idea in a messy extended episode of the X-Files?
Based on a short story, 'Button, Button' by the legendary Sci-fi/Horror writer Richard Matheson (who also penned I Am Legend, also brought to the screen in a number of different incarnations), which was also subsequently adapted into an episode of the Twilight Zone, it begins with a simple concept that seems as though it has the potential to run a lot deeper. 1976, Richmond, Virginia, suburban couple (Cameron Diaz and James Marsden) receive a visit from Arlington Steward (the once again brilliant Frank Langella), a mysterious, facially disfigured man. He gives them a box, containing a button, and a choice. Press the button and they will receive $1m in cold hard cash in a brief case (as is always the way in the movies - no one writes a check or asks for bank details), but someone in the world, that they do not know will die. Or they can leave the button and go about their life normally with no change. It's a brilliant idea to base a film around as the couple wrestle with their conscious and decide what to do. In all honesty though the execution lacks - the writing is clunky and the acting is average at best, plus the financial situation of the couple never leaves any doubt as to what they will decide to do, so much of the tension is lost.
Once the decision is made, the film becomes a very different beast. A Twilight Zone episode. A sub-plot about a Nasa research centre, Langella's mysterious 'Employees', a supposed after-life of some sort, it all just goes a bit mental.....not in a Dusk 'til Dawn, enjoyable kind of way though.
I had no idea what was happening for much of the second half of the film, and I'm not convinced I was meant to. I'm all for being mentally challenged at the cinema and being asked to form my own ideas on whats happening on screen, but this all felt as though Richard Kelly was trying to be a bit too clever. Having said that, I was never bored, I really was eagerly waiting for it all to unfold, but I wasn't fully emeresed, as though I was watching from afar, slightly removed.
Often with these 'ball of string' films, it's the end that is important as the plot unravels. The Box is interesting because it is both unsatisfying and satisfying at the same time. There is a resolution of sorts, and it's not the happy ending you might want, but much of the mystery is left unexplained and I couldn't help but feel annoyed - like being given complicated directions to a recommended pub, only to arrive and realise it's a Wetherspoons.
I saw the film a couple of days ago, I'm still playing it over in my mind, and now I don't think the majority of the film is actually important to Kelly. It's more about the decision made by the two leads and what that says about human beings. And when you look at the film on that basis it is very thought-provoking and interesting. But was it really necessary to bury that central idea in a messy extended episode of the X-Files?
Monday 20 December 2010
BRIDGET JONES' DIARY (2001)
Saturday night in, snow causing chaos on the streets outside, red wine flowing, my mind numbed by the trash that is ITV's Take Me Out to the point where any sort of decision could cause me to spontaneously combust so the easiest thing to do is just to leave the channel unchanged. And that is how I came to be watching Bridget Jones' Diary.
One of those literary phenomenons where every single person on any mode of transport seems to be reading the same book (other examples include Harry Potter, Stieg Larsson, The Da Vinci Code and The Time Traveller's Wife), Helen Fielding's memoir of a 32 year old singleton, desperate to improve herself and to meet the right man, seemed to grip women of all ages. A film adaptation was inevitable. Fielding stayed on writing credits with the assistance of British rom-com stalwart Richard Curtis. Dependable leading men Colin Firth and Hugh Grant came on board, with the slightly unusual, but safe, choice of Texan Renee Zellweger as the title character. Everything is in place.
Jones herself is a familiar character to all of us of a certain age. Early thirties, drinks a lot on school nights, smokes, dates the wrong men, in a job she doesn't really enjoy but does it to get by. No wonder it struck a chord with so many people, Fielding had tapped into a nation's frustrations and insecurities with Jones being a steady personification. She is bored of being set up with bad men by her mother (desperate to live her life vicariously through Jones), such as Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). She betrays her new years resolution to meet a nice sensible man, by shacking up with Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), her womanising boss at the publishing company she works. Needless to say, as with all rom coms, things don't go as well as they might.
Now, I must lay down my marker. I'm not a rom-com fan. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Having said that, the Brits do it far better than our American cousins. Pretty Woman is the only decent one from across the pond that springs to mind, but I could easily watch Four Weddings, Notting Hill and About a Boy to pass the time. Bridget Jones just about manages to fall into that category. But only just. There are one or two funny moments, it's predictable to a point, but it doesn't exactly conform to the usual plot points - Boy meets girl, girl falls for boy, girl and boy argue, boy and girl make up and live happily ever after. The characters are charming, their clumsy British eccentricities make you side with them.
However, I can't help feeling that it's all a bit fluffy, like scatter cushions, all for show.....all of the above Hugh Grant vehicles make me cry. This didn't come close. Even with the always excellent Jim Broadbent heading up the sub-plot geared to generate the tears.
It ticks the boxes though. Hugh Grant doing what he always does, but enjoying himself as the bad guy for a change, Colin Firth criminally underused and clearly going through the motions, only Zellweger looks as though she's really trying, and likeable she is for it. It's watchable enough, you don't get bored, but you also aren't really invested in it either.
I've not read the book, but I can't help but imagine that this is the adaptation equivalent of Watchmen - a decent job, but hollow and lacking the soul of the source material. Ultimately it should have been better. Having said that, lots of women I know are quite fond of the film, so it must have done something right. Not for me though.
Amusingly bland.
One of those literary phenomenons where every single person on any mode of transport seems to be reading the same book (other examples include Harry Potter, Stieg Larsson, The Da Vinci Code and The Time Traveller's Wife), Helen Fielding's memoir of a 32 year old singleton, desperate to improve herself and to meet the right man, seemed to grip women of all ages. A film adaptation was inevitable. Fielding stayed on writing credits with the assistance of British rom-com stalwart Richard Curtis. Dependable leading men Colin Firth and Hugh Grant came on board, with the slightly unusual, but safe, choice of Texan Renee Zellweger as the title character. Everything is in place.
Jones herself is a familiar character to all of us of a certain age. Early thirties, drinks a lot on school nights, smokes, dates the wrong men, in a job she doesn't really enjoy but does it to get by. No wonder it struck a chord with so many people, Fielding had tapped into a nation's frustrations and insecurities with Jones being a steady personification. She is bored of being set up with bad men by her mother (desperate to live her life vicariously through Jones), such as Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). She betrays her new years resolution to meet a nice sensible man, by shacking up with Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), her womanising boss at the publishing company she works. Needless to say, as with all rom coms, things don't go as well as they might.
Now, I must lay down my marker. I'm not a rom-com fan. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Having said that, the Brits do it far better than our American cousins. Pretty Woman is the only decent one from across the pond that springs to mind, but I could easily watch Four Weddings, Notting Hill and About a Boy to pass the time. Bridget Jones just about manages to fall into that category. But only just. There are one or two funny moments, it's predictable to a point, but it doesn't exactly conform to the usual plot points - Boy meets girl, girl falls for boy, girl and boy argue, boy and girl make up and live happily ever after. The characters are charming, their clumsy British eccentricities make you side with them.
However, I can't help feeling that it's all a bit fluffy, like scatter cushions, all for show.....all of the above Hugh Grant vehicles make me cry. This didn't come close. Even with the always excellent Jim Broadbent heading up the sub-plot geared to generate the tears.
It ticks the boxes though. Hugh Grant doing what he always does, but enjoying himself as the bad guy for a change, Colin Firth criminally underused and clearly going through the motions, only Zellweger looks as though she's really trying, and likeable she is for it. It's watchable enough, you don't get bored, but you also aren't really invested in it either.
I've not read the book, but I can't help but imagine that this is the adaptation equivalent of Watchmen - a decent job, but hollow and lacking the soul of the source material. Ultimately it should have been better. Having said that, lots of women I know are quite fond of the film, so it must have done something right. Not for me though.
Amusingly bland.
Saturday 18 December 2010
BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974)
A review that I have done for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Black-Christmas&nItemID=233
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Black-Christmas&nItemID=233
ME AND ORSON WELLES (2008)
One of the real pleasures of Lovefilm is that when bored and you will sift through the many, many releases, add things at your leisure, titles that you would never purchase, and probably not really seek out. Then one day something arrives in the post that you have no memory of adding, but you have to watch it to get your money's worth. Then when the end credits start you realise that you've just watched a film you probably wouldn't have seen had it not been for the Lovefilm lottery. And so it was that I saw Me and Orson Welles.
Richard Linklater's film follows teenager Richard (Zac Efron) as he is cast in in a production of Julius Ceaser in the famous Mercury Theatre, a production that is helmed by the great Orson Welles (Christian McKay). As the show gets closer to opening night, the tensions among the cast grow and Richard is put through a the emotional blender as he comes to terms with his talent, falls in love (with Sonja played by Claire Danes), begins to believe he can have it all only to realise that he can't.
Now I must confess I am far from an expert on the life and career of Orson Welles, so whether this is an accurate depiction of the man, his private life and his creative methods is up for debate and I won't be able to judge it on it's accuracy. What I will say though is that Richard Linklater does a fine job of taking us back to 1930's New York. The streets are thronging with people looking the part, old cars trundle up and down the streets. Real time, care and dedication has been put into making this film look the part. It also helps to make this film feel like a good old fashioned movie, like the classics that are shown at lunchtime on a weekday on BBC2. The characters all talk in that way that used to in films, slightly rhythmic, very chipper with every word properly spoken. Light years away from the modern fascination with mumbling, shouting or growling. Richard Linklater deserves praise for this, as well as for the variety in his choice of films. Fast Food Nation, A Scanner Darkly and now this. All very interesting and not remotely similar in theme or execution.
I've not seen a Zac Efron film before. No, not even any of the High School Musicals. It's clear that he is trying to prove that he is an actor to be taken seriously and he does well here. He enjoys himself with the bygone era dialogue and plays well off the other characters. He is at his best when things are going well for Richard, confidence shining through. However, once things take a turn for the worse for his character he is on slightly less sure footing. He is never entirely convincing as a vulnerable, heartbroken teenager. Having said that, he is very likeable on screen and will have a future.
It's good to see Claire Danes back, having never really taken off from the success of Romeo and Juliet. She is perfectly good here, doing things well with what she is given.
The real joy of the film is Christian McKay as Orson Welles himself. A relative unknown, every moment he is on screen the film goes up a notch. He is all overblown exaggerated gestures, when he's happy and friendly, it's almost as though he is your best friend, but when he's angry, you really feel his wrath. It's the unpredictable nature of his actions that make him such an interesting presence on screen. As I said before, I'm not sure how close this to the real Orson Welles, but it is a joy to watch.
The film itself is a good watch, but I can't say that I ever really cared about where it was going. Was I upset when things went south for Richard, not really. Was I over the moon when he was on stage and things were going well? Nope. It isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, it just isn't great. It lacks something, a soul perhaps. All of the attention in making it look authentic has been to the detriment of something else. Which is a shame, because it does look good, and I suspect when Efron's career becomes even more successful, this will be looked upon as big moment for him.
Decent, but worth seeing for Christian McKay alone.
Richard Linklater's film follows teenager Richard (Zac Efron) as he is cast in in a production of Julius Ceaser in the famous Mercury Theatre, a production that is helmed by the great Orson Welles (Christian McKay). As the show gets closer to opening night, the tensions among the cast grow and Richard is put through a the emotional blender as he comes to terms with his talent, falls in love (with Sonja played by Claire Danes), begins to believe he can have it all only to realise that he can't.
Now I must confess I am far from an expert on the life and career of Orson Welles, so whether this is an accurate depiction of the man, his private life and his creative methods is up for debate and I won't be able to judge it on it's accuracy. What I will say though is that Richard Linklater does a fine job of taking us back to 1930's New York. The streets are thronging with people looking the part, old cars trundle up and down the streets. Real time, care and dedication has been put into making this film look the part. It also helps to make this film feel like a good old fashioned movie, like the classics that are shown at lunchtime on a weekday on BBC2. The characters all talk in that way that used to in films, slightly rhythmic, very chipper with every word properly spoken. Light years away from the modern fascination with mumbling, shouting or growling. Richard Linklater deserves praise for this, as well as for the variety in his choice of films. Fast Food Nation, A Scanner Darkly and now this. All very interesting and not remotely similar in theme or execution.
I've not seen a Zac Efron film before. No, not even any of the High School Musicals. It's clear that he is trying to prove that he is an actor to be taken seriously and he does well here. He enjoys himself with the bygone era dialogue and plays well off the other characters. He is at his best when things are going well for Richard, confidence shining through. However, once things take a turn for the worse for his character he is on slightly less sure footing. He is never entirely convincing as a vulnerable, heartbroken teenager. Having said that, he is very likeable on screen and will have a future.
It's good to see Claire Danes back, having never really taken off from the success of Romeo and Juliet. She is perfectly good here, doing things well with what she is given.
The real joy of the film is Christian McKay as Orson Welles himself. A relative unknown, every moment he is on screen the film goes up a notch. He is all overblown exaggerated gestures, when he's happy and friendly, it's almost as though he is your best friend, but when he's angry, you really feel his wrath. It's the unpredictable nature of his actions that make him such an interesting presence on screen. As I said before, I'm not sure how close this to the real Orson Welles, but it is a joy to watch.
The film itself is a good watch, but I can't say that I ever really cared about where it was going. Was I upset when things went south for Richard, not really. Was I over the moon when he was on stage and things were going well? Nope. It isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination, it just isn't great. It lacks something, a soul perhaps. All of the attention in making it look authentic has been to the detriment of something else. Which is a shame, because it does look good, and I suspect when Efron's career becomes even more successful, this will be looked upon as big moment for him.
Decent, but worth seeing for Christian McKay alone.
Thursday 16 December 2010
Monday 13 December 2010
THE NEXT THREE DAYS (2010)
I was lucky to go along to an advance screening of Russell Crowe's forthcoming film, The Next Three Days. Released in January 2011, it is a remake of a a French film, Anything for her (Pour Elle - 2007), and has been adapted, written and directed by Paul Haggis, who is quickly developing a bit of a name for himself having written Crash, Million Dollar Baby, Casino Royale, The Quantum of Solace and having made a very good job of directing (and writing) The Valley of Elah.
Crowe plays John Brennan, happy family man, living the perfect life with his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) and their little boy. Then one normal, weekday morning, their lives are torn apart as Lara is arrested for the murder of her boss. Three years down the track, Lara's final appeal is rejected and John is left a desperate man, so he seeks out the advice of an expert jail breaker (Liam Neeson in an irritating cameo) who advises him how to plan his wife's escape. We then reach 'The Next Three Days' as the plan is put into action.
Russell Crowe is in fine form here. He has played some very big, macho characters, but he entirely believable as a suburban father enjoying the perfect, yet quiet life. It's the first part of the film (it is broken up into three parts - the next three years, the next three months and finally the next three days) where he is at his most impressive, coming to terms with being a single parent, trying to give both his wife and his son hope, but knowing that there really is no cause for optimism. The most touching and upsetting scene is where he goes to visit prison to tell Lara that the appeal has been unsuccessful, no words are spoken, he says it all in his eyes. I struggled to keep it together. It is also worth saying at this stage that Elizabeth Banks plays her part as well - left vacant by her ordeal, resigned to a life behind bars, desperate to be with her son who shows no emotion or recognition when he is with her. It's almost a moody, family drama and very moving it is too.
The Next Three Months sees a shift in the film and also in Crowe's character. John leaves the comfort zone of suburban life behind as he tries to get the resources to make the break possible. He encounters a whole host of nasty characters and subjects himself to violence and the drug abuse of dangerous local neighbourhoods. The thing I like most about this element is that Crowe constantly seems out of his death, nothing goes as he wants it too and you I really got the impression that he is a man on the edge and things are spiralling out of control. Haggis shoots it all in the now familiar shaky cam, grainy image way. Very Bourne, but it gives it a very authentic and watchable feel.
Then we have 'The Next Three Days', and, frankly, it all falls apart a little bit - unlike John's plan. The final act is what might have happened if Tony Scott directed Ocean's Eleven. It's just about thrilling enough, engages you so you don't get bored, but you're never really on the edge of your seat. And it's because you never really worry whether they will get away with it and Russell Crowe resorts to type and becomes the action hero again, out of kilter with his portrayal of John before. Have no fear Maximus will save the day. It's a shame because the rest of the film is very unpredictable and it deserves something better than the ending gives it. I also felt let down because I thought the film wasn't going to insult the viewer by spelling out Lara's crime, I thought it would leave it all unanswered, which would have been brave, very brave, but it is needlessly addressed in the final moments.
So two thirds of a good film, an almost great performance from Crowe, ably supported by a good cast (Banks and Lennie James in particular) and proficiently directed by Paul Haggis again. The Next Three Days had me under lock and key, until cliche broke out and escaped.
Crowe plays John Brennan, happy family man, living the perfect life with his wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) and their little boy. Then one normal, weekday morning, their lives are torn apart as Lara is arrested for the murder of her boss. Three years down the track, Lara's final appeal is rejected and John is left a desperate man, so he seeks out the advice of an expert jail breaker (Liam Neeson in an irritating cameo) who advises him how to plan his wife's escape. We then reach 'The Next Three Days' as the plan is put into action.
Russell Crowe is in fine form here. He has played some very big, macho characters, but he entirely believable as a suburban father enjoying the perfect, yet quiet life. It's the first part of the film (it is broken up into three parts - the next three years, the next three months and finally the next three days) where he is at his most impressive, coming to terms with being a single parent, trying to give both his wife and his son hope, but knowing that there really is no cause for optimism. The most touching and upsetting scene is where he goes to visit prison to tell Lara that the appeal has been unsuccessful, no words are spoken, he says it all in his eyes. I struggled to keep it together. It is also worth saying at this stage that Elizabeth Banks plays her part as well - left vacant by her ordeal, resigned to a life behind bars, desperate to be with her son who shows no emotion or recognition when he is with her. It's almost a moody, family drama and very moving it is too.
The Next Three Months sees a shift in the film and also in Crowe's character. John leaves the comfort zone of suburban life behind as he tries to get the resources to make the break possible. He encounters a whole host of nasty characters and subjects himself to violence and the drug abuse of dangerous local neighbourhoods. The thing I like most about this element is that Crowe constantly seems out of his death, nothing goes as he wants it too and you I really got the impression that he is a man on the edge and things are spiralling out of control. Haggis shoots it all in the now familiar shaky cam, grainy image way. Very Bourne, but it gives it a very authentic and watchable feel.
Then we have 'The Next Three Days', and, frankly, it all falls apart a little bit - unlike John's plan. The final act is what might have happened if Tony Scott directed Ocean's Eleven. It's just about thrilling enough, engages you so you don't get bored, but you're never really on the edge of your seat. And it's because you never really worry whether they will get away with it and Russell Crowe resorts to type and becomes the action hero again, out of kilter with his portrayal of John before. Have no fear Maximus will save the day. It's a shame because the rest of the film is very unpredictable and it deserves something better than the ending gives it. I also felt let down because I thought the film wasn't going to insult the viewer by spelling out Lara's crime, I thought it would leave it all unanswered, which would have been brave, very brave, but it is needlessly addressed in the final moments.
So two thirds of a good film, an almost great performance from Crowe, ably supported by a good cast (Banks and Lennie James in particular) and proficiently directed by Paul Haggis again. The Next Three Days had me under lock and key, until cliche broke out and escaped.
Saturday 11 December 2010
NOT LIKE OTHERS (VAMPYRER - 2008)
Have a look at this review that I've done for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Not-Like-Others&nItemID=221
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Not-Like-Others&nItemID=221
MONSTERS (2010)
There has been a lot of hype about this film. Since I first heard about it, I've heard people calling it a monster film for girls, or a love story for boys. A thinking man's (or woman for that matter) B-movie. It's also been heralded as the beginning of the future of film making. Gareth Edwards, award-winning special effects man, made this film with 4 people, a relatively cheap camera and a laptop. It is reported to have cost just 500,000 quid to make. As a self-confessed monster film nut, I wasn't going to wait for this one to come out on DVD. Tickets at the lovely Soho Curzon booked.
6 years ago, a space probe crashed back down on to Earth in Mexico, bringing some unwanted visitors with it. These aliens, giant tentacled beasts that look a lot like an octopus, make Mexico their home. The American and Mexican military attempt, but fail, to kill them and have to resign themselves to set up the 'Infected Zone'. A huge chunk across the whole of the continent that has been surrendered. America is protected by a huge wall, the Mexicans have a barbed wire fence. This isn't a spoiler, this is all dealt with before the credits have even rolled (it's even in the trailer) and sets the scene for a very different monster film. Gareth Edwards himself said 'If Cloverfield is Iraq, Monsters is Afghanistan'. The world has come to terms with their existence and is just getting on with life as best as they can with them in the background.
The film centres on two people though, Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew is a professional photographer on the road, tasked with getting pictures of the devastation caused by the creatures. Andrew's boss orders him to get his daughter, Samantha, safely back to the US of A after she is caught up in an attack by the creatures.
I have included the trailer to this film above, but I think that it is important to say that the trailer isn't a good representation of the actual film. There is very little in the way of action set pieces, so if you are going solely because you like the look of the trailer, you will be in for a surprise. But what a pleasant and thought-provoking surprise.
What follows is a trek across the infected zone where Andrew and Samantha are exposed to the Monsters themselves, but also, more importantly, how the Infected Zone has affected the people of Mexico and the plight of those still living in the zone. Poverty, corruption, disease. This journey means that the film feels more like a study of a war-torn country, destroyed by years of conflict. With the quote mentioned above by Gareth Edwards, it is clear that this idea is the basis for this whole film and is a statement about military intervention.
What he also does admirably well is depict a world that is used to and grown tired of the situation. A great scene involves the two leads turning on the news in a motel room, seeing footage of the creatures under fire from the military. This would be a huge set-piece in most films of this type, but here the characters make small talk as the carnage goes on behind them. They've seen it all before. The viewer also gets to see the creatures straight away. The opening scene puts them right there in front of you. No big reveal at the end like Jaws and Cloverfield. They are just there. These creatures are here and have been for a while. Whats the big deal?
There are some lovely visual touches, all done by Edwards on his lap top. Infected Zone signs are a constant reminder of what is happening. A fighter jet floating along a river, a tanker on top of a mountain, both left to rot. This is a desperate part of the world that has given up.
At the centre of all of this though is a relationship. At the beginning of the film, they share little conversation, but as the film progresses and they near their destination, the experiences inevitably pull them closer together in scenes touchingly played by two unknown actors. It's all very believable though, it never feels as though Edwards is forcing these two together just to progress the story, it feels natural and is never overplayed. It is done so subtly that you don't really know it's happening. It's fantastically handled.
The creatures themselves look fantastic, I need to get my hands on whatever laptop Edwards has been using. The action when it happens is unnerving and jumpy, just as you would expect. It's the final sight of them in the film that deserve the most attention though. Edwards has created one of the most visually beautiful and moving scenes that I can remember seeing in any science-fiction film, swiftly followed by a brilliant human moment that is a lovely finish to the film and is still firmly implanted at the forefront of my memory.
So what we have here, is part war film, part monster movie, part road trip and part love story. There is no other way to explain it I'm afraid. It is not a 'jack of all trades, master of none' situation either. It ticks all the boxes, in all the categories, to the point of excellence.
It also makes you think, in the film the creatures are never called monsters, they never attack unless attacked first. Who are the monsters of the title then.....?
See it.
6 years ago, a space probe crashed back down on to Earth in Mexico, bringing some unwanted visitors with it. These aliens, giant tentacled beasts that look a lot like an octopus, make Mexico their home. The American and Mexican military attempt, but fail, to kill them and have to resign themselves to set up the 'Infected Zone'. A huge chunk across the whole of the continent that has been surrendered. America is protected by a huge wall, the Mexicans have a barbed wire fence. This isn't a spoiler, this is all dealt with before the credits have even rolled (it's even in the trailer) and sets the scene for a very different monster film. Gareth Edwards himself said 'If Cloverfield is Iraq, Monsters is Afghanistan'. The world has come to terms with their existence and is just getting on with life as best as they can with them in the background.
The film centres on two people though, Andrew (Scoot McNairy) and Samantha (Whitney Able). Andrew is a professional photographer on the road, tasked with getting pictures of the devastation caused by the creatures. Andrew's boss orders him to get his daughter, Samantha, safely back to the US of A after she is caught up in an attack by the creatures.
I have included the trailer to this film above, but I think that it is important to say that the trailer isn't a good representation of the actual film. There is very little in the way of action set pieces, so if you are going solely because you like the look of the trailer, you will be in for a surprise. But what a pleasant and thought-provoking surprise.
What follows is a trek across the infected zone where Andrew and Samantha are exposed to the Monsters themselves, but also, more importantly, how the Infected Zone has affected the people of Mexico and the plight of those still living in the zone. Poverty, corruption, disease. This journey means that the film feels more like a study of a war-torn country, destroyed by years of conflict. With the quote mentioned above by Gareth Edwards, it is clear that this idea is the basis for this whole film and is a statement about military intervention.
What he also does admirably well is depict a world that is used to and grown tired of the situation. A great scene involves the two leads turning on the news in a motel room, seeing footage of the creatures under fire from the military. This would be a huge set-piece in most films of this type, but here the characters make small talk as the carnage goes on behind them. They've seen it all before. The viewer also gets to see the creatures straight away. The opening scene puts them right there in front of you. No big reveal at the end like Jaws and Cloverfield. They are just there. These creatures are here and have been for a while. Whats the big deal?
There are some lovely visual touches, all done by Edwards on his lap top. Infected Zone signs are a constant reminder of what is happening. A fighter jet floating along a river, a tanker on top of a mountain, both left to rot. This is a desperate part of the world that has given up.
At the centre of all of this though is a relationship. At the beginning of the film, they share little conversation, but as the film progresses and they near their destination, the experiences inevitably pull them closer together in scenes touchingly played by two unknown actors. It's all very believable though, it never feels as though Edwards is forcing these two together just to progress the story, it feels natural and is never overplayed. It is done so subtly that you don't really know it's happening. It's fantastically handled.
The creatures themselves look fantastic, I need to get my hands on whatever laptop Edwards has been using. The action when it happens is unnerving and jumpy, just as you would expect. It's the final sight of them in the film that deserve the most attention though. Edwards has created one of the most visually beautiful and moving scenes that I can remember seeing in any science-fiction film, swiftly followed by a brilliant human moment that is a lovely finish to the film and is still firmly implanted at the forefront of my memory.
So what we have here, is part war film, part monster movie, part road trip and part love story. There is no other way to explain it I'm afraid. It is not a 'jack of all trades, master of none' situation either. It ticks all the boxes, in all the categories, to the point of excellence.
It also makes you think, in the film the creatures are never called monsters, they never attack unless attacked first. Who are the monsters of the title then.....?
See it.
Tuesday 7 December 2010
FOUR CHRISTMASES (2008)
Right, so it's Sunday evening. I've been away for the weekend to Bury St Edmunds. Done some Christmas shopping. Feel a bit groggy from the night before. Get back to the sofa, use my two pizzas for 10 quid voucher at Pizza Express. What next? Well, the girlfriend fancies something 'Christmassy'. She doesn't fancy Black Christmas, I don't really want to go down the Miracle on 34th Street route. That leaves the movie channels, which leaves us at a crossroads. Home Alone 2 or Four Christmases? One I have seen, the other I have not. One I have fond memories of from growing up, the other I have only heard bad things. Classic family comedy v ropey romantic comedy.
Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.
Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.
You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.
And that is it really. Not much else.
I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.
It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?
What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.
Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.
The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?
It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?
Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?
If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.
Perhaps it was the hangover. It may have been my hurt at being let down by the recent re-watching of National Lampoon's vacation. It may have even been sub-conscious pressure from the better half. Or a narcissistic desire to review something I don't think I will like. Whatever it was, I chose Four Christmases as we tucked into a Sloppy Guiseppe and a Pollo Ad Astra.
Vince Vaughn (new rom-com regular) and Reese Witherspoon play a couple, a couple who are happy as they are. They don't fancy marriage, they don't fancy kids. They are a 21st century pairing, happy with what they have and don't want to go down the ruinous route that their parents undertook, which has consequently left them both with two separate families each. Two families per character, 4 in total, Christmas day, 4 different Christmas celebrations. And that is essentially the set-up. Once their usual selfish holiday plans are put to the sword due to fog, they have to each visit the different factions of one another's families.
You have his bad tempered, red neck dad, her flirtatious, evangelical Christian, cougar mum, she also has a kind caring father, but he must visit his mother who now has a sexual relationship with his old best friend.
And that is it really. Not much else.
I sensed that the film makers saw 'Meet The Parents' and thought to themselves, 'that's a good idea - let's do four mini versions of that in one movie'. And that is all we have here. There is physical comedy (which is, I must admit, comical and, at times, well done) and then gross out, cringey gags that are predictable and far from laugh out loud.
It isn't particularly funny, but then it isn't exactly devoid of humour altogether. I chuckled twice (the girlfriend counted), nothing more, nothing less. Is that what constitutes a comedy these days? I should certainly hope not. Spaceballs and Airplane! managed the same amount in the credits sequence. Have standards slipped that much?
What is most upsetting is the great actors that appear. Jon Voigt, Robert Duvall, Sissy Spacek. Has it really come to this? You should all know better than this. Please do not be tempted by De Niro's turn in Meet The Parents. He is better than that, and so are you.
Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn share screen time, and they have to resort to wrestling moves and kicks in the balls. These sequences are some of the only amusing moments, but these two bounced off one another in Swingers with dialogue that few people have emulated since. You two are 'money'. Please take me back to those times.
The film also tries to have a message. Please stop this. Don't do it, You can't have a gross out, inappropriate comedy for an hour and then decide that you want the main characters to fall in love all over again as they realise the error of their ways. I despised them at the beginning, what makes you think that I give a toss as to whether they live happily ever after and overcome the badly portrayed commitment phobias that they both have?
It could have been an interesting comedy, an insight into the modern family and how fractured Christmas has become. A study of the 21st century nuclear family or it dissolution. Instead it is an example of how fractured comedies have become, with little thought put into, and time spent on character and narrative. I criticised National Lampoons for it's broken and incomplete structure, and here we have the same problem, 20 years later. Has nothing changed?
Plus it doesn't feel remotely Christmassy. Four Christmases, not one but four, and not once does you ever make you long for Turkey, sprouts and bad telly. If it can't deliver on this, and it can't give you the laughs, what on earth is the point?
If this is what we have to resort to at this time every year, then Bah Humbug.
Sunday 5 December 2010
NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VACATION (1983)
Monday off work, freezing cold, spent the morning Christmas shopping and the afternoon traipsing round Hyde Park Winter Wonderland, occasionally stopping to drink mulled wine and spiced cider. One more sneaky pint of ale en route back and then on to the sofa to chill out before the long weekend comes to an end. What we need during these moments is something warm, something familiar, something safe. And so it was that I put on National Lampoon's Vacation.
It's a film that I remember very fondly from my childhood, my mum and dad loving it. I recall them cackling away as I sat there not getting the majority of the jokes and stirring uneasily during the 'love' scenes. However, despite the film being in my DVD cabinet for as long as I can recall, this was the first time I had watched it quite a while. So how does it stand up after all this time?
It stars Chevy Chase, Saturday Night Live regular, at a time when he was at the peak of his powers. Fresh from the success of Caddy Shack, he was everywhere and would go on to star in successful vehicles such as Fletch, Fletch lives, Funny Farm, Spies Like Us and another that I loved as a child, The Three Amigos. It's written by the late, and great, John Hughes who of course penned a whole host of classics, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Home Alone, The Breakfast Club, The Great Outdoors and the wonderful Planes, Trains and Automobiles. He also directed Uncle Buck and Weird Science.
Behind the camera you have Harold Ramis, also riding the rave of Caddy Shack, and before he would hit the heights of Groundhog Day and also helping to pen Ghostbusters with Dan Ackroyd.
All the ingredients are there.....
But it misses the mark.
On this viewing I must admit I barely laughed. There were one or two chortles, but nothing more than that. And before you say it, it's not because I've seen the film before and know all the gags. Put me in front of Airplane! and I'll laugh from start to finish, despite knowing every last joke inside out. The story is a nice premise and should work well, family setting off on a 2 week vacation to Wally World (basically Disney Land) but instead of flying there, they decide that a trip by road will be a great opportunity to all bond. Anyone who has ever journeyed anywhere by car as a family, on a trip further than the local supermarket, knows that this is a recipe for disaster, and this film is no exception. If something can go wrong, it inevitably does. Car crashes, deaths, nudity, toilet humour, financial woe, it's all there as the vacation hits a steadily downward trajectory.
The problem with the film is that it lacks any real cohesion. It feels like a collection of sketches, like you might find in Saturday Night Live. Can you imagine a film based on all the gags in the Armstrong and Miller show, but with all the characters the same throughout? That's what you have here. None of it seems to fit. Disaster, comic pay off, back on the road, next disaster, punchline, better back on the freeway. The punchlines themselves didn't feel quite as they should have either, as though they were too soon or too late. The secret to comedy, someone once said, is timing. They all missed a beat or two here.
It's a credit to Chase and some of the other cast, notably Beverly D'Angelo (Chase's on screen wife), Imogene Coca (bitter and grumpy Aunt Edna) and good old reliable Randy Quaid doing what he does best as cousin Eddie, that the film stands up at all. They do their best with what they have. Chase is naturally funny in a straight kind of way, and putting him in these increasingly nightmarish situations, is a good formula.
However, it's not until you get to the final 20 minutes that the film really settles, with Chase turning a little darker and John Candy turning up for a fun finale that ends on a happy note.
It all feels a little rushed as a whole though. It seems as though everyone involved thought that the most important thing was to get the film out there, regardless of what state it was in. It's not just the comic timing that is off here, this film seemed to happen too soon. All those involved, that I referred to above, went on to make and be involved in some fantastic films that are still talked about today. National Lampoon's Vacation came before they all knew exactly what they were doing, it's rough around the edges. But Ramis and Hughes were able to learn from this and not make the same mistakes on other projects.
Without this film, I doubt we would have Planes, Trains and Automobiles in the state that it is. For that film, which really is a classic, owes a lot to National Lampoon's Vacation, is essentially the same story but with tighter writing, better actors, funnier gags and a heart. If Hughes needed to make this film in order to make Planes, that's fine by me. And for that we should be eternally grateful.
It's a film that I remember very fondly from my childhood, my mum and dad loving it. I recall them cackling away as I sat there not getting the majority of the jokes and stirring uneasily during the 'love' scenes. However, despite the film being in my DVD cabinet for as long as I can recall, this was the first time I had watched it quite a while. So how does it stand up after all this time?
It stars Chevy Chase, Saturday Night Live regular, at a time when he was at the peak of his powers. Fresh from the success of Caddy Shack, he was everywhere and would go on to star in successful vehicles such as Fletch, Fletch lives, Funny Farm, Spies Like Us and another that I loved as a child, The Three Amigos. It's written by the late, and great, John Hughes who of course penned a whole host of classics, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Home Alone, The Breakfast Club, The Great Outdoors and the wonderful Planes, Trains and Automobiles. He also directed Uncle Buck and Weird Science.
Behind the camera you have Harold Ramis, also riding the rave of Caddy Shack, and before he would hit the heights of Groundhog Day and also helping to pen Ghostbusters with Dan Ackroyd.
All the ingredients are there.....
But it misses the mark.
On this viewing I must admit I barely laughed. There were one or two chortles, but nothing more than that. And before you say it, it's not because I've seen the film before and know all the gags. Put me in front of Airplane! and I'll laugh from start to finish, despite knowing every last joke inside out. The story is a nice premise and should work well, family setting off on a 2 week vacation to Wally World (basically Disney Land) but instead of flying there, they decide that a trip by road will be a great opportunity to all bond. Anyone who has ever journeyed anywhere by car as a family, on a trip further than the local supermarket, knows that this is a recipe for disaster, and this film is no exception. If something can go wrong, it inevitably does. Car crashes, deaths, nudity, toilet humour, financial woe, it's all there as the vacation hits a steadily downward trajectory.
The problem with the film is that it lacks any real cohesion. It feels like a collection of sketches, like you might find in Saturday Night Live. Can you imagine a film based on all the gags in the Armstrong and Miller show, but with all the characters the same throughout? That's what you have here. None of it seems to fit. Disaster, comic pay off, back on the road, next disaster, punchline, better back on the freeway. The punchlines themselves didn't feel quite as they should have either, as though they were too soon or too late. The secret to comedy, someone once said, is timing. They all missed a beat or two here.
It's a credit to Chase and some of the other cast, notably Beverly D'Angelo (Chase's on screen wife), Imogene Coca (bitter and grumpy Aunt Edna) and good old reliable Randy Quaid doing what he does best as cousin Eddie, that the film stands up at all. They do their best with what they have. Chase is naturally funny in a straight kind of way, and putting him in these increasingly nightmarish situations, is a good formula.
However, it's not until you get to the final 20 minutes that the film really settles, with Chase turning a little darker and John Candy turning up for a fun finale that ends on a happy note.
It all feels a little rushed as a whole though. It seems as though everyone involved thought that the most important thing was to get the film out there, regardless of what state it was in. It's not just the comic timing that is off here, this film seemed to happen too soon. All those involved, that I referred to above, went on to make and be involved in some fantastic films that are still talked about today. National Lampoon's Vacation came before they all knew exactly what they were doing, it's rough around the edges. But Ramis and Hughes were able to learn from this and not make the same mistakes on other projects.
Without this film, I doubt we would have Planes, Trains and Automobiles in the state that it is. For that film, which really is a classic, owes a lot to National Lampoon's Vacation, is essentially the same story but with tighter writing, better actors, funnier gags and a heart. If Hughes needed to make this film in order to make Planes, that's fine by me. And for that we should be eternally grateful.
Friday 3 December 2010
LIFE BLOOD (2009)
Another review for www.film-news.co.uk .......
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Life-Blood&nItemID=218
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Life-Blood&nItemID=218
ZMD - ZOMBIES OF MASS DESTRUCTION (2009)
Have a look at my review for the site http://www.film-news.co.uk/
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Zombies-Of-Mass-Destruction&nItemID=209
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Zombies-Of-Mass-Destruction&nItemID=209
Tuesday 30 November 2010
2012 (2009)
Sunday night in, cooked paella, burnt my finger in the process (got an obscene blister on my left index finger to prove it), watched Spurs get a glorious last minute winner against Liverpool. What next? I entrusted my evening's entertainment in the Movie channels and was served up Roland Emmerich's latest attempt at destroying the planet, 2012. Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, Universal Soldier, Stargate. Surely I would be in safe hands.
Emmerich doesn't waste much time, with his writing or setting up the plot, as we are thrown straight into the problem facing planet earth. An Indian scientist discovers that solar flares are going to turn the core of the earth into free-flowing, magma which will destabilise the Earth's crust. Some scientific mumbo jumbo is spouted, and then Emmerich moves on to meeting the characters, satisfied that he has done enough to convince the viewer of what is happening.
The characters are the usual, generic, stereotypical people that these films always tend to throw up with relationships that are broken or need to be renewed. A father who doesn't do enough for his kids, a young scientist who just wants to make a different, blah, blah, blah.
So, tragedy explained, people to be affected are introduced, problems to be resolved, stop me if you've seen this before.
Having said that, when I settled down to watch this, I wasn't doing so because I thought I might get an interesting character piece acted out in sonnets or rhyming couplets. No, I knew I was going to get to see our planet destroyed, and was therefore getting a bit twitchy with all this exposition. 'Come on Roland, blow something up'.
And he did. A limo chase through California as buildings and freeways collapse, gaping chasms open up with lorries and people falling to their death, explosions, fire, it's all there. Bit more plot, bit of family interaction acted out in a wooden manner. Then we have a giant super volcano, this time involving a camper van narrowly avoiding a plummet into the Earth's core. Bit more talking. Then Vegas gets destroyed while, guess what, a plane just manages to escape before it's too late. Honestly, how many times can the same people, in different vehicles just manage to survive and be the last people to get out of a scrape alive? Wheels just managing to avoid a crack, just manage to squeak under a collapsing road, just manage to turn the engines on in time to regain altitude.
Perhaps I'm being too fussy. The effects do look good, but so did the effects in The Day After Tomorrow, and in all of his other films. How about something new, something fresh? Roland, can you here me? Oh sorry, you're in the process of rendering a tidal wave to kill the president.
I know what you're thinking, 'Come on Ollie, what did you expect?', and you're right, why should he do something fresh, all those films have made money, this one made a killing too, but how about having an action movie with a bit of depth? This film must have one of the largest death counts ever, but not once do we ever feel sadness, or emotion at the loss of life. One character loses her husband, and stepfather to her children, in one of the final scenes, then minutes later she is kissing some other bloke. 'What about Gordon'? you ask. 'Who's Gordon?'
I better mention the cast, I suppose, if only to say that they should know better than this. John Cusack, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson, Oliver Platt. Come on people. They must have got some decent money, which I do not begrudge them, but at some point during the shoot, surely someone could have stood up and suggested that one or two lines be subjected to a re-write. And here's a tip, if you are going to cast someone as a Russian, perhaps it would be good to audition for people who are able to do Russian accents, or if that's a stretch, how about an actual Russian person?
It's two hours 30 minutes long, an overblown, saggy film with some nonsense plot which alludes to the Bible, used to try and blow more stuff up along the way, as it propels towards a 'moral of the story' ending that has all the emotional impact of a soggy piece of origami.
However, people want to see these films, the box office supports that, and it is fun, in a totally disposable way, like Super Noodles, it does a job but you can't say your remotely satisfied afterwards. Wouldn't it be nice if we weren't treated as complete idiots though and given something with a bit more flesh on the bones. Otherwise, it could be the end of the cinema world....
Emmerich doesn't waste much time, with his writing or setting up the plot, as we are thrown straight into the problem facing planet earth. An Indian scientist discovers that solar flares are going to turn the core of the earth into free-flowing, magma which will destabilise the Earth's crust. Some scientific mumbo jumbo is spouted, and then Emmerich moves on to meeting the characters, satisfied that he has done enough to convince the viewer of what is happening.
The characters are the usual, generic, stereotypical people that these films always tend to throw up with relationships that are broken or need to be renewed. A father who doesn't do enough for his kids, a young scientist who just wants to make a different, blah, blah, blah.
So, tragedy explained, people to be affected are introduced, problems to be resolved, stop me if you've seen this before.
Having said that, when I settled down to watch this, I wasn't doing so because I thought I might get an interesting character piece acted out in sonnets or rhyming couplets. No, I knew I was going to get to see our planet destroyed, and was therefore getting a bit twitchy with all this exposition. 'Come on Roland, blow something up'.
And he did. A limo chase through California as buildings and freeways collapse, gaping chasms open up with lorries and people falling to their death, explosions, fire, it's all there. Bit more plot, bit of family interaction acted out in a wooden manner. Then we have a giant super volcano, this time involving a camper van narrowly avoiding a plummet into the Earth's core. Bit more talking. Then Vegas gets destroyed while, guess what, a plane just manages to escape before it's too late. Honestly, how many times can the same people, in different vehicles just manage to survive and be the last people to get out of a scrape alive? Wheels just managing to avoid a crack, just manage to squeak under a collapsing road, just manage to turn the engines on in time to regain altitude.
Perhaps I'm being too fussy. The effects do look good, but so did the effects in The Day After Tomorrow, and in all of his other films. How about something new, something fresh? Roland, can you here me? Oh sorry, you're in the process of rendering a tidal wave to kill the president.
I know what you're thinking, 'Come on Ollie, what did you expect?', and you're right, why should he do something fresh, all those films have made money, this one made a killing too, but how about having an action movie with a bit of depth? This film must have one of the largest death counts ever, but not once do we ever feel sadness, or emotion at the loss of life. One character loses her husband, and stepfather to her children, in one of the final scenes, then minutes later she is kissing some other bloke. 'What about Gordon'? you ask. 'Who's Gordon?'
I better mention the cast, I suppose, if only to say that they should know better than this. John Cusack, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson, Oliver Platt. Come on people. They must have got some decent money, which I do not begrudge them, but at some point during the shoot, surely someone could have stood up and suggested that one or two lines be subjected to a re-write. And here's a tip, if you are going to cast someone as a Russian, perhaps it would be good to audition for people who are able to do Russian accents, or if that's a stretch, how about an actual Russian person?
It's two hours 30 minutes long, an overblown, saggy film with some nonsense plot which alludes to the Bible, used to try and blow more stuff up along the way, as it propels towards a 'moral of the story' ending that has all the emotional impact of a soggy piece of origami.
However, people want to see these films, the box office supports that, and it is fun, in a totally disposable way, like Super Noodles, it does a job but you can't say your remotely satisfied afterwards. Wouldn't it be nice if we weren't treated as complete idiots though and given something with a bit more flesh on the bones. Otherwise, it could be the end of the cinema world....
ANTICHRIST (2009)
I had this film in my possession from Lovefilm for a long time. A very long time. I just couldn't get round to watching it, and I can only presume it's down to the furore and controversy that surrounded it's release. Everywhere you turned there was outcry, the Daily Mail wanted it banned, it didn't even need to have seen it, they just wanted it gone and no one else to watch it. Even those people who liked it, warned that those seeing it needed to do so with caution and trepidation. If it was a packet of cigarettes it would have a horrific picture of a tar covered lung on it's front.
So with a day off work, and Call of Duty: Black Ops completed I decided that now was the time to get this film out of the way and see what all the fuss was about.
The synopsis of the film is told beautifully by Lars Von Trier himself with a wonderful prologue shot in slow-motion black and white with classical music rousing the viewer, involving a couple (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) having passionate abandoned sex (containing a close up of full penetrative sex - just to give you a flavour of where this film goes) while there young son slowly climbs out of the cot, unknown to them, and playfully wanders to an open window and his death. It's a fantastic introduction to the film and really takes your breath away. Von Trier had me eating out of the palm of his hand.
The film then becomes a study of guilt and grief, with stages of the film split into chapters, each referring to a stage of the grief process. These moments are played out very well by Dafoe's character, a therapist by trade, trying to help his wife Gainsbourg through the trauma. The tone is very contemplative with Dafoe being his simple best and Gainsbourg's moment's of quiet thought interrupted by howling scenes of grief. At the halfway point of the film, I was enjoying myself. Good acting, nice creative direction by a someone hailed as a great of European Cinema, and something to stimulate the grey matter.
Then it all goes a bit....well....er....somewhere else.
Dafoe's 'He' decides that Gainsbourg's 'She' must confront her fears and they retreat to 'Eden' a cabin in the woods where She had been on a retreat a year earlier, and where something strange had happened previously, to do so. Therapist games, whispered conversations and freaky, lustful sex occur and all of a sudden I am in a very different place to where I was 45 minutes ago.
I consider myself an intelligent film goer, I like to look for alternative meanings and try to decipher potential allegories from directors and writers, but I'm afraid I just didn't get this. From being an interesting and emotional insight into guilt and grief, I all of a sudden found myself in the middle of extreme, sexual violence, portrayed at it's most graphic, alongside examples of the cruelty of nature (including a talking fox that sounded a lot like Christian Bale's Batman), disturbing and arresting imagery and misogynistic politics.
I wanted to get it. In fact, I'm sitting here trying to get it now, but I just can't. It was interesting, it was well made, it was well acted, but at the end of the film I sat there thinking' What have I just watched?' and 'Was there any need for blood instead of semen?'.
Would I recommend it? No, I wouldn't. But having said that, if you can stomach a bit of violence, and aren't easily appalled, I would see it, because it is interesting, and you may get everything that Von Trier was trying to say. You may even think the Fox is the greatest talking animal in the history of cinema. But be warned it is a very, very, very tough watch. And for me, with very little reward.
So with a day off work, and Call of Duty: Black Ops completed I decided that now was the time to get this film out of the way and see what all the fuss was about.
The synopsis of the film is told beautifully by Lars Von Trier himself with a wonderful prologue shot in slow-motion black and white with classical music rousing the viewer, involving a couple (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) having passionate abandoned sex (containing a close up of full penetrative sex - just to give you a flavour of where this film goes) while there young son slowly climbs out of the cot, unknown to them, and playfully wanders to an open window and his death. It's a fantastic introduction to the film and really takes your breath away. Von Trier had me eating out of the palm of his hand.
The film then becomes a study of guilt and grief, with stages of the film split into chapters, each referring to a stage of the grief process. These moments are played out very well by Dafoe's character, a therapist by trade, trying to help his wife Gainsbourg through the trauma. The tone is very contemplative with Dafoe being his simple best and Gainsbourg's moment's of quiet thought interrupted by howling scenes of grief. At the halfway point of the film, I was enjoying myself. Good acting, nice creative direction by a someone hailed as a great of European Cinema, and something to stimulate the grey matter.
Then it all goes a bit....well....er....somewhere else.
Dafoe's 'He' decides that Gainsbourg's 'She' must confront her fears and they retreat to 'Eden' a cabin in the woods where She had been on a retreat a year earlier, and where something strange had happened previously, to do so. Therapist games, whispered conversations and freaky, lustful sex occur and all of a sudden I am in a very different place to where I was 45 minutes ago.
I consider myself an intelligent film goer, I like to look for alternative meanings and try to decipher potential allegories from directors and writers, but I'm afraid I just didn't get this. From being an interesting and emotional insight into guilt and grief, I all of a sudden found myself in the middle of extreme, sexual violence, portrayed at it's most graphic, alongside examples of the cruelty of nature (including a talking fox that sounded a lot like Christian Bale's Batman), disturbing and arresting imagery and misogynistic politics.
I wanted to get it. In fact, I'm sitting here trying to get it now, but I just can't. It was interesting, it was well made, it was well acted, but at the end of the film I sat there thinking' What have I just watched?' and 'Was there any need for blood instead of semen?'.
Would I recommend it? No, I wouldn't. But having said that, if you can stomach a bit of violence, and aren't easily appalled, I would see it, because it is interesting, and you may get everything that Von Trier was trying to say. You may even think the Fox is the greatest talking animal in the history of cinema. But be warned it is a very, very, very tough watch. And for me, with very little reward.
Monday 29 November 2010
AN EDUCATION (2009)
Finally I managed to get back on to my Lovefilm choices, they had somehow taken a bit of a back seat and I was starting to wonder whether my monthly outlay was worth it. However, when An Education landed on my desk at work I knew I had to make some time to see it. Plus it was one that I could easily persuade the girlfriend to watch.
Smothered with critical praise and award nominations after it's release last year, it's the simple coming of age story of a 16 year old girl (Carey Mulligan) in 1961 Suburban London, on track for a stellar education at Oxford University before she falls for the seductive charms of of Peter Sarsgaard's older man. Her life changes and she finds herself at a crossroads, academic education or 'The University of Life'.
Based on the memoirs of British journalist Lynn Barber, and the screenplay written by British novelist Nick Hornby, it's the acting cast that make this film such a pleasure to watch and make it worthy of the praise that it has received. Carey Mulligan, as Jenny, the young girl and lead character is truly fantastic. She was up for an Oscar, and could not have been far off grabbing it, for her portrayal of a girl going from wide eyed innocence to thinking she knows it all as she wrestles with the right way to grow into her adult life. She is equally at ease at playing a geeky, cello playing college girl as she is as a maturing socialite wining and dining in Paris. It's her breakthrough performance and it's clear she has a bright future ahead of her.
Alfred Molina, as Jenny's father is once again fantastic. He represents the now very dated views of the only way that a woman can succeed is to excel academically or to meet a successful man. Even though his opinions are practically prehistoric and is often seen as the baddie of the piece, it is a testament to Molina that he manages to be so likeable. You also feel a great deal of sympathy for him as he is convinced that there is little worth doing outside of their suburban bubble, while Jenny boasts of eating great food, and drinking fine wine. He wants the best for his daughter but he does not know what that is.
Peter Sarsgaard is no doubt in line for the big time as well based on this performance. He is charming and appealing as Jenny's (much) older suitor David, despite the relationship itself being undoubtedly open to misinterpretation. His slick manners and the ease with which he deals with people seduces Jenny despite it being clear that he is not all that he seems and the way he earns his crust is also far from honest.
The cast list goes on - Dominic Cooper as David's good friend and 'business partner', does plenty with what he is given. Like David he is amiable and fun, but you are exposed to moments of aggression that leave you in no doubt that he is capable of being far from nice. Rosamund Pike is good as Cooper's ditsy wife, representing a possible glimpse as to what Jenny's life will become if she choose to enrol in 'The University of Life'.
Then just when you think that the roster must be complete, Emma Thompson turns up as the Headmistress of Jenny's school. She only appears for two scenes but it's a worthy addition and she pulls it off without trying.
The film is well made too, Lone Scherfig doing a tidy job with the material, but she admirably pulls off a reconstruction of 1960's London. Each old car and dated shop front making you feel as though you are there, transported back in time. Nick Hornby must get a mention as well for the screenplay. Having not read the source material I'm not sure how good an adaptation it is, but there is enough good stuff in there to suggest he may have a new penning career there for the taking.
It's not all positives though, there are some issues that stop it from being as good as it promises to be. Once the relationship takes a turn for the worst and Jenny's choices are shown to be far from right, things become very dark very swiftly. However, just as quickly as things went badly, they all turn around for the better again. All of a sudden. An entire academic year is condensed into 5 minutes of screen time and we all live happily ever after. It's not that I dislike a happy ending (although they do irritate me), it's just that this all felt too neat. She learnt her lesson, made it right, and everything is sweetness again. All in the space of ten minutes.
Also, despite the performances being brilliant, the characters themselves are slightly two dimensional, seemingly there to represent a particular point of view of political stance. Only Dominic Cooper and Peter Sarsgaard, other than Jenny herself, have anything resembling depth.
These criticisms though do not detract from what is essentially a lovely, very watchable film, with a brilliant cast, presenting important subject matter in a polished slice of cinema.
We can all relate to it, we've all been a young person convinced that we all know better than anyone else, only to be shown that our innocent naivety will see us caught out by someone else more wily, leaving us to eat our words in the end.
Smothered with critical praise and award nominations after it's release last year, it's the simple coming of age story of a 16 year old girl (Carey Mulligan) in 1961 Suburban London, on track for a stellar education at Oxford University before she falls for the seductive charms of of Peter Sarsgaard's older man. Her life changes and she finds herself at a crossroads, academic education or 'The University of Life'.
Based on the memoirs of British journalist Lynn Barber, and the screenplay written by British novelist Nick Hornby, it's the acting cast that make this film such a pleasure to watch and make it worthy of the praise that it has received. Carey Mulligan, as Jenny, the young girl and lead character is truly fantastic. She was up for an Oscar, and could not have been far off grabbing it, for her portrayal of a girl going from wide eyed innocence to thinking she knows it all as she wrestles with the right way to grow into her adult life. She is equally at ease at playing a geeky, cello playing college girl as she is as a maturing socialite wining and dining in Paris. It's her breakthrough performance and it's clear she has a bright future ahead of her.
Alfred Molina, as Jenny's father is once again fantastic. He represents the now very dated views of the only way that a woman can succeed is to excel academically or to meet a successful man. Even though his opinions are practically prehistoric and is often seen as the baddie of the piece, it is a testament to Molina that he manages to be so likeable. You also feel a great deal of sympathy for him as he is convinced that there is little worth doing outside of their suburban bubble, while Jenny boasts of eating great food, and drinking fine wine. He wants the best for his daughter but he does not know what that is.
Peter Sarsgaard is no doubt in line for the big time as well based on this performance. He is charming and appealing as Jenny's (much) older suitor David, despite the relationship itself being undoubtedly open to misinterpretation. His slick manners and the ease with which he deals with people seduces Jenny despite it being clear that he is not all that he seems and the way he earns his crust is also far from honest.
The cast list goes on - Dominic Cooper as David's good friend and 'business partner', does plenty with what he is given. Like David he is amiable and fun, but you are exposed to moments of aggression that leave you in no doubt that he is capable of being far from nice. Rosamund Pike is good as Cooper's ditsy wife, representing a possible glimpse as to what Jenny's life will become if she choose to enrol in 'The University of Life'.
Then just when you think that the roster must be complete, Emma Thompson turns up as the Headmistress of Jenny's school. She only appears for two scenes but it's a worthy addition and she pulls it off without trying.
The film is well made too, Lone Scherfig doing a tidy job with the material, but she admirably pulls off a reconstruction of 1960's London. Each old car and dated shop front making you feel as though you are there, transported back in time. Nick Hornby must get a mention as well for the screenplay. Having not read the source material I'm not sure how good an adaptation it is, but there is enough good stuff in there to suggest he may have a new penning career there for the taking.
It's not all positives though, there are some issues that stop it from being as good as it promises to be. Once the relationship takes a turn for the worst and Jenny's choices are shown to be far from right, things become very dark very swiftly. However, just as quickly as things went badly, they all turn around for the better again. All of a sudden. An entire academic year is condensed into 5 minutes of screen time and we all live happily ever after. It's not that I dislike a happy ending (although they do irritate me), it's just that this all felt too neat. She learnt her lesson, made it right, and everything is sweetness again. All in the space of ten minutes.
Also, despite the performances being brilliant, the characters themselves are slightly two dimensional, seemingly there to represent a particular point of view of political stance. Only Dominic Cooper and Peter Sarsgaard, other than Jenny herself, have anything resembling depth.
These criticisms though do not detract from what is essentially a lovely, very watchable film, with a brilliant cast, presenting important subject matter in a polished slice of cinema.
We can all relate to it, we've all been a young person convinced that we all know better than anyone else, only to be shown that our innocent naivety will see us caught out by someone else more wily, leaving us to eat our words in the end.
Friday 26 November 2010
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
Last Sunday I finally managed to do what I have been threatening to do for a long time - go to a Secret Cinema event. Ever since I first heard about this brilliant idea I've been desperate to go, but it was only recently that I managed to pull my finger out and actually do something about it.
More on the Secret Cinema itself later, but by the time the mystery and intrigue evaporated and the opening credits of Milos Foreman's mid-seventies film began, I really was chuffed to bits. Not because it is such a classic and I'd love to sit through it again, but because, and I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, I have never actually seen the film. The closest I have come is when I saw the play at the West End starring Christian Slater which was very good and only made me feel more guilt for not having seen the film, or read the book by Ken Kesey for that matter.
Set in a mental institution is tells the story of R P McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) on the day of his admittance. What unfolds is at times a tale of liberation, at others a duel of minds and finally at others a bold statement about the use of certain medical procedures in these hospitals.
McMurphy has been in and out of prison, the most recent crime being statutory rape, when he decides to feign madness in an attempt to get away from a life behind bars for an easier life in an asylum. He gets his way and is put on a ward with a whole host of colourful characters and he goes about attempting to make himself as popular among the other patients as possible. This opening stage of the film is very light-hearted, with the madness of the patients being present humorously, almost giving them all a childlike innocence. McMurprhy's attempts to win them over are also comedic, sort of like a class clown at school attempting to prove his worth.
This all plays out nicely until it becomes clear that life in the Asylum is not as nice and easy as he had hoped. He becomes locked in a conflict with Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), who oversees the ward. He tries to fight but its clear that she rules through fear and has control over all of the patience. McMurphy's attempts to overcome her and her stranglehold get more desperate, confrontational and violent until it all results in horrific consequences.
Nicholson and Fletcher give this battle a real heightened impact, they do not confront each other physically (until very late on) but each stare exchanged between the two of them ramps up the tension as they allude to the violence and evil that both are capable of. There is both a hatred and a mutual respect. A battle between good and evil, like a fantasy epic, but played out in the confines of a hospital ward.
It's almost as if Nicholson was born for this role. A massive personality, infectious, one moment hilariously zany, the next brooding with a malicious intensity. He has turned in some tremendous performances over the years in some fantastic films but I do think is the best I have seen of him. Narrowly pushing ahead of Jack Torrence in The Shining and The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman.
The acting is a real strong point of the film. However it isn't limited to just the two leads. There are some (now) very famous faces here that deliver top performances. Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd and Sydney Lassick all play patients on the ward and do so brilliantly. The over the top personalities of DeVito and Lloyd, in particular, are perfectly suited to the tone of this film. Each character has an arc, you join them on a journey through the film as the character develops and changes. It's not often that a supporting cast and characters are so fundamental to the progression of the story. I really developed an emotional attachment to all of the characters on show with a sequence containing a 'bonding field trip spontaneously organised by McMurphy, behind particularly heart warming. You can't stop yourself from grinning as these deranged individuals all go fishing while McMurphy tries to get some alone time with this girlfriend.
Milos Foreman has put together a film here that takes you through the full range of emotions. As I mentioned earlier, there are some very funny moments as the patients lark around during therapy, mocking one another and trying the patience of Nurse Radchet. Then the film takes a darker turn as it becomes a study of control before we are exposed to the true sadness behind the inmates, the majority of them there not against their will and the methods the staff use to keep order within the ward. Throughout there are very touching and liberating scenes as McMurphy helps the others to get one over on nurse Ratched. One scene I particularly enjoyed was when Ratched refused them permission to watch the World Series, so in response McMurphy leads the troops in watching a black tv screen while they cheer on an imaginary game of baseball. This topsy-turvy tone is one of the strengths of the film. You never know where it's going. The stark contrast between the tones mean that the funny bits become funnier, the touching moments really get you and the hard-hitting, shocking moments towards the films arresting and troubling climax, really do impact on you. if you make a mental note of where you are at the start of the film, then compare that to how you feel at the end, you really know that you've been taken on a bit of a ride.
Now that I've seen it, I can see why people have raved about it and consider it a classic. Made with real thought by Foreman, acted tremendously by it's cast, a career defining performance from Jack Nicholson ably supported by Louise Fletcher and others, it really is tremendous. It's also a very important film for the time it was made, exploring issues of mental illness, lobotomy and electrolysis treatment, it asks the question is anyone really crazy and does the treatment of the time really do any good. Although these issues are not as relevant in today's society with the advances of medicine and treatment it is still a very interesting commentary on the time and deserves to be seen for that reason and also because, aside from that, it is a masterpiece.
I can not recommend the Secret Cinema set up enough. I'm not going to go into too much detail because the pleasure that I found in it was all to do with the complete mystery of what I was entering into. If I were to give away what happened it may detract from people's enjoyment of future events. All I will say is that it is a brilliant way to enjoy a film in an incredibly interesting and interactive way and to see classic movies in different and compelling locations. The organisers transport you into the film and it's world with real care and attention to detail, so that by the time you settle down to watch, you are a part of what is happening on screen. - http://www.secretcinema.org/
More on the Secret Cinema itself later, but by the time the mystery and intrigue evaporated and the opening credits of Milos Foreman's mid-seventies film began, I really was chuffed to bits. Not because it is such a classic and I'd love to sit through it again, but because, and I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, I have never actually seen the film. The closest I have come is when I saw the play at the West End starring Christian Slater which was very good and only made me feel more guilt for not having seen the film, or read the book by Ken Kesey for that matter.
Set in a mental institution is tells the story of R P McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) on the day of his admittance. What unfolds is at times a tale of liberation, at others a duel of minds and finally at others a bold statement about the use of certain medical procedures in these hospitals.
McMurphy has been in and out of prison, the most recent crime being statutory rape, when he decides to feign madness in an attempt to get away from a life behind bars for an easier life in an asylum. He gets his way and is put on a ward with a whole host of colourful characters and he goes about attempting to make himself as popular among the other patients as possible. This opening stage of the film is very light-hearted, with the madness of the patients being present humorously, almost giving them all a childlike innocence. McMurprhy's attempts to win them over are also comedic, sort of like a class clown at school attempting to prove his worth.
This all plays out nicely until it becomes clear that life in the Asylum is not as nice and easy as he had hoped. He becomes locked in a conflict with Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), who oversees the ward. He tries to fight but its clear that she rules through fear and has control over all of the patience. McMurphy's attempts to overcome her and her stranglehold get more desperate, confrontational and violent until it all results in horrific consequences.
Nicholson and Fletcher give this battle a real heightened impact, they do not confront each other physically (until very late on) but each stare exchanged between the two of them ramps up the tension as they allude to the violence and evil that both are capable of. There is both a hatred and a mutual respect. A battle between good and evil, like a fantasy epic, but played out in the confines of a hospital ward.
It's almost as if Nicholson was born for this role. A massive personality, infectious, one moment hilariously zany, the next brooding with a malicious intensity. He has turned in some tremendous performances over the years in some fantastic films but I do think is the best I have seen of him. Narrowly pushing ahead of Jack Torrence in The Shining and The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman.
The acting is a real strong point of the film. However it isn't limited to just the two leads. There are some (now) very famous faces here that deliver top performances. Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd and Sydney Lassick all play patients on the ward and do so brilliantly. The over the top personalities of DeVito and Lloyd, in particular, are perfectly suited to the tone of this film. Each character has an arc, you join them on a journey through the film as the character develops and changes. It's not often that a supporting cast and characters are so fundamental to the progression of the story. I really developed an emotional attachment to all of the characters on show with a sequence containing a 'bonding field trip spontaneously organised by McMurphy, behind particularly heart warming. You can't stop yourself from grinning as these deranged individuals all go fishing while McMurphy tries to get some alone time with this girlfriend.
Milos Foreman has put together a film here that takes you through the full range of emotions. As I mentioned earlier, there are some very funny moments as the patients lark around during therapy, mocking one another and trying the patience of Nurse Radchet. Then the film takes a darker turn as it becomes a study of control before we are exposed to the true sadness behind the inmates, the majority of them there not against their will and the methods the staff use to keep order within the ward. Throughout there are very touching and liberating scenes as McMurphy helps the others to get one over on nurse Ratched. One scene I particularly enjoyed was when Ratched refused them permission to watch the World Series, so in response McMurphy leads the troops in watching a black tv screen while they cheer on an imaginary game of baseball. This topsy-turvy tone is one of the strengths of the film. You never know where it's going. The stark contrast between the tones mean that the funny bits become funnier, the touching moments really get you and the hard-hitting, shocking moments towards the films arresting and troubling climax, really do impact on you. if you make a mental note of where you are at the start of the film, then compare that to how you feel at the end, you really know that you've been taken on a bit of a ride.
Now that I've seen it, I can see why people have raved about it and consider it a classic. Made with real thought by Foreman, acted tremendously by it's cast, a career defining performance from Jack Nicholson ably supported by Louise Fletcher and others, it really is tremendous. It's also a very important film for the time it was made, exploring issues of mental illness, lobotomy and electrolysis treatment, it asks the question is anyone really crazy and does the treatment of the time really do any good. Although these issues are not as relevant in today's society with the advances of medicine and treatment it is still a very interesting commentary on the time and deserves to be seen for that reason and also because, aside from that, it is a masterpiece.
I can not recommend the Secret Cinema set up enough. I'm not going to go into too much detail because the pleasure that I found in it was all to do with the complete mystery of what I was entering into. If I were to give away what happened it may detract from people's enjoyment of future events. All I will say is that it is a brilliant way to enjoy a film in an incredibly interesting and interactive way and to see classic movies in different and compelling locations. The organisers transport you into the film and it's world with real care and attention to detail, so that by the time you settle down to watch, you are a part of what is happening on screen. - http://www.secretcinema.org/
Wednesday 24 November 2010
HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1 (2010)
In the world of Harry Potter there are two types of people, those who can practice magic (Wizards) and those who don't have the powers (Muggles). This dual society extends to the real world as well. Those who love Potter and his adventures and those who have not fallen under the spell of J K Rowling's creation (or is it really her creation...?).
Having read all the books and seen (and enjoyed) all of the films thus far, I firmly fall within the first category. So with this in mind, there was never any danger of me not seeing this film in it's opening weekend.
Bill Nighy's Minister of Magic sets the the tone of the story, and the film for that matter, in the opening moments. 'There are dark times ahead'. The penultimate film in the series (the final book being split into two halves) is indeed the darkest yet, although I appreciate that this has been said of every sequel in the series so far. I'll do my best to avoid any spoilers, but it picks up where the previous film, The Half-Blood Prince, left off with Voldemort growing stronger and the Death Eaters seizing a firmer grip on power and stepping up their efforts to kill Harry Potter.
Although the story is familiar, this film is very unlike any other in the series so far. Fairly early on in the film, the three main characters, Harry, Hermione and Ron become separated from their protectors and consequently have to fend for themselves. This means that the usual locales of Hogwarts and the like are not seen at all and much of the film is played out in sweeping rural landscapes, beautifully presented by director David Yates (at the helm since film 5) with some earlier scenes taken place in Central London. These alien surroundings give this film a freshness and a maturity.
The action set-pieces are superbly done, including a thrilling chase through the Dartford Tunnel and a great sequence where the Ministry of Magic is infiltrated, to both comedic and exciting dramatic effect. However these set-pieces are not as frequent as in the other films with long stretches without any magic or visual effects. The reason being that at the centre of this film is the three characters and little else: by breaking the final book into two halves, the makers have been given the opportunity to use this episode to build gradually towards the finale and in doing so they can really explore the relationship between Harry, Hermione and Ron. I suspect that younger fans of the series will be disappointed and perhaps lost at the long stretches of contemplative dialogue, but in doing this, Yates and co have made a proper film. A study into teenagers growing up, adult issues of jealousy are explored, coming to terms with death and the horrible occurrences that are taking place. This really is grim stuff. We have spent 6 films with the three of them, put them through all sorts, but we get to know them more in the space of this 146 minute film that all of those put together.
The actors themselves have come a long way since being cute but annoying child actors in the Philosopher's Stone. Daniel Radcliffe is probably the weaker of the three, although he is given the worst dialogue with moany mournful lines that act as exposition. Emma Watson is turning into a very good actress. it remains to be seen whether she will continue with the craft but she plays Hermione with enthusiasm but also a sadness. One scene in particular at the beginning of the film involving her parents is particularly heartbreaking, as well as a very touching scene where Harry and Hermione dance, trying to put all the troubles to the back of their minds. Rupert Grint is easily the most improved. Gone is the wooden, clunky delivery, he is now polished using facial expressions very proficiently to convey a frustrated teenager, struggling to understand his emotions and just wanting the quiet life. These performances have to be strong as they carry the film for the length of the substantial mid-section.
The full cast really is a who's who of British actors. Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as Voldemort, a real baddie, none of this pantomime nonsense. He really reminded me of Darth Vader with his ruthless blood lust. We are under no illusion that should Voldemort be successful, then the world will be in a lot of trouble. Helena Bonham-Carter also has great fun as the nightmarish Bellatrix Lestrange, the truly psychotic sidekick to Lord Voldemort. Plus it is always a joy to see Alan Rickman as Snape, although you don't get much of him. You can only hope he comes to the fore in the final film.
The darkness is not all about the actors though. The rise of the new Ministry smacks of the rise of fascism and it's propaganda. There are also some very tough scenes to watch that include torture, murder and pure evil. There's blood in this film, more than you would expect, and there are some properly scary moments, particularly for children. It really is not all plain sailing. As we get to the end, there is a moment that really hit me hard, proper tears let me tell you.
Ah the ending....I've heard some people call it a non-ending. The sort of cliff hanger you would have at the end of a tv
I loved this film. It really felt like a proper grown up flick, a character study, almost an art-house film. The film makers, and the cast, have done such a fine job with this film, made it with great care and good intentions, that the decision to spilt the film in two has been proved to be the right one. To have attempted to shoe-horn the final book, in it's entirety, into a 3 hour film would have meant that we would not have been taken with on the quest with Harry, Hermione and Ron and the feeling of dread as the finale approaches would not have had half the impact. This, and the decision to not make it 3D (a change of tact from the studio's original position, which must have resulted in financial loss), clearly proves that Yates and co really want to ensure that these films do the rest of series justice. They only get one shot at this.
As for the Muggles, if you've managed to resist the magic of the films and story so far, I doubt I'll be able to change your minds here. I suppose there really is no saving you.
I saw the film at the Everyman Cinema in Baker Street. First time I've been to this two-screen picture house but I'd thoroughly recommend it. Nice and comfy seats, good snacks and lovely bar to have a drink before and after. A great Central London alternative to the Sin-e-world mulitplexes.
Having read all the books and seen (and enjoyed) all of the films thus far, I firmly fall within the first category. So with this in mind, there was never any danger of me not seeing this film in it's opening weekend.
Bill Nighy's Minister of Magic sets the the tone of the story, and the film for that matter, in the opening moments. 'There are dark times ahead'. The penultimate film in the series (the final book being split into two halves) is indeed the darkest yet, although I appreciate that this has been said of every sequel in the series so far. I'll do my best to avoid any spoilers, but it picks up where the previous film, The Half-Blood Prince, left off with Voldemort growing stronger and the Death Eaters seizing a firmer grip on power and stepping up their efforts to kill Harry Potter.
Although the story is familiar, this film is very unlike any other in the series so far. Fairly early on in the film, the three main characters, Harry, Hermione and Ron become separated from their protectors and consequently have to fend for themselves. This means that the usual locales of Hogwarts and the like are not seen at all and much of the film is played out in sweeping rural landscapes, beautifully presented by director David Yates (at the helm since film 5) with some earlier scenes taken place in Central London. These alien surroundings give this film a freshness and a maturity.
The action set-pieces are superbly done, including a thrilling chase through the Dartford Tunnel and a great sequence where the Ministry of Magic is infiltrated, to both comedic and exciting dramatic effect. However these set-pieces are not as frequent as in the other films with long stretches without any magic or visual effects. The reason being that at the centre of this film is the three characters and little else: by breaking the final book into two halves, the makers have been given the opportunity to use this episode to build gradually towards the finale and in doing so they can really explore the relationship between Harry, Hermione and Ron. I suspect that younger fans of the series will be disappointed and perhaps lost at the long stretches of contemplative dialogue, but in doing this, Yates and co have made a proper film. A study into teenagers growing up, adult issues of jealousy are explored, coming to terms with death and the horrible occurrences that are taking place. This really is grim stuff. We have spent 6 films with the three of them, put them through all sorts, but we get to know them more in the space of this 146 minute film that all of those put together.
The actors themselves have come a long way since being cute but annoying child actors in the Philosopher's Stone. Daniel Radcliffe is probably the weaker of the three, although he is given the worst dialogue with moany mournful lines that act as exposition. Emma Watson is turning into a very good actress. it remains to be seen whether she will continue with the craft but she plays Hermione with enthusiasm but also a sadness. One scene in particular at the beginning of the film involving her parents is particularly heartbreaking, as well as a very touching scene where Harry and Hermione dance, trying to put all the troubles to the back of their minds. Rupert Grint is easily the most improved. Gone is the wooden, clunky delivery, he is now polished using facial expressions very proficiently to convey a frustrated teenager, struggling to understand his emotions and just wanting the quiet life. These performances have to be strong as they carry the film for the length of the substantial mid-section.
The full cast really is a who's who of British actors. Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as Voldemort, a real baddie, none of this pantomime nonsense. He really reminded me of Darth Vader with his ruthless blood lust. We are under no illusion that should Voldemort be successful, then the world will be in a lot of trouble. Helena Bonham-Carter also has great fun as the nightmarish Bellatrix Lestrange, the truly psychotic sidekick to Lord Voldemort. Plus it is always a joy to see Alan Rickman as Snape, although you don't get much of him. You can only hope he comes to the fore in the final film.
The darkness is not all about the actors though. The rise of the new Ministry smacks of the rise of fascism and it's propaganda. There are also some very tough scenes to watch that include torture, murder and pure evil. There's blood in this film, more than you would expect, and there are some properly scary moments, particularly for children. It really is not all plain sailing. As we get to the end, there is a moment that really hit me hard, proper tears let me tell you.
Ah the ending....I've heard some people call it a non-ending. The sort of cliff hanger you would have at the end of a tv
I loved this film. It really felt like a proper grown up flick, a character study, almost an art-house film. The film makers, and the cast, have done such a fine job with this film, made it with great care and good intentions, that the decision to spilt the film in two has been proved to be the right one. To have attempted to shoe-horn the final book, in it's entirety, into a 3 hour film would have meant that we would not have been taken with on the quest with Harry, Hermione and Ron and the feeling of dread as the finale approaches would not have had half the impact. This, and the decision to not make it 3D (a change of tact from the studio's original position, which must have resulted in financial loss), clearly proves that Yates and co really want to ensure that these films do the rest of series justice. They only get one shot at this.
As for the Muggles, if you've managed to resist the magic of the films and story so far, I doubt I'll be able to change your minds here. I suppose there really is no saving you.
I saw the film at the Everyman Cinema in Baker Street. First time I've been to this two-screen picture house but I'd thoroughly recommend it. Nice and comfy seats, good snacks and lovely bar to have a drink before and after. A great Central London alternative to the Sin-e-world mulitplexes.
Sunday 21 November 2010
SEXY BEAST (2000)
Friday night, tough week at work, can't be bothered to booze it up and spend half the night queueing up at bars with drunk men in suits being obnoxious. The solution - round to a friend's house for home made pizzas (from scratch, dough and everything ) and a DVD.
I wasn't in charge of the viewing choice, which always makes me feel a little uncomfortable, but I was delighted when I discovered that the choice was Sexy Beast, Jonathan Glazer's first feature film.
It tells the story of Gary 'Gal' Dove (Ray Winstone), lovable rogue and retired gangster. Now living the quiet life with his wife (Amanda Redman), former porn star, in the sunnier climes of Spain. One of his old 'colleagues', Don Logan (Sir Ben Kingsley) turns up for a surprise visit to try and persuade Gal out of retirement for one last job. On the face of it, it's a story that has been told a million times before, and a brief synopsis like that probably wouldn't have you running out to grab a copy on DVD. The reality is though, that the story is very much secondary and it's the characters that grab this film by the lapels and elevate it above most other British gangster fare.
Ray Winstone, in a role that gave his a career a much needed jolt in the arm, is very understated and excellent as Gal Dove. We all know a Brit who has upped sticks for Spain and quickly turned their skin to leather and Winstone morphs in to this role with ease. This is what he is capable of, it's a shame that Hollywood entrusts him with pointless roles such as the one he was given in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal skull.
Although Dove is the character that the film follows, he is not the most important and memorable of the piece. (Sir) Ben Kingsley's Don Logan is easily one of the most striking and unforgettable persona's in British cinema. At first look, he seems to resemble a teacher, pressed trousers and short sleeve shirts. Then he opens his mouth, barking expletives creatively and aggressively. The tidy attire, seemingly harmless before, now takes on a more sinister note as it becomes an obsessive part of his psychotic behaviour. Some moments he is softly spoken, the next he shouts 'No, no, no, no' followed by the inevitable tired of swearing. The unpredictability makes him all the more scarier. Truly terrifying. The writers have also managed to give Logan some great creative use of swear words. Only Malcolm Tucker has managed to trump him since. In fact, Logan's dialogue is funny and does raise laughs, but not for long because any humour is quickly consumed by another tirade of abuse.
Ian McShane also crops up as Teddy Bass, the real boss of the heist. Bass is another creepy character but in a very different way to Logan. No raised voices, no threatening swearing, just softly spoken words, laden with the suggestion of violence. The other members of the gang clearly fear him and it's not until the last few moments that you are shown just what he is capable of. This was the role for McShane that reinvented him, made him hot property again. Lovejoy to Deadwood and The West Wing.
The film is very simple, it really is a character piece that is stripped down to the bare bones. In fact, it could almost be a play covering 2 or 3 locations, letting thespians strut their stuff on the boards. Jonathan Glazer's direction gives the film something more, adds flesh to the bones. And what flesh it is. The film is full of stylised tricks, a camera attached to a rolling boulder or a revolving door, fast editing between present day and flashbacks, thumping music propelling scenes along. I also loved the stark contrasts in colours between the two locations, Spain full of vibrant, hot colours, filmed in day, while London is all blacks and greys, only seen during cold, rainy nights. The film is visually beautiful, almost becoming an additional character itself.
It really is a modern British classic. Great cast, at the peak of their powers, superbly shot, creatively put together with a narrative structure that has keeps you guessing until after the credits,. Occasionally in the world of film, the stars align and you have something that really sticks out. This is one of those occasions.
The film Guy Ritchie wished he could have made.
I wasn't in charge of the viewing choice, which always makes me feel a little uncomfortable, but I was delighted when I discovered that the choice was Sexy Beast, Jonathan Glazer's first feature film.
It tells the story of Gary 'Gal' Dove (Ray Winstone), lovable rogue and retired gangster. Now living the quiet life with his wife (Amanda Redman), former porn star, in the sunnier climes of Spain. One of his old 'colleagues', Don Logan (Sir Ben Kingsley) turns up for a surprise visit to try and persuade Gal out of retirement for one last job. On the face of it, it's a story that has been told a million times before, and a brief synopsis like that probably wouldn't have you running out to grab a copy on DVD. The reality is though, that the story is very much secondary and it's the characters that grab this film by the lapels and elevate it above most other British gangster fare.
Ray Winstone, in a role that gave his a career a much needed jolt in the arm, is very understated and excellent as Gal Dove. We all know a Brit who has upped sticks for Spain and quickly turned their skin to leather and Winstone morphs in to this role with ease. This is what he is capable of, it's a shame that Hollywood entrusts him with pointless roles such as the one he was given in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal skull.
Although Dove is the character that the film follows, he is not the most important and memorable of the piece. (Sir) Ben Kingsley's Don Logan is easily one of the most striking and unforgettable persona's in British cinema. At first look, he seems to resemble a teacher, pressed trousers and short sleeve shirts. Then he opens his mouth, barking expletives creatively and aggressively. The tidy attire, seemingly harmless before, now takes on a more sinister note as it becomes an obsessive part of his psychotic behaviour. Some moments he is softly spoken, the next he shouts 'No, no, no, no' followed by the inevitable tired of swearing. The unpredictability makes him all the more scarier. Truly terrifying. The writers have also managed to give Logan some great creative use of swear words. Only Malcolm Tucker has managed to trump him since. In fact, Logan's dialogue is funny and does raise laughs, but not for long because any humour is quickly consumed by another tirade of abuse.
Ian McShane also crops up as Teddy Bass, the real boss of the heist. Bass is another creepy character but in a very different way to Logan. No raised voices, no threatening swearing, just softly spoken words, laden with the suggestion of violence. The other members of the gang clearly fear him and it's not until the last few moments that you are shown just what he is capable of. This was the role for McShane that reinvented him, made him hot property again. Lovejoy to Deadwood and The West Wing.
The film is very simple, it really is a character piece that is stripped down to the bare bones. In fact, it could almost be a play covering 2 or 3 locations, letting thespians strut their stuff on the boards. Jonathan Glazer's direction gives the film something more, adds flesh to the bones. And what flesh it is. The film is full of stylised tricks, a camera attached to a rolling boulder or a revolving door, fast editing between present day and flashbacks, thumping music propelling scenes along. I also loved the stark contrasts in colours between the two locations, Spain full of vibrant, hot colours, filmed in day, while London is all blacks and greys, only seen during cold, rainy nights. The film is visually beautiful, almost becoming an additional character itself.
It really is a modern British classic. Great cast, at the peak of their powers, superbly shot, creatively put together with a narrative structure that has keeps you guessing until after the credits,. Occasionally in the world of film, the stars align and you have something that really sticks out. This is one of those occasions.
The film Guy Ritchie wished he could have made.
Tuesday 16 November 2010
LET ME IN (2010)
Let's get it out of the way, I loved Let The Right One In. I saw it for the first time at Somerset House, in a double bill with The Lost Boys, and I remember being blown away by it. It was so simple yet so complicated, it was visually striking and beautiful, delicate in tone but with a ruthless violence as well. I loved it. But I'm not reviewing that film here, I'm referring to the English Language remake, directed by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) and starring Chloe Moretz (Kick Ass) and Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road).
I'm determined here to look at Let Me In, it's merits and it's downfalls as a stand alone film. What I want to try to avoid is comparing it with the original in a box ticking exercise (Scene with the alley, yep. Scene at the gym, hang on, they changed that). So as I popped myself into the obscenely comfortable seat at the Electric Cinema with my bottle of beer, I tried to empty my mind of any thoughts and memories of Let The Right One In, and enjoy the film as just that, a film.
Set in New Mexico, it's tells the story of loner Owen, troubled my his lack of friends and his parents' messy divorce. Then he finds himself a friend, the girl next door and as the friendship blossoms it becomes clear that she is not as she seems and hides a nasty secret. It really is a simple tale of friendship made all the more interesting and heartbreaking because of the complications and obstacles that the relationship must overcome. After all, what is Romeo and Juliet if not a love story with obstacles. In fact, Let Me In refers to Shakespeare's story, in a clumsy attempt to subtly invoke the similarities.
The two leads are very good here. Moretz in particular - Kick Ass was no fluke or one off and here she again revels in the violence, though this time not tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't just her ability to swear and dismember limbs that got her plaudits in that film though, she played Hit Girl with a youthful innocence and vulnerability that really stood out and was largely responsible for Kick Ass' heart. Her role here is much more serious and she excels. Wanting to hold back, knowing she can't let herself be free but also being unable to stop herself from diving straight into the friendship, her performance is full of internal conflict.
Kodi Smit-McPhee turns in an equally good performance, though much more understated and therefore slightly less noticeable than Moretz. He plays Owen, bullied, downtrodden and with no self-esteem, with a tremendous innocence that reminded me of Nicholas Holt in About A Boy. Seemingly with no hope, but with a resolve that refuses to die. Once again, a young actor seemingly with a future.
The two lead characters are both a bundle of contradictions, which actually also applies when looking at the tone of the film. There are soft tender moments between them both, or small, barely noticeable looks from them individually, but then the next scene will feature bloody violence and jumpy scares which are handled well by Reeves as he gets back into the more familiar Cloverfield territory. The two contrasts make each opposite have all the more impact, as you're not sure which to expect, once they do hit home, they do so. With interest.
But, and there is a but. I could easily have been referring to Let The Right One In with the comments above. All of the positives are positives that are taken from the original. The Story, identical. The snowy atmospheric setting, identical. Tender moments and the violence, all present. Tragic central relationship, check, although in this case I was not nearly as involved and connected to the relationship, the Swedish original gripped me much more. It appears as though the makers of this film saw Let The Right One In, loved it and felt that the story needed to be seen by a bigger audience and an English language version was the way to do that. Except that all they did was copy it, almost scene for scene and add some special effects, which ultimately had a detrimental effect. The only time I was impressed with the added bells and whistles was a well executed car crash. However, the scene it mimicked and built upon was so much more heartfelt with greater desperation in the character involved. This lost a lot of what was great about that moment. My favourite scenes in the original, without giving too much away, were the swimming pool at the end and a vampire being exposed to daylight in a hospital ward. Both scenes were copied, almost shot for shot, but both felt much more hollow. Much like the rest of the film in fact. As thought it's missing something. Lost in translation perhaps.
Ultimately the reason for this goes back to my opening to above. I tried to empty my mind of Let The Right One In, but I couldn't. Because it has stuck with me and whatever Reeves and co tried to serve up, it just isn't as memorable and it's impossible not to compare the two. Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho was shot for shot identical, but did anyone watch it without thinking about Hitchcock's original? And did it have the same impact?
Is Let Me In good? Yes it is. Should you see it? Why not, it is well-made and considerably better than most horror out there. Should you see it if you haven't seen Let The Right One In? No. You must see the original because if you see this before it, you will not see a truly great film as it should be and will never enjoy it in the way it deserves to be.
I'm determined here to look at Let Me In, it's merits and it's downfalls as a stand alone film. What I want to try to avoid is comparing it with the original in a box ticking exercise (Scene with the alley, yep. Scene at the gym, hang on, they changed that). So as I popped myself into the obscenely comfortable seat at the Electric Cinema with my bottle of beer, I tried to empty my mind of any thoughts and memories of Let The Right One In, and enjoy the film as just that, a film.
Set in New Mexico, it's tells the story of loner Owen, troubled my his lack of friends and his parents' messy divorce. Then he finds himself a friend, the girl next door and as the friendship blossoms it becomes clear that she is not as she seems and hides a nasty secret. It really is a simple tale of friendship made all the more interesting and heartbreaking because of the complications and obstacles that the relationship must overcome. After all, what is Romeo and Juliet if not a love story with obstacles. In fact, Let Me In refers to Shakespeare's story, in a clumsy attempt to subtly invoke the similarities.
The two leads are very good here. Moretz in particular - Kick Ass was no fluke or one off and here she again revels in the violence, though this time not tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't just her ability to swear and dismember limbs that got her plaudits in that film though, she played Hit Girl with a youthful innocence and vulnerability that really stood out and was largely responsible for Kick Ass' heart. Her role here is much more serious and she excels. Wanting to hold back, knowing she can't let herself be free but also being unable to stop herself from diving straight into the friendship, her performance is full of internal conflict.
Kodi Smit-McPhee turns in an equally good performance, though much more understated and therefore slightly less noticeable than Moretz. He plays Owen, bullied, downtrodden and with no self-esteem, with a tremendous innocence that reminded me of Nicholas Holt in About A Boy. Seemingly with no hope, but with a resolve that refuses to die. Once again, a young actor seemingly with a future.
The two lead characters are both a bundle of contradictions, which actually also applies when looking at the tone of the film. There are soft tender moments between them both, or small, barely noticeable looks from them individually, but then the next scene will feature bloody violence and jumpy scares which are handled well by Reeves as he gets back into the more familiar Cloverfield territory. The two contrasts make each opposite have all the more impact, as you're not sure which to expect, once they do hit home, they do so. With interest.
But, and there is a but. I could easily have been referring to Let The Right One In with the comments above. All of the positives are positives that are taken from the original. The Story, identical. The snowy atmospheric setting, identical. Tender moments and the violence, all present. Tragic central relationship, check, although in this case I was not nearly as involved and connected to the relationship, the Swedish original gripped me much more. It appears as though the makers of this film saw Let The Right One In, loved it and felt that the story needed to be seen by a bigger audience and an English language version was the way to do that. Except that all they did was copy it, almost scene for scene and add some special effects, which ultimately had a detrimental effect. The only time I was impressed with the added bells and whistles was a well executed car crash. However, the scene it mimicked and built upon was so much more heartfelt with greater desperation in the character involved. This lost a lot of what was great about that moment. My favourite scenes in the original, without giving too much away, were the swimming pool at the end and a vampire being exposed to daylight in a hospital ward. Both scenes were copied, almost shot for shot, but both felt much more hollow. Much like the rest of the film in fact. As thought it's missing something. Lost in translation perhaps.
Ultimately the reason for this goes back to my opening to above. I tried to empty my mind of Let The Right One In, but I couldn't. Because it has stuck with me and whatever Reeves and co tried to serve up, it just isn't as memorable and it's impossible not to compare the two. Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho was shot for shot identical, but did anyone watch it without thinking about Hitchcock's original? And did it have the same impact?
Is Let Me In good? Yes it is. Should you see it? Why not, it is well-made and considerably better than most horror out there. Should you see it if you haven't seen Let The Right One In? No. You must see the original because if you see this before it, you will not see a truly great film as it should be and will never enjoy it in the way it deserves to be.
Sunday 14 November 2010
RACHEL GETTING MARRIED (2008)
I literally had no idea what to expect with this film. It's one of those rare occasions where you sit down to watch something, that you have no pre-conceptions, no knowledge and therefore no idea whether you expect to enjoy it. The only thing I knew was that Anne Hathaway was in it and that this might have been her chance to show that she was a good actress and could rise above rom-coms like Bride Wars.
Hathaway plays Kim, a recovering drug addict who is allowed a respite from her rehab for a weekend at home for her sister's wedding (Rachel, played by Rosemarie DeWitt). The film plays out over the weekend as the dysfunctional family divides and heads to crisis point on the eve of the big day. The Princess Diaries this is clearly not and it is every bit as bleak as my brief synopsis suggests.
Not a great deal happens, it's people in a room talking and getting upset, so it's a good job the performances are right out of the top drawer. Hathaway is indeed fantastic and this film promises that she might be able to prove to be a big name in the future if she's a little braver about her film choices. Her portrayal of Kim is instantly believable, there is clearly a vulnerability there, but you sense that the problems that have plagued her are simmering under the surface and could resurface at any time. Her scenes of rehab are particularly convincing and when she loses it, she really does lose it. DeWitt is also very good, Rachel and Kim constantly at war throughout the film. Bill Irwin's was my favourite turn though as the father of the two sisters, always pained as he tries to ensure both are happy but knowing that their interests will always be conflicting. At one point he seems resigned to the family never being happy. I sense that this type of film must be a joy for an actor, a proper one that is. No blue screens and explosions to be added in post-production, this is just like treading the boards and bouncing off other actors. This film even more so as each character gets to go through the full range of emotions, there are smiles, tears, shouting matches and mournful looks into the distance.
So the acting is fantastic, a good cast given the opportunity to flex their thespian muscles in an open format with a decent script. So is this film an instant classic?
No, it's not.
Although I can appreciate the fine acting, I didn't feel connected to it. I'm a soppy so-and-so, this type of thing really should have me sniffling away but I wasn't even close. I think it's because the characters themselves, the father aside, had no redeemable qualities at all. Kim and Rachel were both terribly selfish and became increasingly bitchy as the film wore on. I had no inclination towards either of them and therefore didn't really care how the story was going to play out. I'm not suggesting that every character on screen should be likeable, but I just couldn't side with them. What irritated me further was that the film didn't have the belief in itself to carry this on to the end. Everyone involved seemed to have an epiphany in time for the wedding so everyone was smiles. It wasn't exactly a happy ending but everything was resolved. It was all too neat.
It's a well made film, Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia) has a good track record and it's clear that the material here is in safe hands. He uses a sort of handheld camera technique that you'd expect to see in horror films, but it works very well. You get the feeling that you shouldn't be there and that you really are intruding on someone else's wedding. The film also cleverly reveals plot points as the film progresses, it's never spelt out but you continue to learn of the past of the family.
It's also worth mentioning that the wedding itself is easily the most irritating wedding in the history of film, or civilization for that matter. Every guest had a role and it practically turned into America's Got Talent. I can't stand something as deliberately kooky as it was, the bride and groom serving the food themselves, plate by plate across the garden to the marquee? Please.
So, well acted, well made but ultimately a hollow experience.
Interesting but unsatisfying.
Hathaway plays Kim, a recovering drug addict who is allowed a respite from her rehab for a weekend at home for her sister's wedding (Rachel, played by Rosemarie DeWitt). The film plays out over the weekend as the dysfunctional family divides and heads to crisis point on the eve of the big day. The Princess Diaries this is clearly not and it is every bit as bleak as my brief synopsis suggests.
Not a great deal happens, it's people in a room talking and getting upset, so it's a good job the performances are right out of the top drawer. Hathaway is indeed fantastic and this film promises that she might be able to prove to be a big name in the future if she's a little braver about her film choices. Her portrayal of Kim is instantly believable, there is clearly a vulnerability there, but you sense that the problems that have plagued her are simmering under the surface and could resurface at any time. Her scenes of rehab are particularly convincing and when she loses it, she really does lose it. DeWitt is also very good, Rachel and Kim constantly at war throughout the film. Bill Irwin's was my favourite turn though as the father of the two sisters, always pained as he tries to ensure both are happy but knowing that their interests will always be conflicting. At one point he seems resigned to the family never being happy. I sense that this type of film must be a joy for an actor, a proper one that is. No blue screens and explosions to be added in post-production, this is just like treading the boards and bouncing off other actors. This film even more so as each character gets to go through the full range of emotions, there are smiles, tears, shouting matches and mournful looks into the distance.
So the acting is fantastic, a good cast given the opportunity to flex their thespian muscles in an open format with a decent script. So is this film an instant classic?
No, it's not.
Although I can appreciate the fine acting, I didn't feel connected to it. I'm a soppy so-and-so, this type of thing really should have me sniffling away but I wasn't even close. I think it's because the characters themselves, the father aside, had no redeemable qualities at all. Kim and Rachel were both terribly selfish and became increasingly bitchy as the film wore on. I had no inclination towards either of them and therefore didn't really care how the story was going to play out. I'm not suggesting that every character on screen should be likeable, but I just couldn't side with them. What irritated me further was that the film didn't have the belief in itself to carry this on to the end. Everyone involved seemed to have an epiphany in time for the wedding so everyone was smiles. It wasn't exactly a happy ending but everything was resolved. It was all too neat.
It's a well made film, Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs and Philadelphia) has a good track record and it's clear that the material here is in safe hands. He uses a sort of handheld camera technique that you'd expect to see in horror films, but it works very well. You get the feeling that you shouldn't be there and that you really are intruding on someone else's wedding. The film also cleverly reveals plot points as the film progresses, it's never spelt out but you continue to learn of the past of the family.
It's also worth mentioning that the wedding itself is easily the most irritating wedding in the history of film, or civilization for that matter. Every guest had a role and it practically turned into America's Got Talent. I can't stand something as deliberately kooky as it was, the bride and groom serving the food themselves, plate by plate across the garden to the marquee? Please.
So, well acted, well made but ultimately a hollow experience.
Interesting but unsatisfying.
Tuesday 9 November 2010
JAWS (1975)
What better way to round off a brilliant Sunday. Having spent the day wandering Central London, through the parks and along the busy streets, on a brisk November afternoon and stuffing my face with goodies at a food market on the South Bank, my girlfriend and I plonked ourselves on the sofa with a bottle of red to wind down the remaining hours of the weekend. We got Harry Hill out of the way then had a flick through the film channels and was gifted with the joy of Jaws. Comfortably my favourite film of all time.
Everyone is familiar with the plot of Spielberg's breakthrough masterpiece, a simple story of a killer Great White Shark terrorising an island community, heavily reliant on the tourist trade, off the East coast of the US. It is a simple idea based on a very mediocre novel, but since then many studios, directors and writers and tried to copy the formula in an attempt to cash in the success and make their own iconic masterpiece. However, in all the years that have followed very few have come close and none have surpassed this work of genius that catapulted Steven Spielberg into the big time and gave birth to 'The Blockbuster'.
So why is it loved by generations of film viewers? Why do critics still admire it so much? Surely it's just a monster movie.
One of the reasons is the characters and the cast. I noticed something on this viewing that I hadn't noticed before. In the opening credits the three lead actors' names all appear at the same time, Robert Shaw, Roy Scheider and Richard Dreyfuss. Not one of the three has top billing in this film which I think is very just as they all contribute greatly to what is so charming and likeable about this film
Roy Scheider is Chief Brody, the film's real hero, but also the chief of police on this small island and in the first half of the film is the voice of reason as he tries to warn the community of the troubles ahead. These pleas, mostly to the mayor, fall on deaf ears as they try to plough on with preparations for the summer ahead. Scheider is fantastic in his portrayal of a man up against it, with the world on his shoulders. He is desperate to do something, anything. He has a wonderful speech about being a cop in New York fighting against the tide, but being in Amity, one man can really make a difference. He plays the character with a vulnerability, you never get the sense that he is in control, especially in the second half of the film aboard The Orca, he is clearly out of his depth.
Robert Shaw probably has the most fun out of the cast playing the 'certifiable' Quint, the captain of the Orca. From his opening scene where he scrapes his fingernails down a blackboard to his farewell, he fills the screen and becomes one of the most memorable screen icons of all time. He is a perfect foil for Brody, he takes risks, flies off the handle. A real maverick. One second he's is full of terrifying intensity, the next he gruffly sings sailors songs with a smile across his face. He also steals one of my favourite scenes of the film. As the three men compare injuries and scars he recollects his ordeal aboard the Indianapolis, after they drop off their cargo before it is dropped on Hiroshima. It's a chilling story at the best of times, but told by Quint, showing little emotion, although you know simmering underneath it has effected him in way's the viewer can't imagine.
Richard Dreyfuss puts in arguably his finest performance of his career as Matt Hooper, rich kid and shark expert from the oceanographic institute. If Brody is the film's conscious, Quint is the muscular torso and limbs then Hooper is the sense of humour. He jokes and banters his way through the film, including some brilliant lines on The Orca to Quint and during his opening scene as he surveys the chaos on the harbour as scores of people head out to kill the shark for a bounty. He isn't a Jar Jar Binks character though, solely there for giggles. Even while cracking jokes, you can tell that he is fully aware of the gravity of the situation, and then at his most vulnerable as he climbs into the shark cage it's clear that his playful nature are all a show.
It's the performances of these characters that make the film and stop the second half from becoming a B-Movie monster chase. You're routing for them, not because you know you should in cinema convention, but because you genuinely believe in them and want them to succeed.
Spielberg is praised as the genius behind Jaws, but not because he gets the best out of 3 actors - It's because this film is a masterclass in tension. There are so many shocks in the film. Everyone knows the story behind the mechanical shark and it's failure to work properly throughout the shoot which would have had a lot to do with seeing very little of the beast until well into the second half of the film. Spielberg has said himself that if it had been available he would have used it more and he also confessed that this would have been detrimental to the film. There are a number of scenes that do shock and terrify throughout the first half where you don't see the shark. The famous opening scene is a real statement of intent. The viewer has no time to settle into their seat, you are thrown straight into the terror. The bloodcurdling screams in this scene are horrific and make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. If film makers want to learn from Spielberg though, it's not the screams that they should note. It's the calm tranquil sea and virtual silence that follows. Less is more. The beach scene in daylight with the yellow lilo is very unexpected, a child as the victim. The shark is barely seen here, you see a fin and a struggle in the water, and then the trademark blood running through the ocean. Spielberg is a clever director though and utilises a broken jetty in another night scene to show the shark closing in on another potential victim. Throughout these moments it really is a case of the tension being ramped up by not knowing what our heroes are facing.
The second half of the film on The Orca is where the film changes it's directions and becomes a standard B-Movie battle against the beast as Brody, Hooper and Quint set sail to kill the shark. It builds nicely though, with quiet moments where very little happens, just like fishing (I did it once, used cheese as bait - it was in France), inter-spliced with the scenes involving the yellow barrels. These moments are interesting because nothing actually happens but it all adds to the sense that you are involved in a chase. And what a chase it is culminating in a shark cage and one final onslaught by the shark on the boat, destroying the Orca and taking Quint in what is easily the most enduring memory of my childhood spent watching films. So graphic with a scream that hits you and the sight of blood spurting from his mouth as the shark bites into his torso is arresting to say the least.
All of the above suggests that this is only a monster movie with good actors and a broken beast being handled by a skilled director. What really elevates this film above so many others is it's heart. It is full of touching moments involving young Sean, the son of Chief Brody. I love the scene where he sits there copying his father at the dinner table. The theme of fatherhood is obviously important here and it's one that Spielberg continues throughout his career. Sean also is scene on the beach screaming for people to get out of the water like his father as a shark attack is fears. He also pleas with his brother not to go in the water on his boat. Lovely moments that add a real human touch. The scene where Brody is confronted by the grieving mother of the dead child is very important as well. The actions of the characters have recriminations. Many films will kill people off willy nilly with no other mention of how this affects others.
I could carry on forever talking about my favourite moments and why I love it so much, but the reality is, this film is a classic and will always be a classic. It has stood up very well to the test of time and you'll be lucky to find a film that will scare you, make you laugh, make you smile and make you cry in the way that Jaws does. See it again as soon as you can, the Blockbuster in it's purest form.
Genius.
Everyone is familiar with the plot of Spielberg's breakthrough masterpiece, a simple story of a killer Great White Shark terrorising an island community, heavily reliant on the tourist trade, off the East coast of the US. It is a simple idea based on a very mediocre novel, but since then many studios, directors and writers and tried to copy the formula in an attempt to cash in the success and make their own iconic masterpiece. However, in all the years that have followed very few have come close and none have surpassed this work of genius that catapulted Steven Spielberg into the big time and gave birth to 'The Blockbuster'.
So why is it loved by generations of film viewers? Why do critics still admire it so much? Surely it's just a monster movie.
One of the reasons is the characters and the cast. I noticed something on this viewing that I hadn't noticed before. In the opening credits the three lead actors' names all appear at the same time, Robert Shaw, Roy Scheider and Richard Dreyfuss. Not one of the three has top billing in this film which I think is very just as they all contribute greatly to what is so charming and likeable about this film
Roy Scheider is Chief Brody, the film's real hero, but also the chief of police on this small island and in the first half of the film is the voice of reason as he tries to warn the community of the troubles ahead. These pleas, mostly to the mayor, fall on deaf ears as they try to plough on with preparations for the summer ahead. Scheider is fantastic in his portrayal of a man up against it, with the world on his shoulders. He is desperate to do something, anything. He has a wonderful speech about being a cop in New York fighting against the tide, but being in Amity, one man can really make a difference. He plays the character with a vulnerability, you never get the sense that he is in control, especially in the second half of the film aboard The Orca, he is clearly out of his depth.
Robert Shaw probably has the most fun out of the cast playing the 'certifiable' Quint, the captain of the Orca. From his opening scene where he scrapes his fingernails down a blackboard to his farewell, he fills the screen and becomes one of the most memorable screen icons of all time. He is a perfect foil for Brody, he takes risks, flies off the handle. A real maverick. One second he's is full of terrifying intensity, the next he gruffly sings sailors songs with a smile across his face. He also steals one of my favourite scenes of the film. As the three men compare injuries and scars he recollects his ordeal aboard the Indianapolis, after they drop off their cargo before it is dropped on Hiroshima. It's a chilling story at the best of times, but told by Quint, showing little emotion, although you know simmering underneath it has effected him in way's the viewer can't imagine.
Richard Dreyfuss puts in arguably his finest performance of his career as Matt Hooper, rich kid and shark expert from the oceanographic institute. If Brody is the film's conscious, Quint is the muscular torso and limbs then Hooper is the sense of humour. He jokes and banters his way through the film, including some brilliant lines on The Orca to Quint and during his opening scene as he surveys the chaos on the harbour as scores of people head out to kill the shark for a bounty. He isn't a Jar Jar Binks character though, solely there for giggles. Even while cracking jokes, you can tell that he is fully aware of the gravity of the situation, and then at his most vulnerable as he climbs into the shark cage it's clear that his playful nature are all a show.
It's the performances of these characters that make the film and stop the second half from becoming a B-Movie monster chase. You're routing for them, not because you know you should in cinema convention, but because you genuinely believe in them and want them to succeed.
Spielberg is praised as the genius behind Jaws, but not because he gets the best out of 3 actors - It's because this film is a masterclass in tension. There are so many shocks in the film. Everyone knows the story behind the mechanical shark and it's failure to work properly throughout the shoot which would have had a lot to do with seeing very little of the beast until well into the second half of the film. Spielberg has said himself that if it had been available he would have used it more and he also confessed that this would have been detrimental to the film. There are a number of scenes that do shock and terrify throughout the first half where you don't see the shark. The famous opening scene is a real statement of intent. The viewer has no time to settle into their seat, you are thrown straight into the terror. The bloodcurdling screams in this scene are horrific and make the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end. If film makers want to learn from Spielberg though, it's not the screams that they should note. It's the calm tranquil sea and virtual silence that follows. Less is more. The beach scene in daylight with the yellow lilo is very unexpected, a child as the victim. The shark is barely seen here, you see a fin and a struggle in the water, and then the trademark blood running through the ocean. Spielberg is a clever director though and utilises a broken jetty in another night scene to show the shark closing in on another potential victim. Throughout these moments it really is a case of the tension being ramped up by not knowing what our heroes are facing.
The second half of the film on The Orca is where the film changes it's directions and becomes a standard B-Movie battle against the beast as Brody, Hooper and Quint set sail to kill the shark. It builds nicely though, with quiet moments where very little happens, just like fishing (I did it once, used cheese as bait - it was in France), inter-spliced with the scenes involving the yellow barrels. These moments are interesting because nothing actually happens but it all adds to the sense that you are involved in a chase. And what a chase it is culminating in a shark cage and one final onslaught by the shark on the boat, destroying the Orca and taking Quint in what is easily the most enduring memory of my childhood spent watching films. So graphic with a scream that hits you and the sight of blood spurting from his mouth as the shark bites into his torso is arresting to say the least.
All of the above suggests that this is only a monster movie with good actors and a broken beast being handled by a skilled director. What really elevates this film above so many others is it's heart. It is full of touching moments involving young Sean, the son of Chief Brody. I love the scene where he sits there copying his father at the dinner table. The theme of fatherhood is obviously important here and it's one that Spielberg continues throughout his career. Sean also is scene on the beach screaming for people to get out of the water like his father as a shark attack is fears. He also pleas with his brother not to go in the water on his boat. Lovely moments that add a real human touch. The scene where Brody is confronted by the grieving mother of the dead child is very important as well. The actions of the characters have recriminations. Many films will kill people off willy nilly with no other mention of how this affects others.
I could carry on forever talking about my favourite moments and why I love it so much, but the reality is, this film is a classic and will always be a classic. It has stood up very well to the test of time and you'll be lucky to find a film that will scare you, make you laugh, make you smile and make you cry in the way that Jaws does. See it again as soon as you can, the Blockbuster in it's purest form.
Genius.
Tuesday 2 November 2010
THE OMEN (1976)
As soon as it became clear that I had been unsuccessful in my bid to get tickets to see An American Werewolf in London at London Zoo courtesy of Volkswagen, I decided that I had to celebrate Halloween with a couple of classic horror films.
First up was The Omen, having seen it featured on Mark Gattiss' brilliant 'The History of Horror' on BBC 4, and finding the entire Omen Pentology for £10 in HMV.
My girlfriend had an irrational fear of the thought of seeing this film, I'm not sure what she had heard or what she though would happen but she seemed to be convinced that this was The Exorcist's evil brother.
But she loved it.
It's story is now steeped in popular culture with references from horror films and spoofs over the years including a fondly remembered nod in Only Fools and Horses. An American Ambassador and his wife may or may not be parenting the son of Satan. A simple set-up but delivered so fantastically every viewing wows me.
It's expertly paced by Richard Donner (this is the film that launched him into the big time, before Superman, Lethal Weapon and The Goonies). The tension is built gradually before bursts of violence and shocks that are now fully established as some of the most famous scenes in film history. The impaling scene in Bishops Park, the decapitation of David Warner, both of Lee Remick's falls. These are the scenes that everyone talks about and will rightly never forget, but it's bits in between these moments that are important. They gradually bring you into the story and give you an emotional connection to the characters. Donner doesn't show his hand too soon either, you are left wondering during the early stages whether this is all in the minds of the characters.
There is something else that lifts this above above other films of this type, and that is Gregory Peck. The original choice for the role was Charlton Heston, and although he is a fine actor and a fantastic leading man, to have someone of the gravitas and talent of Gregory Peck leading you through this story is a coup for Donner but pure pleasure for the viewer. You are with him every step of the way and it elevates the film.
Then the ending...oh the ending. You think you know whats happened, you expect the credits to roll and our ordeal to be over....and then it hits you.
If you've never seen this film, you must make time for it. A fantastic psychological chiller that jumps out at you and never lets you rest. There aren't many films that have iconic actors, scenes, music that all culminate in an iconic film, it's themes of religion still resonant 34 years on.
Unforgettable.
First up was The Omen, having seen it featured on Mark Gattiss' brilliant 'The History of Horror' on BBC 4, and finding the entire Omen Pentology for £10 in HMV.
My girlfriend had an irrational fear of the thought of seeing this film, I'm not sure what she had heard or what she though would happen but she seemed to be convinced that this was The Exorcist's evil brother.
But she loved it.
It's story is now steeped in popular culture with references from horror films and spoofs over the years including a fondly remembered nod in Only Fools and Horses. An American Ambassador and his wife may or may not be parenting the son of Satan. A simple set-up but delivered so fantastically every viewing wows me.
It's expertly paced by Richard Donner (this is the film that launched him into the big time, before Superman, Lethal Weapon and The Goonies). The tension is built gradually before bursts of violence and shocks that are now fully established as some of the most famous scenes in film history. The impaling scene in Bishops Park, the decapitation of David Warner, both of Lee Remick's falls. These are the scenes that everyone talks about and will rightly never forget, but it's bits in between these moments that are important. They gradually bring you into the story and give you an emotional connection to the characters. Donner doesn't show his hand too soon either, you are left wondering during the early stages whether this is all in the minds of the characters.
There is something else that lifts this above above other films of this type, and that is Gregory Peck. The original choice for the role was Charlton Heston, and although he is a fine actor and a fantastic leading man, to have someone of the gravitas and talent of Gregory Peck leading you through this story is a coup for Donner but pure pleasure for the viewer. You are with him every step of the way and it elevates the film.
Then the ending...oh the ending. You think you know whats happened, you expect the credits to roll and our ordeal to be over....and then it hits you.
If you've never seen this film, you must make time for it. A fantastic psychological chiller that jumps out at you and never lets you rest. There aren't many films that have iconic actors, scenes, music that all culminate in an iconic film, it's themes of religion still resonant 34 years on.
Unforgettable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)