Ricky Gervais is on a roll and has been for a long time. Ever since The Office emerged, breaking records, winning awards, shipping abroad, he has maintained that level of success. Extras was a hit here and over the Pond, he has had sell-out stand-up World tours, he has topped podcast charts since their inception and has comfortably made the transition to Hollywood with the charming Ghost Town and then the enjoyable and interesting The Invention of Lying (his first foray into directing a Hollywood picture). The only blips are his appearances in the Night at the Museum films, although I suspect his pay cheques for his 3 minutes of screen time mean that he has the last laugh.
I am of the opinion though that Gervais' best work is done alongside his long term writing partner Stephen Merchant. Cemetery Junction is the first big screen collaboration between the two and was released into the cinema earlier this year with very little fan fare and despite faring out at the box office, barely caused a ripple. At the time, I couldn't find anyone who had seen it, I struggled to find anyone who was desperate to see it. Critics and reviews gave it a luke warm reception. It seemed to pass everyone by in a epidemic of indifference.
I think the reality is that the film was not what anyone expected.
Set in 1973, in a sleepy suburban town (Reading is alluded to and is where Gervais grew up), it is the story of three young men and their aspirations and dreams and whether they can realise them. Freddie (Christian Cooke) dreams of working his way up the ladder at an insurance company and fall in love with his child hood sweetheart, Bruce (a James Dean type played by Tom Hughes) is either talking of leaving the town of getting into fights and in trouble with the police. The third, Snork is the loser of the group, an announcer at the local train station, barely harbouring any ambitions other than 'having a nose for muff'.
The formula of the plot has been seen before and never really throws up any surprises. Its the characters themselves that are very much at the centre of the piece.
The three central characters are all very different and are at a stage in their lives when they may be growing apart but you really get a sense that they are genuinely the best of friends and have come through think and thin together and would do anything for one another (particular Bruce's almost paternal relationship with Snork). The friends are also the basis for much of the comedy in the film, juvenile banter and larking around that is similar to the humour in the Gervais/Merchant sitcoms and fits perfectly in this context. The other comedy is generated is in the relationship between Gervais (Freddie's father) and his mother.
However, to call this film a comedy would be inaccurate and unjust to the other elements of the film. For all the fantastic humour in The Office and Extras, some of the most heartbreaking and emotional moments I've ever seen were in those programmes: Tim's pursuit of Dawn; the moment they finally get together at the end of the Christmas special; Brent pleading not to be made redundant, Any Millman's outburst on Celebrity Big Brother. All incredibly moving moments that are very subtle and underplayed. The two writers continue this throughout Cemetery Junction. Wonderfully understated exchanges between Gervais and his screen son really tug at the heart strings. There is another teary moment when Ralph Fiennes (horrible boss of the insurance company) gives a speech in praise of a long-serving member of staff about to retire.
The only writing that grated with me was the dialogue exchanges between Freddie and the love interest, which came across as very smug. No-one actually talks like this, it reminded me of the way the teenagers spoke to each other in Dawsons Creek, ie annoying.
Another surprise is the look of the film. The standard appearance of a British film set in this period in factories and working class homes is a dour grainy colour. Not here, it revels in the English countryside with splashes of colour throughout. Gervais and Merchant themselves describe it as a 'love letter to England'.
I loved this film and would encourage anyone to see it. Go in with an open mind and without expectations because it's not like anything the writers have done before and if you let yourself get involved in the characters it will be a wonderful 90 minute journey full of laughs, tears, smiles and then more laughs and tears. With a brilliant soundtrack.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Sunday 26 September 2010
Wednesday 15 September 2010
JOY DIVISION (2008)
Another Lovefilm delivery and one that I was really looking forward to having recently moved it to 'High' priority. I'm a Joy Division fan, regular have them playing on the Ipod and Love Will Tear Us Apart really is up there with some of my favourite songs of all time. I had also recently read Peter Hook's book chronicling the history of the Hacienda and vibrant music scene in Manchester over the last 30 years of the last century, 'How Not to Run a Club' so I was already really in the mood for this film. 'Mad for it' perhaps.
For those of you aren't aware of the story, Manchester spawned a number of hugely influential bands during the late 70's and into the 80's. It was a movement. It spawned a name. 'Madchester'. Many of these bands are still cited by today's chart toppers as influences who can only dream of having the same sort of impact. At the centre of this was Joy Division, fronted by the epileptic Ian Curtis. They became the band of the moment with a sound that was cutting edge. They had the world in their hands. Then it ended abruptly with Curtis' suicide. But the story of the band continued as the remaining members formed New Order and helped set up the Hacienda night club in Manchester that helped give birth to Acid House and the 'Rave' scene in this country. An incredible tale that forms a huge part of the history of a generation that we are still effected by today.
This combined with my love of the band's music meant that surely this film couldn't let me down.
Well it did.
In documentary format, this was the factual account released shortly after Anton Corbijn's excellent Control that launched Sam Riley into the big league. If you've seen any music documentary then you know what to expect. The story of the band is told chronologically, with interviews with the band members (black screens behind them) inter spliced with archive footage of the band performing and famous images from that era in time. All of this happening with the iconic music playing over the top. Tab A, into Tab B.
It all starts well enough, painting the picture of an industrial Manchester resembling a building site, a voice over from Tony Wilson explaining that music made Manchester 'shiny and new again'. But then it goes straight into the Joy Division story. The viewer never really gets a feel of just how important the music scene in Manchester became. To have got this message across and then put Joy Division at the centre of it would have given the band a much greater context.
And then it all becomes dull. It seems to presume that the viewer is already a fan and relies on the anecdotes of the band members to push the film along. It's also very monotone. It produced the same emotions in me when the band were successful as when Curtis began to spiral out of control. Where is the passion?
It is not without its plus points though. There is a charm to the film and much of this is down to the personalities of the band members and Tony Wilson. One of my favourite parts of the film is a short montage of amusing stories told by the band. The smiles on their faces as they recollect the boyish larks from decades before during the bands early years is genuinely touching.
There are some truly heartfelt moments from the interviews as well. Most of these surround the death of Curtis. There is a moment when Peter Hook confesses his guilt for not having seen Curtis' body after his death, opting instead to go to the pub and 'get pissed'. A reminder of just how young these men were when the band was at it's peak.
There is also an incredibly creepy sound recording of Bernard Sumner hypnotising Curtis in a bid to rid him of his demons. Chilling stuff and genuinely interesting.
So to Sumnerise (come on, that is a decent pun), this film disappoints. It fails to really deliver the excitement that surrounded the band in a time that was exciting (according to the books I've read - I wasn't there of course). It laborisouly ambles through the story and is only saved because of how interesting the real characters are.
If this film is on telly, you might as well watch it, but if you really want a fix of this era, see Control or 24 Party People.
For those of you aren't aware of the story, Manchester spawned a number of hugely influential bands during the late 70's and into the 80's. It was a movement. It spawned a name. 'Madchester'. Many of these bands are still cited by today's chart toppers as influences who can only dream of having the same sort of impact. At the centre of this was Joy Division, fronted by the epileptic Ian Curtis. They became the band of the moment with a sound that was cutting edge. They had the world in their hands. Then it ended abruptly with Curtis' suicide. But the story of the band continued as the remaining members formed New Order and helped set up the Hacienda night club in Manchester that helped give birth to Acid House and the 'Rave' scene in this country. An incredible tale that forms a huge part of the history of a generation that we are still effected by today.
This combined with my love of the band's music meant that surely this film couldn't let me down.
Well it did.
In documentary format, this was the factual account released shortly after Anton Corbijn's excellent Control that launched Sam Riley into the big league. If you've seen any music documentary then you know what to expect. The story of the band is told chronologically, with interviews with the band members (black screens behind them) inter spliced with archive footage of the band performing and famous images from that era in time. All of this happening with the iconic music playing over the top. Tab A, into Tab B.
It all starts well enough, painting the picture of an industrial Manchester resembling a building site, a voice over from Tony Wilson explaining that music made Manchester 'shiny and new again'. But then it goes straight into the Joy Division story. The viewer never really gets a feel of just how important the music scene in Manchester became. To have got this message across and then put Joy Division at the centre of it would have given the band a much greater context.
And then it all becomes dull. It seems to presume that the viewer is already a fan and relies on the anecdotes of the band members to push the film along. It's also very monotone. It produced the same emotions in me when the band were successful as when Curtis began to spiral out of control. Where is the passion?
It is not without its plus points though. There is a charm to the film and much of this is down to the personalities of the band members and Tony Wilson. One of my favourite parts of the film is a short montage of amusing stories told by the band. The smiles on their faces as they recollect the boyish larks from decades before during the bands early years is genuinely touching.
There are some truly heartfelt moments from the interviews as well. Most of these surround the death of Curtis. There is a moment when Peter Hook confesses his guilt for not having seen Curtis' body after his death, opting instead to go to the pub and 'get pissed'. A reminder of just how young these men were when the band was at it's peak.
There is also an incredibly creepy sound recording of Bernard Sumner hypnotising Curtis in a bid to rid him of his demons. Chilling stuff and genuinely interesting.
So to Sumnerise (come on, that is a decent pun), this film disappoints. It fails to really deliver the excitement that surrounded the band in a time that was exciting (according to the books I've read - I wasn't there of course). It laborisouly ambles through the story and is only saved because of how interesting the real characters are.
If this film is on telly, you might as well watch it, but if you really want a fix of this era, see Control or 24 Party People.
Monday 13 September 2010
CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS
This is one that I put on my lovefilm a while ago as I was trawling through the new releases section. I hit the 'rent me' tab as I vaguely remembered hearing Kermode saying that he enjoyed it. When it arrived in the post though I must admit that I wasn't exactly filled with excitement. In fact, I did wonder whether I would actually watch it. 'When would I be in the mood' I asked myself. I considered posting it straight back.
The question was answered when my girlfriend and I were planning on a lazy morning in bed with mugs of coffee and toast. With nowt on the telly she suggested I put on Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and so I sensibly did as I was told. And so I settled down to view with not particularly high expectations.
The trouble with digitally animated films is that there seems to be one released every week and you can always on them ticking the same boxes. Cuddly characters, check. Voices done by whoever is in fashion in Hollywood, check. Film references/jokes, check. Cheeky little jokes for the adults, check. Moral of the story where we all lectured that we must be nice to each other and recycle our beer bottles, check. Pixar, who are obviously the leaders in this genre, manage to somehow get away with it though. It works, for kids, adults and cynics alike. Why is that?
I think it's do with the characters themselves. If you buy into them, whether they are a talking dog or a tap dancing penguin, then you care what happens to them. You also probably forgive them for being slightly irritating or predictable. And Pixar are the only ones who are able to do this - just look at their last films, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3. All guaranteed tear-jerkers.
So, that is the context for my low expectations as I pressed play. Meatballs exceeded these expectations. If truth be told it would have exceeded my expectations had I been waiting for it's DVD release counting the days. It was brilliant.
The plot set up is nicely done, a local boy on a small island in the Atlantic aspires to be an inventor to put his town on the map only to be hopeless at everything he turns his attention to (including a 'Monkey Thought Translator' which is annoyingly similar to the Talking Dog tool used in UP - not sure which film came first - one for the lawyers). One of these disastrous inventions has the accidental effect of causing it to rain Cheeseburgers. The little island becomes the talk of the world and the tourist industry booms, easily overtaking the other main export - Sardines.
Things are all swell for the main character, he's the hero of the town, looks as though he's getting the girl.....but now for the moral of the story...it is possible for too much of a good thing. This is when the film really takes off. It turns into a wonderfully surreal adventure as they try to save the day, venturing inside the culinary weather system. It almost seems like a visual take on the Beatles song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Brilliant. All the way through to a thrilling conclusion.
From start to finish, this film never lets up. The laughs come consistently, pitched at the right level, there are some brilliantly creative uses of the 'food for weather' gag, really likeable characters (including a brilliant role for Mr T as a paternal police officer), some equally unpleasant bad guys (The Mayor and the Roast Chicken army spring to mind) and at the heart of it a genuinely touching father/son relationship culminating in a teary end. It's not Pixar but it's as close as anyone has got. If you get the chance, check this film out.
The question was answered when my girlfriend and I were planning on a lazy morning in bed with mugs of coffee and toast. With nowt on the telly she suggested I put on Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and so I sensibly did as I was told. And so I settled down to view with not particularly high expectations.
The trouble with digitally animated films is that there seems to be one released every week and you can always on them ticking the same boxes. Cuddly characters, check. Voices done by whoever is in fashion in Hollywood, check. Film references/jokes, check. Cheeky little jokes for the adults, check. Moral of the story where we all lectured that we must be nice to each other and recycle our beer bottles, check. Pixar, who are obviously the leaders in this genre, manage to somehow get away with it though. It works, for kids, adults and cynics alike. Why is that?
I think it's do with the characters themselves. If you buy into them, whether they are a talking dog or a tap dancing penguin, then you care what happens to them. You also probably forgive them for being slightly irritating or predictable. And Pixar are the only ones who are able to do this - just look at their last films, Wall-E, Up and Toy Story 3. All guaranteed tear-jerkers.
So, that is the context for my low expectations as I pressed play. Meatballs exceeded these expectations. If truth be told it would have exceeded my expectations had I been waiting for it's DVD release counting the days. It was brilliant.
The plot set up is nicely done, a local boy on a small island in the Atlantic aspires to be an inventor to put his town on the map only to be hopeless at everything he turns his attention to (including a 'Monkey Thought Translator' which is annoyingly similar to the Talking Dog tool used in UP - not sure which film came first - one for the lawyers). One of these disastrous inventions has the accidental effect of causing it to rain Cheeseburgers. The little island becomes the talk of the world and the tourist industry booms, easily overtaking the other main export - Sardines.
Things are all swell for the main character, he's the hero of the town, looks as though he's getting the girl.....but now for the moral of the story...it is possible for too much of a good thing. This is when the film really takes off. It turns into a wonderfully surreal adventure as they try to save the day, venturing inside the culinary weather system. It almost seems like a visual take on the Beatles song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Brilliant. All the way through to a thrilling conclusion.
From start to finish, this film never lets up. The laughs come consistently, pitched at the right level, there are some brilliantly creative uses of the 'food for weather' gag, really likeable characters (including a brilliant role for Mr T as a paternal police officer), some equally unpleasant bad guys (The Mayor and the Roast Chicken army spring to mind) and at the heart of it a genuinely touching father/son relationship culminating in a teary end. It's not Pixar but it's as close as anyone has got. If you get the chance, check this film out.
Saturday 11 September 2010
PIRANHA 3D
I thought long and hard about which film to kick this all off with and I ultimately opted for the last film I saw at the pictures.
My trip to see Piranha 3D did not come without sacrifice. My new year's resolution was to avoid multiplexes. The closest I allowed myself to a cinema chain was the lovely Picturehouse venues (Clapham Common and The Ritzy in Brixton are great places for a trip to the flicks). Earlier this year I decided against seeing Predators (the release of which I was eagerly awaiting) because the only place I could find showing it was the monstrosity that is Cineworld in Wandsworth. However, when it came to Piranha 3D the dilemma became ever greater - this film was only showing in 3D, if I waited for DVD would I miss the majority of the fun to be had with such an obvious B-movie, seemingly aimed directly at my love of Monster Movies.
After two weeks of wrestling with my conscious, searching listings, hoping it would be shown at the Electric in Notting Hill as a last minute surprise to patrons, I agreed to see it with a friend from work who's cinema trips are now limited with the arrival of a new born child, the decision justified because I was doing it for someone else - a selfless act.
So how did the film fare on a balmy Tuesday evening after work on an empty stomach?
The one thing that everyone will know about this film is that Kelly Brook stars. Is she any good? Yes she is actually, making a pretty good stab at her limited dialogue. Her first line in the film is one of a number of laughs in the film and sets the tone - trashy and tongue-in-cheek, a real 'Carry On' vibe. She even cries at one stage. I can't see an Oscar nomination in her future but she's come a long way from struggling with auto-cues on the Big Breakfast. There are some other familiar faces - Ving Rhames playing the tough guy (again), Elizabeth Shue putting in a good turn as the feisty female sheriff, the legendary Christopher Lloyd playing a slightly mad doctor type (shock - I half expected him to say at one stage the only way to kill the beasts was 1.21 giga watts) and a cracking little cameo from Richard Dreyfuss. Jerry O'Connell almost steals the show as the nasty piece of work in the film. I say almost stealing the show because anyone going to see this film only does so for one real reason: The Piranhas. Any supporting characters don't really matter, they are merely in attendance to be served up.
The truth is the Piranhas themselves are fairly disappointing. They lack any real character or distinctiveness and I think this is caused by relatively poor effects and creature design. Consequently this means that the enduring memories of the teethy fish are from above the water, bubbles and blood simmering beneath the victims. The real joy to be had is in the gore though. And what gore there is. This film is an 18. I was starting to wonder whether I would ever see an 18 again that didn't involve drills, chainsaws and Eastern European backpacking holidays. But this is back to what 18 certificates should be, over the top gore. The big carnage scene is a wonderfully crafted splatterfest with some fantastically creative deaths causing some real 'turn away' moments. A special mention should also go to the sound. There are some horrific sound effects, chomps and crunches as prehistoric dentures bite through bone, to accompany the bloody visuals that mean shutting your eyes will never put you fully at ease.
Across film land at the moment there is a debate about whether 3D is really adding anything. This film will not assist either camp conclusively. There are some nice touches at times with things pointing out of the screen and making you jump, but the mediocre special effects never really make this a jaw dropping experience. If anything, this film suggests that 3D can easily continue to be a gimmicky selling point for the horror genre. There is also a scene where Kelly Brook and a fellow female thespian seem to promote the use of 3D in quite another genre which somehow seems to fit in the film despite being clearly aimed at Nuts readers.
So would I recommend this film to anyone? Yes I would, but certainly not everyone. Its an acquired taste and needs to be taken with a large helping of salt. The acting is decent at best, the monsters are gruesome but not scary, the deaths have a splash of blood and humour. Its probably what you'd expect but may just exceed your expectations because it pulls it all of with a bit of style. The first good B Movie since the under-rated 8 Legged Freaks, and the film Snakes on a Plane wanted to be. Perfect Saturday night popcorn fodder.
My trip to see Piranha 3D did not come without sacrifice. My new year's resolution was to avoid multiplexes. The closest I allowed myself to a cinema chain was the lovely Picturehouse venues (Clapham Common and The Ritzy in Brixton are great places for a trip to the flicks). Earlier this year I decided against seeing Predators (the release of which I was eagerly awaiting) because the only place I could find showing it was the monstrosity that is Cineworld in Wandsworth. However, when it came to Piranha 3D the dilemma became ever greater - this film was only showing in 3D, if I waited for DVD would I miss the majority of the fun to be had with such an obvious B-movie, seemingly aimed directly at my love of Monster Movies.
After two weeks of wrestling with my conscious, searching listings, hoping it would be shown at the Electric in Notting Hill as a last minute surprise to patrons, I agreed to see it with a friend from work who's cinema trips are now limited with the arrival of a new born child, the decision justified because I was doing it for someone else - a selfless act.
So how did the film fare on a balmy Tuesday evening after work on an empty stomach?
The one thing that everyone will know about this film is that Kelly Brook stars. Is she any good? Yes she is actually, making a pretty good stab at her limited dialogue. Her first line in the film is one of a number of laughs in the film and sets the tone - trashy and tongue-in-cheek, a real 'Carry On' vibe. She even cries at one stage. I can't see an Oscar nomination in her future but she's come a long way from struggling with auto-cues on the Big Breakfast. There are some other familiar faces - Ving Rhames playing the tough guy (again), Elizabeth Shue putting in a good turn as the feisty female sheriff, the legendary Christopher Lloyd playing a slightly mad doctor type (shock - I half expected him to say at one stage the only way to kill the beasts was 1.21 giga watts) and a cracking little cameo from Richard Dreyfuss. Jerry O'Connell almost steals the show as the nasty piece of work in the film. I say almost stealing the show because anyone going to see this film only does so for one real reason: The Piranhas. Any supporting characters don't really matter, they are merely in attendance to be served up.
The truth is the Piranhas themselves are fairly disappointing. They lack any real character or distinctiveness and I think this is caused by relatively poor effects and creature design. Consequently this means that the enduring memories of the teethy fish are from above the water, bubbles and blood simmering beneath the victims. The real joy to be had is in the gore though. And what gore there is. This film is an 18. I was starting to wonder whether I would ever see an 18 again that didn't involve drills, chainsaws and Eastern European backpacking holidays. But this is back to what 18 certificates should be, over the top gore. The big carnage scene is a wonderfully crafted splatterfest with some fantastically creative deaths causing some real 'turn away' moments. A special mention should also go to the sound. There are some horrific sound effects, chomps and crunches as prehistoric dentures bite through bone, to accompany the bloody visuals that mean shutting your eyes will never put you fully at ease.
Across film land at the moment there is a debate about whether 3D is really adding anything. This film will not assist either camp conclusively. There are some nice touches at times with things pointing out of the screen and making you jump, but the mediocre special effects never really make this a jaw dropping experience. If anything, this film suggests that 3D can easily continue to be a gimmicky selling point for the horror genre. There is also a scene where Kelly Brook and a fellow female thespian seem to promote the use of 3D in quite another genre which somehow seems to fit in the film despite being clearly aimed at Nuts readers.
So would I recommend this film to anyone? Yes I would, but certainly not everyone. Its an acquired taste and needs to be taken with a large helping of salt. The acting is decent at best, the monsters are gruesome but not scary, the deaths have a splash of blood and humour. Its probably what you'd expect but may just exceed your expectations because it pulls it all of with a bit of style. The first good B Movie since the under-rated 8 Legged Freaks, and the film Snakes on a Plane wanted to be. Perfect Saturday night popcorn fodder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)