I knew about The Social Network before it was released in the cinema last year. I knew David Fincher was directing and I knew Jesse Eisenberg was playing the awkward creator of the phenomenon that is Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. As far as I was concerned, as a fan of both of them, that was enough for me. However, I remember being out one night, when the film came up in conversation, and someone I didn't know that well exclaimed 'How can you make a film out of Facebook?'. The key part of that sentence was the phrase 'out of'. It made me wonder whether the film's success could be based on the fact that it was about Facebook, thus ensuring that it had one very large demographic sewn up (Facebook members - only about 600 million of them). Facebook users thought it was a cash-in. A movie version of the pages that we use as a window to our life.
The reality of course is that you can't really make a film 'out of' Facebook. This theme is something it shares with it's biggest rival for the Best Picture Oscar - you can't make a whole film (and keep it interesting) based solely on a speech impediment, much in the same way that you can't create two engrossing hours of cinema with people poking, tagging and posting on walls. The key to what is great about both films is the story behind the central ideas. The real events that unfolded around George VI are as interesting and equally as unbelievable as those that surround the creation of the social tool that defines an entire generation.
Ben Mezrich, author of the incredibly overrated Bringing Down the House (adapted for the screen as '21' - even worse than the book) is the basis for Aaron Sorkin's (The West Wing) adapted screenplay and exposes the back stabbing, deceit and selfishness of how Facebook was born. The subtitle to the book is actually A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal (not like Mezrich to sensationalise....). The narrative is full of examples of Sorkin's clever approach to storytelling as it jumps from two separate deposition rooms housing two different sets of legal proceedings against Zuckerberg, to the moments in the past that are being described by the protagonists. In one room are the Winklevoss twins, who claimed Zuckerberg stole their idea from their website The Harvard Connection, and the other is Eduardo Saverin, long time friend of Zuckerberg and co-founder of Facebook. It's a device that works very well once you get your head round it. The early scenes jump between the two rooms and the past very quickly and with the sharp-tongued, pacey dialogue it can be difficult to keep up. Hang in there though, it's well worth it.
It isn't just Sorkin's writing that helps the film zip along though, David Fincher's direction manages to make a film that consists almost completely of people typing at keyboards or talking in rooms, incerdibly exciting. The film has a real energy. The camera never seeming to keep still, jumping between speakers, sweeping across the Harvard grounds. An at times techy score pulsating underneath Eissenberg's relentless diatribe. The opening sequence sees Zuckerberg blogging while building a website called Facemash at the same time. Fincher's fast editing, brilliant use of music and a determination to always have something happening in the periphery ensures that we are not lost in the Zuckerberg's jargon and are not bogged down in the technicalities of that he is doing. Another brilliant scene involves a rowing race at Henley regatta highlights the creativity of Fincher and makes me want to go through his back catalogue, kicking off with Alien 3 (which I still think is better than a lot of people give credit).
Eisenberg is very good as Zuckerberg. I haven't seen Mr Facebook other than a picture, so I don't know whether Eissenburg's portrayal is accurate, but it is a totally convincing performance of a ludicrously clever, yet criminally awkward individual, creating a social tool that he needs with a ruthlessness that will not waver. Is Zuckerberg as he is presented in the film? I have no idea, I don't really care, I'm not watching a documentary, I'm here for entertainment, not facts. And Eisenberg entertains, but not as much as he did for me in Zombieland.
I've got to be honest though, Eisenberg isn't the standout performance. It's Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder. Its true that Saverin isn't as monotone as Zuckerberg, and that may be the reason why Garfield was more noticeable, but having watched Never Let Me Go just a couple of days before this, I am now firmly in Camp Garfield (nothing to do with a ginger cat). In a film full of people being nasty to each other, Saverin was the only one I felt any warmth towards and I'm convinced that is due to Garfield.
The Winklevoss twins are both played by the amazingly named Armie Hammer, Fincher pulling that off so well that I had to double check on IMDB afterwards that it wasn't two separate people. Hammer is perfectly decent as the angry jock brothers and gets most of the funny lines. The other member of the cast worth mentioning is Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, creator of Napster. He is all smooth talking pumped up confidence (or is it arrogance), just as I imagine him to be in real life. He is perfectly watchable, if a little underwhelming when on screen, and doesn't quite have enough in the locker to really convince when in conflict with the other characters.
It's a brilliant film, there's no doubt about it, and perhaps it's unfortunate that it falls in such a strong field at this year's Oscars. However for everything that is great about it, in my opinion it suffers from the same affliction that Blue Valentine suffered from. It's about bad people being horrible to each other. The story is fascinating - its a commentary on something that we are all so familar with (you may even be reading this blog from a post on my Facebook page), it explains how $1000 became $82.9 billion and shows the noses that were broken in the process, it may not be completely accurate but it does make for compelling and insightful viewing. It's also about someone who, no matter how hard he tries, can't connect and he builds something that will help him do so. But because all of the characters are so nasty, all the backstabbing, all the accusations, they wear us down - we don't sympathise with them and consequently we do not care. The Kings Speech, 127 Hours, Black Swan - we sided with all of the protagonists and come the end of the film we were moved, in one way or another. The Social Network may be more pessimistic, perhaps even realistic, but as the film finishes there is a distinct chill there. It shouldn't be a criticism, especially as I hate a happy ending, but as a consequence, it's as if your router packs in - it does leave you disconnected....
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Monday 28 February 2011
Sunday 27 February 2011
THE RED SHOES - SECRET CINEMA (1948 - Cert. U)
Now I do have to say that I consider myself a bit of a film buff. It's fair to say that most of my knowledge of cinema is focused on the 1970's and everything that has happened since, but I have always thought that I had my finger sufficiently on the pulse and knew of all the classics from the so-called 'Golden-Era' of the movies. Yes I firmly believe, or at least did, that I am what one might describe as 'cine-literate'.
However, I must confess that until very recently I had not even heard of The Red Shoes. And why had it only come to my attention recently, I hear you ask. Well the answer is the much raved about and Oscar nominated Black Swan. During all of the press hoo-hah about the film, I read an article in the always dependable Culture supplement of The Sunday Times (I say always dependable, but the truth is I read the film reviews, then briskly flick to the TV listings at the back, sometimes slowing as the music section to see whether I've heard of any of the must-have albums) about how much Black Swan owes to the Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger film The Red Shoes. It talked of the world of ballet, the parallel between the plot of the film and the story of the show portrayed in the film and also of the use of mirrors in both films.
And fast-forward a month, ticket for Secret Cinema purchased months ago, I turned up at Wapping tube station, having failed to decipher the clues, I had no idea what I was seeing. I was wearing a suit and a bowler hat (my attempt at dressing 'late 1940's' and we were led to Tobacco Dock, a massive building in the old docks area up the road from Tower Bridge and were transported to 1940's Covent Garden.
I'm not going to over-divulge in detail because I think the key to Secret Cinema is very much the secret element (the clue is in the name). The beauty is the discovering it yourself and getting it second hand from me isn't going to do it justice.
Anyway, even when I was in 1940's Covent Garden, with clues all around me, I still wasn't sure what we would be watching. I even had a conversation at the urinal with a stranger where I told him that I was convinced that it was going to be Moulin Rouge. In fact while I was in the toilet I missed a ballerina running through the venue referring to her new ballet shoes, which were bright red. My girlfriend took enormous delight in cracking the code and guessing the film before me.
So, after all the hullaballoo, is it any good?
The first thing to say is how spot on that Times article was. All of the things that I loved about the Black Swan, the things that I thought were original and clever tricks created and deployed by Darren Aronofsky, were also present and correct in The Red Shoes.
1940's cinema can sometimes feel, well, formal. It's all so proper. This formality can keep you distanced from what is happening on screen, like a business meeting. In The Red Shoes though, once you get past this, it is a very enjoyable and interesting bit of cinema. The world of ballet is presented with all the darkness and intrigue that it is in Black Swan, obsession and insecurity is common place. There is a fantastic sequence, where the ballet performance is shown, at some length, with some striking, beautiful and disturbing imagery. Like the 'transformation' scene in Black Swan but cranked up to 11 with bundles more spectacle. Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale is a great parallel for the film. Like many fairy tales, and Swan Lake, there is a darkly black undercurrent to the story and this shines through, proving to be a cautionary tale - Be careful what you wish for.
The darkest character is Julian Craster (Marius Goring), the creative genius behind the show who puts the star, Victoria Page (Moira Shearer) on a pedestal, both in the public eye and in his own mind. He hams it up in a pantomime villain way and clearly loves every minute. Shearer herself is good as well, delicate but determined - the outcome always on a knife edge. A great study of how quickly someone can break down when under psychological strain.
It must be said that the film does drag a little, especially after I had a few beers beforehand, but it reaches a dark conclusion that I didn't see coming and probably shouldn't be in a U certificate film. A good 'oldie' and proof that Black Swan wouldn't be what it is without Michael Powell's exploration of ballet 60 years before. Most of all, another example of Secret Cinema being one of the best trips to the flicks there will ever be.
However, I must confess that until very recently I had not even heard of The Red Shoes. And why had it only come to my attention recently, I hear you ask. Well the answer is the much raved about and Oscar nominated Black Swan. During all of the press hoo-hah about the film, I read an article in the always dependable Culture supplement of The Sunday Times (I say always dependable, but the truth is I read the film reviews, then briskly flick to the TV listings at the back, sometimes slowing as the music section to see whether I've heard of any of the must-have albums) about how much Black Swan owes to the Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger film The Red Shoes. It talked of the world of ballet, the parallel between the plot of the film and the story of the show portrayed in the film and also of the use of mirrors in both films.
And fast-forward a month, ticket for Secret Cinema purchased months ago, I turned up at Wapping tube station, having failed to decipher the clues, I had no idea what I was seeing. I was wearing a suit and a bowler hat (my attempt at dressing 'late 1940's' and we were led to Tobacco Dock, a massive building in the old docks area up the road from Tower Bridge and were transported to 1940's Covent Garden.
I'm not going to over-divulge in detail because I think the key to Secret Cinema is very much the secret element (the clue is in the name). The beauty is the discovering it yourself and getting it second hand from me isn't going to do it justice.
Anyway, even when I was in 1940's Covent Garden, with clues all around me, I still wasn't sure what we would be watching. I even had a conversation at the urinal with a stranger where I told him that I was convinced that it was going to be Moulin Rouge. In fact while I was in the toilet I missed a ballerina running through the venue referring to her new ballet shoes, which were bright red. My girlfriend took enormous delight in cracking the code and guessing the film before me.
So, after all the hullaballoo, is it any good?
The first thing to say is how spot on that Times article was. All of the things that I loved about the Black Swan, the things that I thought were original and clever tricks created and deployed by Darren Aronofsky, were also present and correct in The Red Shoes.
1940's cinema can sometimes feel, well, formal. It's all so proper. This formality can keep you distanced from what is happening on screen, like a business meeting. In The Red Shoes though, once you get past this, it is a very enjoyable and interesting bit of cinema. The world of ballet is presented with all the darkness and intrigue that it is in Black Swan, obsession and insecurity is common place. There is a fantastic sequence, where the ballet performance is shown, at some length, with some striking, beautiful and disturbing imagery. Like the 'transformation' scene in Black Swan but cranked up to 11 with bundles more spectacle. Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale is a great parallel for the film. Like many fairy tales, and Swan Lake, there is a darkly black undercurrent to the story and this shines through, proving to be a cautionary tale - Be careful what you wish for.
The darkest character is Julian Craster (Marius Goring), the creative genius behind the show who puts the star, Victoria Page (Moira Shearer) on a pedestal, both in the public eye and in his own mind. He hams it up in a pantomime villain way and clearly loves every minute. Shearer herself is good as well, delicate but determined - the outcome always on a knife edge. A great study of how quickly someone can break down when under psychological strain.
It must be said that the film does drag a little, especially after I had a few beers beforehand, but it reaches a dark conclusion that I didn't see coming and probably shouldn't be in a U certificate film. A good 'oldie' and proof that Black Swan wouldn't be what it is without Michael Powell's exploration of ballet 60 years before. Most of all, another example of Secret Cinema being one of the best trips to the flicks there will ever be.
NEVER LET ME GO (2010 - Cert 12A)
Often when I use the word Sci-fi people recoil as their mind conjures up images of huge space ships, grey, rainy dystopian futures and alien life forms perfectly evolved for the purpose of hunting humans. The reality is though, and forgive me if I'm stating the obvious, it so much more than that. Jurassic Park - good wholesome family entertainment right? Yes but it's also Sci-fi, because it contains both science and fiction. So for every Blade Runner, there is an ET, and for every 2001 Space Odyssey, there is a comedy like Woody Allen's Sleeper. It's not all geeky nerd terrain where you need to know the difference between The Sulaco and The Nostromo to be allowed into the club.
And so we get to Never Let Me Go, based on the 2005 novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, which may appear from the posters and the trailers as just a love story made to tug at your heartstrings but is actually science fiction at its simplest and most effective. I need to be careful what I say because I do not want to let any spoilers seep out, but Ishiguro looks at reality and asks 'what if?' and through that one question he creates an incredible alternative reality that explores what it means to be human and makes us ponder what the price of a human life is.
We are shown this alternative vision through the lives of 3 people - Kathy, Tommy and Ruth (played by 3 big British names - Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley respectively) as they grow up, starting in the sheltered life they lead at a boarding school called Hailsham before leaving and being housed in a gated community called 'The Cottages'. What plays out is essentially a love triangle but to refer to it as that really doesn't do it justice, because it's much more than that. Much of the reason for this is to do with the acting on show. Carey Mulligan as Kathy is fantastic. She promised a great deal in An Education and really cements her reputation in this film. Kathy is the centre of the film, narrating some of it, and she really holds it all together, Mulligan playing her with skill as someone battling on with no hope but trying so hard not to let this show. Garfield is also making a name for himself (I'm due to watch the Social Network this afternoon and am looking forward to seeing him in that) and his performance in Never Let Me Go is good enough to make me think that the new Spiderman (The Amazing Spiderman) might actually not be a load of tosh. His Tommy is full of youthful naievety that makes him endearing but also heartbreaking to watch as everything unfolds around him. It is both Mulligan and Garfield that are the standout performances but Knightley is also very decent as the least likeable character of the three. Despite the nasty, manipulative streak to Ruth she still managed to elicit a sympathy in me towards her which is an achievement worth mentioning.
The feel and look of the film is another factor in making it so affecting. Mark Romanek direction ensure it is cold and distant in it's tone, it really felt as though I was kept at arm's length, an outsider looking in. It's a similar feel to his only other feature of note, One Hour Photo (he has largely done music videos and documentaries since) and really gives proceedings a chilling feel. It also deals with the big moments and unveilings in such an understated and matter-of-fact manner that they almost fall under the radar. It's cleverly manages to make the plight of the characters feel even more upsetting. The soft constant score also heightens the emotion attached to proceedings.
I also think it right to mention Alex Garland who wrote the screenplay. Since he had such success with his book The Beach he has penned this film, as well as 28 Days Later and Sunshine. He's clearly one to keep an eye on.
So, I hope I haven't given anything away because to see this film without any prior knowledge is how it should be done. It's interesting, upsetting, at times uplifting and most of all incredibly thought-provoking. 4 days after seeing it I'm still turning it over in my cranium. I read an article in the Sunday Times last week announcing the death of intelligent cinema. This film is exhibit one in the evidence to disprove that statement.
And so we get to Never Let Me Go, based on the 2005 novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, which may appear from the posters and the trailers as just a love story made to tug at your heartstrings but is actually science fiction at its simplest and most effective. I need to be careful what I say because I do not want to let any spoilers seep out, but Ishiguro looks at reality and asks 'what if?' and through that one question he creates an incredible alternative reality that explores what it means to be human and makes us ponder what the price of a human life is.
We are shown this alternative vision through the lives of 3 people - Kathy, Tommy and Ruth (played by 3 big British names - Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley respectively) as they grow up, starting in the sheltered life they lead at a boarding school called Hailsham before leaving and being housed in a gated community called 'The Cottages'. What plays out is essentially a love triangle but to refer to it as that really doesn't do it justice, because it's much more than that. Much of the reason for this is to do with the acting on show. Carey Mulligan as Kathy is fantastic. She promised a great deal in An Education and really cements her reputation in this film. Kathy is the centre of the film, narrating some of it, and she really holds it all together, Mulligan playing her with skill as someone battling on with no hope but trying so hard not to let this show. Garfield is also making a name for himself (I'm due to watch the Social Network this afternoon and am looking forward to seeing him in that) and his performance in Never Let Me Go is good enough to make me think that the new Spiderman (The Amazing Spiderman) might actually not be a load of tosh. His Tommy is full of youthful naievety that makes him endearing but also heartbreaking to watch as everything unfolds around him. It is both Mulligan and Garfield that are the standout performances but Knightley is also very decent as the least likeable character of the three. Despite the nasty, manipulative streak to Ruth she still managed to elicit a sympathy in me towards her which is an achievement worth mentioning.
The feel and look of the film is another factor in making it so affecting. Mark Romanek direction ensure it is cold and distant in it's tone, it really felt as though I was kept at arm's length, an outsider looking in. It's a similar feel to his only other feature of note, One Hour Photo (he has largely done music videos and documentaries since) and really gives proceedings a chilling feel. It also deals with the big moments and unveilings in such an understated and matter-of-fact manner that they almost fall under the radar. It's cleverly manages to make the plight of the characters feel even more upsetting. The soft constant score also heightens the emotion attached to proceedings.
I also think it right to mention Alex Garland who wrote the screenplay. Since he had such success with his book The Beach he has penned this film, as well as 28 Days Later and Sunshine. He's clearly one to keep an eye on.
So, I hope I haven't given anything away because to see this film without any prior knowledge is how it should be done. It's interesting, upsetting, at times uplifting and most of all incredibly thought-provoking. 4 days after seeing it I'm still turning it over in my cranium. I read an article in the Sunday Times last week announcing the death of intelligent cinema. This film is exhibit one in the evidence to disprove that statement.
Tuesday 22 February 2011
STEP BROTHERS (2008 - Cert 15)
Anchorman was a phenomenon. It barely made waves at the box office but once it made it's way onto DVD it quickly became everyone's favourite film. People quote it all the time, you can't sit by a swimming pool without someone shouting 'Cannonball' before piling into the wet stuff. Many films since have tried to recapture the formula, to varying levels of success, including those made by the same people, namely Adam McKay and Will Ferrell.
Step Brothers is another attempt by the two of them to do it all over again. The plot, for what it's worth, is tenuous to say the least. A man and a woman embark on a relationship in their twilight years, later discovering that they both have 40 year old sons, Brennan and Dale, that still live at home (Will Ferrell and John C Reilly). The couple get married and then move in together, leaving Ferrell and Reilly to shack up together and share a room.
Cue rivalry and hilarity.
The premise itself has very little to do with the humour of the film. Instead, it's the characters who bear the burden of having to produce the laughs and it's clear to me that the writers of the film (including McKay and Ferrell) did not have much confidence in the concept they created. They felt the need to turn Brennan and Dale into kids in grown up bodies, only without the charm and wit to be found in Tom Hanks' performance in Big.
None of what follows really makes sense (although the same can easily be levelled at Anchorman so that shouldn't necessarily be a criticism) but there are some funny moments, only one or two though, the majority of the gags miss the mark - Tumbleweed galore. The bits that work encapsulate the random humour of Anchorman that I suspect are improvisations (one line here or one visual joke there) and the over the top support characters such as Ferrell's character's more successful brother Derek and his too good to be true family. The parts that don't work are inane and overly juvenile, portraying the lead characters as something closer to mentally deranged rather than socially awkward. It's got a bit of a sinister tone that creates flashes of comedy that left my brow furrowed more than anything else. I'm not being a snob, I have no right to be. The two biggest laughs I had were probably the most childish and stupid moments of the film, an olympic-length fart in a job interview and the collapse of an improvised bunk bed. Having said that, the good work was undone by scenes with a testicle on a drum kit and one focusing on some white dog poo.
I've seen much worse than this, but then I've also seen much better. What I think it shows is that the Ferrell and McKay approach to film is chuck as much jokery at the audience and some will eventually stick. It's the law of averages. It's the same approach they applied to Anchorman, and whatever the reason, the gags stuck to the canvas more during that film. I'm not asking them to become subtle film makers, emulate Wes Anderson and cast Bill Murray in their next film, because they won't, but maybe just to put a bit more thought into what they're doing. I suppose I'm jealous, I'd love people to give me a lots of money to film me and my mates being idiots. Oh hang on, isn't that Jack Ass.....?
Step Brothers is another attempt by the two of them to do it all over again. The plot, for what it's worth, is tenuous to say the least. A man and a woman embark on a relationship in their twilight years, later discovering that they both have 40 year old sons, Brennan and Dale, that still live at home (Will Ferrell and John C Reilly). The couple get married and then move in together, leaving Ferrell and Reilly to shack up together and share a room.
Cue rivalry and hilarity.
The premise itself has very little to do with the humour of the film. Instead, it's the characters who bear the burden of having to produce the laughs and it's clear to me that the writers of the film (including McKay and Ferrell) did not have much confidence in the concept they created. They felt the need to turn Brennan and Dale into kids in grown up bodies, only without the charm and wit to be found in Tom Hanks' performance in Big.
None of what follows really makes sense (although the same can easily be levelled at Anchorman so that shouldn't necessarily be a criticism) but there are some funny moments, only one or two though, the majority of the gags miss the mark - Tumbleweed galore. The bits that work encapsulate the random humour of Anchorman that I suspect are improvisations (one line here or one visual joke there) and the over the top support characters such as Ferrell's character's more successful brother Derek and his too good to be true family. The parts that don't work are inane and overly juvenile, portraying the lead characters as something closer to mentally deranged rather than socially awkward. It's got a bit of a sinister tone that creates flashes of comedy that left my brow furrowed more than anything else. I'm not being a snob, I have no right to be. The two biggest laughs I had were probably the most childish and stupid moments of the film, an olympic-length fart in a job interview and the collapse of an improvised bunk bed. Having said that, the good work was undone by scenes with a testicle on a drum kit and one focusing on some white dog poo.
I've seen much worse than this, but then I've also seen much better. What I think it shows is that the Ferrell and McKay approach to film is chuck as much jokery at the audience and some will eventually stick. It's the law of averages. It's the same approach they applied to Anchorman, and whatever the reason, the gags stuck to the canvas more during that film. I'm not asking them to become subtle film makers, emulate Wes Anderson and cast Bill Murray in their next film, because they won't, but maybe just to put a bit more thought into what they're doing. I suppose I'm jealous, I'd love people to give me a lots of money to film me and my mates being idiots. Oh hang on, isn't that Jack Ass.....?
Monday 21 February 2011
HARRY BROWN (2009 - Cert 18)
Michael Caine has had a hell of a career, including some classics sitting alongside some proper stinkers, but in recent years he seems to have been reduced to bit part roles in Christopher Nolan films. Alfred the butler here, Leo DiCaprio’s dad there. He does a decent job with the parts but 90 seconds of screen time in a film doesn’t do the good man justice.
Harry Brown is a proper leading role for Caine, it’s the titular character and the whole film hangs on him and his performance. Brown is a former marine, now a pensioner who turns vigilante when his best mate is killed by the hoodies who terrorise the estate in which he lives. On paper it sounds like a perfect role for Caine in the twilight of his career, bit of emotion and trauma for the thespian in him but also plenty of vengeance and anger for the younger spirit that continues to live on.
At the opening of the film he is very impressive, he doesn’t just look old (as he actually is), he also acts old. He has a weary resignation etched onto his face, going through the same routine every morning, life doesn’t seem as though it’s worth living. He also moves as an old man, back hunched over slowly ambling his way to the hospital to see his sick wife. The scenes where he shares a pint with his mate Lennie in the pub are sad to watch. They idle the hours away playing chess, complaining about the wrongs of the modern world while pining for the better days in the past. I almost watched in disbelief as I saw Caine as I had never seen him before, seemingly on his last legs.
Then the tragic death occurs and the film shifts. As does Harry Brown, and consequently Caine’s performance. Gone is the weariness, replaced by a steely determination as he calls on his marine training. In terms of character development, it’s job well done by Caine, however, all of the good work in the physical aspect of the role is lost as he starts running around with guns and knives, like an elderly Rambo. Although he does it just about adequately, it’s out of sync with what went before it and all feels a bit silly. One moment, he's the sad, tearful bloke in the corner of a pub, the next he's Jason Statham's military trained Uncle.
It’s a shame because it’s a very interesting concept - I’m sure there is a part in all of us that would love to speak up on the bus when a nasty piece of work is being horrible to an old Doris, and there is a film to be made or a story to be told about the everyman fighting back. This film is not it though, despite it being desperate to be the one.
Daniel Barber the director (his first film) clearly wants this film to be a bit of social commentary as well as entertainment. At time these attempts work, such as the film culminating in a riot and the inadequacies of the police to, but at others it feels a obvious and spelt out - the press conference close to proceedings is not effective and not nearly as clever as it thinks it is. As far as Barber is concerned, the film looks the part, but that is as good as it gets.
The supporting cast is a bit of a let down as well, Emily Mortimer never believable as the police woman in charge of the investigation. Mind you, if you've got Caine being Chuck Norris, I suppose you think you can get away with anything. Ben Drew (aka Plan B for those of the music persuasion) is the lead hoodie and is decent enough, but being nasty and using rude words isn't particularly stretching on the acting front.
It promises on the premise and at the beginning but it quickly devolves into an incidental film that believes it is much more than that, becoming more and more stupid until it reaches an ending that is very Eastenders meets The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, ensuring that all credibility is seen off with an ASBO.
Tuesday 15 February 2011
VALENTINE'S DAY (2010)
2010 saw men's action movie fantasies realised with the the ensemble cast put together for The Expendables. Sly Stallone managed to bring together old school names Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts and Jet Li, chuck in Steve Austin, the current hero Jason Statham and then sprinkle in cameos from Arnie and Bruce Willis. Sounded great, and on paper it looked like it would be an action packed, guilty pleasure treat. The problem was that it wasn't. It was all a bit of a mess and not nearly as much fun as it should have been.
I watched Valentine's Day last night (on Valentine's Day of course - I felt guilty for having scared my girlfriend witless with District 9) and realised that 2010 also saw an ensemble cast gathered for the ultimate rom-com. Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba and Jennifer Garner are all there. The male quota is filled by Ashton Kutcher, Jamie Foxx, Patrick Dempsey, Bradley Cooper and Topher Grace who I'm sure they all have their tops off at some point. Oh and Kathy Bates for some reason, looking as though she's walked in off the street lost and not believing she's ended up in this film. All of this directed by Garry Marshall. Who else could be entrusted, other than the man responsible for Pretty Woman, The Princess Diaries and The Runaway Bride.
That is quite a cast list, not just in terms of bankability but also in terms of numbers. And there's more than that. This film has as incredible number of characters. So much so that a coherent narrative can't possibly be shoehorned into only 2 hours of film. The action jumps between different strands of the story as we meet all the characters, then revisit them in random order as it all plays out. There's a florist, a doctor, a sports journalist, a woman who does phone sex for a living. I lost track of it all to be honest and it doesn't really matter. None of it's complicated - you can dip in at anytime and know exactly whats happening, all because of the sheer cliche of it all. The other problem is that because of the huge number of people and amount of story lines involved, each tale is only really comprised of 4 or 5 scenes. It's hard enough to say anything meaningful and develop characters in this number of scenes at the best of times, but when the writing is this unimaginative and the acting this wooden, you really don't have a chance. Perhaps if Marshall decided to focus on one, or two at most, of the stories, he might have made a rom-com that didn't lack both romance and comedy.
All the film seems to be is a 2 hour advert for Clinton Cards and high street florists. The trouble is that a 2 hour advert has already been made by the British, only for Christmas instead. You may remember it - it was called Love Actually. It's impossible not to think of Richard Curtis' soppy ode to Christmas in London while watching Valentine's Day. LA is not as iconic and romantic as our capital in the snow and the characters supposedly 'portrayed' by Julia Roberts and co aren't nearly as amusing to watch than Bill Nighy for example.
It didn't offend me as much as Couple's Retreat did though. That film really insulted the intelligence of the viewer by thinking it was funny when it quite clearly wasn't. It had a smugness about it, something that only Vince Vaughn can exude. This film doesn't try to be particularly laugh out loud (when it does, it fails), it's just so schmaltzy....sometimes cringefully so.
I know that all of the above is particularly negative, but the main feeling I had afterwards was complete and utter indifference. During the film I knew that it was completely rubbish and made me want to vomit, but now I've completely forgotten about it all, just 24 hours after the credits finally rolled.
I watched Valentine's Day last night (on Valentine's Day of course - I felt guilty for having scared my girlfriend witless with District 9) and realised that 2010 also saw an ensemble cast gathered for the ultimate rom-com. Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba and Jennifer Garner are all there. The male quota is filled by Ashton Kutcher, Jamie Foxx, Patrick Dempsey, Bradley Cooper and Topher Grace who I'm sure they all have their tops off at some point. Oh and Kathy Bates for some reason, looking as though she's walked in off the street lost and not believing she's ended up in this film. All of this directed by Garry Marshall. Who else could be entrusted, other than the man responsible for Pretty Woman, The Princess Diaries and The Runaway Bride.
That is quite a cast list, not just in terms of bankability but also in terms of numbers. And there's more than that. This film has as incredible number of characters. So much so that a coherent narrative can't possibly be shoehorned into only 2 hours of film. The action jumps between different strands of the story as we meet all the characters, then revisit them in random order as it all plays out. There's a florist, a doctor, a sports journalist, a woman who does phone sex for a living. I lost track of it all to be honest and it doesn't really matter. None of it's complicated - you can dip in at anytime and know exactly whats happening, all because of the sheer cliche of it all. The other problem is that because of the huge number of people and amount of story lines involved, each tale is only really comprised of 4 or 5 scenes. It's hard enough to say anything meaningful and develop characters in this number of scenes at the best of times, but when the writing is this unimaginative and the acting this wooden, you really don't have a chance. Perhaps if Marshall decided to focus on one, or two at most, of the stories, he might have made a rom-com that didn't lack both romance and comedy.
All the film seems to be is a 2 hour advert for Clinton Cards and high street florists. The trouble is that a 2 hour advert has already been made by the British, only for Christmas instead. You may remember it - it was called Love Actually. It's impossible not to think of Richard Curtis' soppy ode to Christmas in London while watching Valentine's Day. LA is not as iconic and romantic as our capital in the snow and the characters supposedly 'portrayed' by Julia Roberts and co aren't nearly as amusing to watch than Bill Nighy for example.
It didn't offend me as much as Couple's Retreat did though. That film really insulted the intelligence of the viewer by thinking it was funny when it quite clearly wasn't. It had a smugness about it, something that only Vince Vaughn can exude. This film doesn't try to be particularly laugh out loud (when it does, it fails), it's just so schmaltzy....sometimes cringefully so.
I know that all of the above is particularly negative, but the main feeling I had afterwards was complete and utter indifference. During the film I knew that it was completely rubbish and made me want to vomit, but now I've completely forgotten about it all, just 24 hours after the credits finally rolled.
DISTRICT 9 (2009)
James Cameron's Sanctum in 3D. The latest example of the recent trend in cinema-land of well known, successful directors having their names attached to projects where they seem only to really be producers or, at the most, some sort of advice hot line for the less celebrated film-makers that are given their big opportunity. Its clearly a marketing ploy and you can see the attraction for studios, it acts as a bit of an endorsement.
There haven't been many occasions where the film might actually be one made by the big name endorser. Perhaps The Orphanage ('presented' by Guillermo Del Toro), a Spanish chilling horror film that had all the hallmarks of a Del Toro film - an eerie and chilly atmosphere, some striking and at times terrifying imagery, but at the centre of it a touching and human story.
District 9 is another. It could easily be a Peter Jackson film. Anyone watching this and Bad Taste back to back will be forgiven for thinking that it was all put together by the same brain. It was conceived when Peter Jackson was due to be working with Neil Blomkamp on a adaptation of the video game Halo. With that film put on hold, they decided to make a feature length film based on Blompkamp's short film 'Alive in Joburg'. So it would appear that Jackson was involved in the film from an early stage and any accusations levied at the attachment of his name of a total marketing gimmick can be ruled out.
Again set in Johannesburg, it portrays Earth in the present day, when a giant UFO appears and breaks down above the city. Years later the aliens aboard the ship become aliens in the terrestrial sense - immigrants. Tensions rise between the humans and the aliens and the visitors are eventually housed in District 9, which is for all intents and purposes, a slum, a shanty town, on the outskirts of the city. The setting of South Africa and the division in society means that the political and social themes are not exactly subtle. They are set up very well though in a mockumentary style opening that grounds this very fantastical idea in reality. It jumps from the tragedy found in the poverty of the slums to the humour to be found in aliens mixing with humans - sort of Men In Black but more satirical.
Once the world is set up, we meet Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley), working for the private security company tasked with relocating the aliens to Disctrict 10, 200km outside of Johannesburg. I'm not going to go into detail as to how the story plays out but his future becomes intwined with and dependant on the survival and freedom of the aliens, culminating in a wonderfully over the top all out action final act. This is when I think that Peter Jackson puts his stamp on proceedings. The alien weaponry cause all sorts of carnage (including a projectile pig. Yes that's right, a projectile pig) and the blood and guts spill, splash and coat the shanty town. The action manages to reach that boiling point of exhilaration and laugh out loud shock. Kick Ass did it and District 9 does it too. And then some. The girlfriend, a little on the squeamish side, spent much of this hidden behind a cushion.
So there is a lot going on. Part mockumentary, part satire, part social commentary and then later an all out action science fiction film. It could easily all fall apart, but aside from the mockumentary format coming and going and at times not suiting the narrative, it rattles along at a healthy pace, keeping you entertained and never leaving you sure where it's about to take you. The real key to the film keeping me engaged was the central performance of Copley. Weedy loser at the start but going through a metamorphosis (in more ways than one) of desperation and resignation to ultimately become the hero of the piece. I was with him every step of the way, culminating in a very touching final shot. Its a great turn by an unknown and takes the film above what could quite easily (without Jackson and the money that comes with him) fall in to cult, straight-to-DVD territory, elevating to something much more than that. Hollywood has noticed with the role of Murdoch in A-Team and Men In Black 3 to follow. I've not seen the A-Team yet but I believe that Copley's talents, based on District 9, are greater than this type of film and he deserves a different type of role.
District 9 is not exactly original though, the spaceship is very Independence Day, the action is like Bad Taste meets Starship Troopers and there are elements of The Fly , but Blomkamp (and Jackson I'm sure) take these influences and put them all together into a film that feels fresh, excites, touches and also asks the viewer to stop and think as well.
Not quite classic Sci-Fi, but certainly knocking on the door.
There haven't been many occasions where the film might actually be one made by the big name endorser. Perhaps The Orphanage ('presented' by Guillermo Del Toro), a Spanish chilling horror film that had all the hallmarks of a Del Toro film - an eerie and chilly atmosphere, some striking and at times terrifying imagery, but at the centre of it a touching and human story.
District 9 is another. It could easily be a Peter Jackson film. Anyone watching this and Bad Taste back to back will be forgiven for thinking that it was all put together by the same brain. It was conceived when Peter Jackson was due to be working with Neil Blomkamp on a adaptation of the video game Halo. With that film put on hold, they decided to make a feature length film based on Blompkamp's short film 'Alive in Joburg'. So it would appear that Jackson was involved in the film from an early stage and any accusations levied at the attachment of his name of a total marketing gimmick can be ruled out.
Again set in Johannesburg, it portrays Earth in the present day, when a giant UFO appears and breaks down above the city. Years later the aliens aboard the ship become aliens in the terrestrial sense - immigrants. Tensions rise between the humans and the aliens and the visitors are eventually housed in District 9, which is for all intents and purposes, a slum, a shanty town, on the outskirts of the city. The setting of South Africa and the division in society means that the political and social themes are not exactly subtle. They are set up very well though in a mockumentary style opening that grounds this very fantastical idea in reality. It jumps from the tragedy found in the poverty of the slums to the humour to be found in aliens mixing with humans - sort of Men In Black but more satirical.
Once the world is set up, we meet Wikus Van De Merwe (Sharlto Copley), working for the private security company tasked with relocating the aliens to Disctrict 10, 200km outside of Johannesburg. I'm not going to go into detail as to how the story plays out but his future becomes intwined with and dependant on the survival and freedom of the aliens, culminating in a wonderfully over the top all out action final act. This is when I think that Peter Jackson puts his stamp on proceedings. The alien weaponry cause all sorts of carnage (including a projectile pig. Yes that's right, a projectile pig) and the blood and guts spill, splash and coat the shanty town. The action manages to reach that boiling point of exhilaration and laugh out loud shock. Kick Ass did it and District 9 does it too. And then some. The girlfriend, a little on the squeamish side, spent much of this hidden behind a cushion.
So there is a lot going on. Part mockumentary, part satire, part social commentary and then later an all out action science fiction film. It could easily all fall apart, but aside from the mockumentary format coming and going and at times not suiting the narrative, it rattles along at a healthy pace, keeping you entertained and never leaving you sure where it's about to take you. The real key to the film keeping me engaged was the central performance of Copley. Weedy loser at the start but going through a metamorphosis (in more ways than one) of desperation and resignation to ultimately become the hero of the piece. I was with him every step of the way, culminating in a very touching final shot. Its a great turn by an unknown and takes the film above what could quite easily (without Jackson and the money that comes with him) fall in to cult, straight-to-DVD territory, elevating to something much more than that. Hollywood has noticed with the role of Murdoch in A-Team and Men In Black 3 to follow. I've not seen the A-Team yet but I believe that Copley's talents, based on District 9, are greater than this type of film and he deserves a different type of role.
District 9 is not exactly original though, the spaceship is very Independence Day, the action is like Bad Taste meets Starship Troopers and there are elements of The Fly , but Blomkamp (and Jackson I'm sure) take these influences and put them all together into a film that feels fresh, excites, touches and also asks the viewer to stop and think as well.
Not quite classic Sci-Fi, but certainly knocking on the door.
Sunday 13 February 2011
IN THEIR SLEEP (2010)
A recent review of mine for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=In-Their-Sleep&nItemID=265
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=In-Their-Sleep&nItemID=265
Saturday 12 February 2011
BLUE VALENTINE (2010)
Anyone who knows me and my taste in films will know that I really don't have much time for a happy endings (no dirty chuckles at the back there please), I hate it when everything resolved, I want to leave a cinema with uncertainty giving my imagination the chance to fill in the gaps. It's why reading fiction is so enjoyable, our own creative juices can add another few layers on to what we are shown. Blue Valentine is a film that manages to have two endings, one happy one not so happy, at the same time, both of which manage to offer resolution but no suggestion of anyone living happily ever after.
Derek Cianfrance's Oscar baiting film charting the rise and demise of a relationship has received a lot of positive press in the run up to and since it's release. One of the reasons is the structure of the film. There are two separate narrative threads (hence the dual ending) running side by side, one following the couple as the marriage disintegrates and the other showing how they met and consequently fell in love. It is pulled off very well and is an interesting concept, both strands have their share of smiles, laughs, tears and gasps. The 'early years' have some lovely moments as the couple romance one another, such as the scene in the trailer with the ukulele playing and tap dancing (a kooky scene that somehow didn't irritate me). On the other side of the coin though, the 'later years' are quite unsettling, a night away in a motel going desperately wrong for example. The format of the film also helps to keep the film interesting - at just shy of 2 hours it could become tiresome as it is essentially a character piece, people talking to other people, but the way it jumps between before and after means that it keeps rattling along with intrigue. It isn't just the formation of the film that Cianfrance deserves credit for. It's a very subtle piece, no frills, realistic looking, no splashes of colour - this is real life. This dedication to realism does make some of it difficult to watch though, scenes such as the one in a hospital pull no punches, and at timesI found myself squirming and feeling very uncomfortable. The sex scenes are also gritty to say the least, there's no polish here with romantic tunes over the top. At times it seems almost mechanical. This isn't a criticism though, it's brave to portray these themes in this way, for too long Hollywood has bottled it in it's presentation of sexual relationships. Just because it's hard viewing, doesn't mean it's wrong.
The other thing that much has been written and said about is the acting of the two leads, Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling. It's obvious that this is an actor's film. The two of them get to go through the whole range of emotions and the whole film is scenes between them both. The cameras hover on Gosling and Williams longer than they normally would giving them both the opportunity to act their hearts out. I have to say that they are both superb and utterly convincing, I really felt that I was watching two people fall in and out of love. It's worth saying that this isn't an example of overacting, the beauty of it is the subtlety of way the scenes play out. Some of the most touching and upsetting scenes have very little, or on some occasions, no dialogue (the words being drowned out by traffic or shielded by glass). It's a hell of an achievement to get this sort of reaction from me just based on facial expressions and understated eye contact (or lack of).
Neither character is completely innocent in the fall out, both have their faults and I couldn't help but feel disdain at some of their behaviour. And that is essentially the problem with the film I think. I didn't really feel sympathy with either of them, in isolation or together. With that lacking, I didn't really feel an emotional attachment to what was playing out in front of me. It was almost as if I was a voyeur watching the relationship of two people blossom and implode, leaving me to try and pick a side. Like a child watching his parents arguing, knowing I shouldn't be watching, but I can't turn away.
A compelling, excellently crafted, sublimely acted, pessimistic film about the high and lows of love. Go and see it but be warned, you come out the other end feeling as though you've been in a concrete mixer.
Derek Cianfrance's Oscar baiting film charting the rise and demise of a relationship has received a lot of positive press in the run up to and since it's release. One of the reasons is the structure of the film. There are two separate narrative threads (hence the dual ending) running side by side, one following the couple as the marriage disintegrates and the other showing how they met and consequently fell in love. It is pulled off very well and is an interesting concept, both strands have their share of smiles, laughs, tears and gasps. The 'early years' have some lovely moments as the couple romance one another, such as the scene in the trailer with the ukulele playing and tap dancing (a kooky scene that somehow didn't irritate me). On the other side of the coin though, the 'later years' are quite unsettling, a night away in a motel going desperately wrong for example. The format of the film also helps to keep the film interesting - at just shy of 2 hours it could become tiresome as it is essentially a character piece, people talking to other people, but the way it jumps between before and after means that it keeps rattling along with intrigue. It isn't just the formation of the film that Cianfrance deserves credit for. It's a very subtle piece, no frills, realistic looking, no splashes of colour - this is real life. This dedication to realism does make some of it difficult to watch though, scenes such as the one in a hospital pull no punches, and at timesI found myself squirming and feeling very uncomfortable. The sex scenes are also gritty to say the least, there's no polish here with romantic tunes over the top. At times it seems almost mechanical. This isn't a criticism though, it's brave to portray these themes in this way, for too long Hollywood has bottled it in it's presentation of sexual relationships. Just because it's hard viewing, doesn't mean it's wrong.
The other thing that much has been written and said about is the acting of the two leads, Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling. It's obvious that this is an actor's film. The two of them get to go through the whole range of emotions and the whole film is scenes between them both. The cameras hover on Gosling and Williams longer than they normally would giving them both the opportunity to act their hearts out. I have to say that they are both superb and utterly convincing, I really felt that I was watching two people fall in and out of love. It's worth saying that this isn't an example of overacting, the beauty of it is the subtlety of way the scenes play out. Some of the most touching and upsetting scenes have very little, or on some occasions, no dialogue (the words being drowned out by traffic or shielded by glass). It's a hell of an achievement to get this sort of reaction from me just based on facial expressions and understated eye contact (or lack of).
Neither character is completely innocent in the fall out, both have their faults and I couldn't help but feel disdain at some of their behaviour. And that is essentially the problem with the film I think. I didn't really feel sympathy with either of them, in isolation or together. With that lacking, I didn't really feel an emotional attachment to what was playing out in front of me. It was almost as if I was a voyeur watching the relationship of two people blossom and implode, leaving me to try and pick a side. Like a child watching his parents arguing, knowing I shouldn't be watching, but I can't turn away.
A compelling, excellently crafted, sublimely acted, pessimistic film about the high and lows of love. Go and see it but be warned, you come out the other end feeling as though you've been in a concrete mixer.
Friday 11 February 2011
THE INTERNATIONAL (2009)
Banks are evil. It's what we are all told every day. From bonuses to bail outs, they are to blame for everything that is wrong with the world at the moment, the reason oil costs more, the reason we have to settle for non-organic courgettes and the reason I am now taking tins of soup to work instead of buying a nice, tasty sarnie from EAT. The International is a film about the shadier (well, pitch black) side of the banks, exploring the idea of an international monetary fund being embroiled in the funding of an worldwide arms race.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is no expose in the style Michael Clayton or The Insider though. No siree. There's only one way to take the banks down and it's not legislation to clamp down on the bonus culture. It's guns, surveillance and Clive Owen. To say this film is a bit Bourne or Bond (Daniel Craig's Bond, not Connery or Moore) is an understatement. It seems Tom Tykwer (most famous for directing Run Lola Run and Perfume: Story of a Murderer) has withdrawn more than his fair share from the High Street branch of Greengrass et al and gone well over his overdraft limit.
Handheld camera work is there, so are a variety of international locations all introduced in a micro-montage as the place name is typed out on to the screen in computer fonts, the colour scheme is all grey and bland tones, the characters look as though they all need a good dose of sunshine (apart from Clive Owen of course), no one smiles, all the baddies are men in suits meeting in big rooms in remote lavishly designed buildings. It's very familiar territory.
That isn't to say that it isn't done well. There are some great set pieces, an opening that catches you off guard, an assassination at a political rally, a well executed 'tape recorder' moment that almost feels like a car chase as it gets the pulse racing and a sensational shoot out in the Guggenheim Museum in New York. All stand out scenes that deserve a lot of credit. But Bourne and Casino Royale aren't lauded just for the action. It's what happens between the explosions and gun fights that sets them aside. Bourne struggling to come to terms with his existence as the truth about himself unravels, Craig's Bond was the first incarnation of that character that really got wounded, physically and emotionally, and they both had a jet black streak that made them unpredictable and unsettling.
Clive Owen's equivalent here, an Interpol agent named Louise Salinger, is basically Clive Owen. He's good at the jumping around part but there isn't an arc to his character, the only development being that he becomes more and more determined as the film goes on. Salinger lacked another dimension that would have made the film much more interesting.
Naomi Watts is there as well in a remarkably inconsequential role that is clearly there as exposition and padding. Plus the presence of Neil from The Office (Patrick Baladi) as an evil lawyer is very distracting and unconvincing. The only one who is really decent enough to give the film any emotion is Armin Mueller-Stahl as baddie/goodie/which one is he?
The truth is that The International is decent popcorn fodder and will keep you entertained but it's nowhere near as good as the films it borrows from and aspires to be.
The final credits are interesting though - inane newspaper reports, buried well behind the front page, somewhere in the business supplements, detailing the fall-out of the events of the film - they provide a glimpse of how little the public might know about the shady dealings of international companies, banks and hedge funds. Thought provoking stuff but let down by the grittily presented 120 minutes of fluff that preceded it.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is no expose in the style Michael Clayton or The Insider though. No siree. There's only one way to take the banks down and it's not legislation to clamp down on the bonus culture. It's guns, surveillance and Clive Owen. To say this film is a bit Bourne or Bond (Daniel Craig's Bond, not Connery or Moore) is an understatement. It seems Tom Tykwer (most famous for directing Run Lola Run and Perfume: Story of a Murderer) has withdrawn more than his fair share from the High Street branch of Greengrass et al and gone well over his overdraft limit.
Handheld camera work is there, so are a variety of international locations all introduced in a micro-montage as the place name is typed out on to the screen in computer fonts, the colour scheme is all grey and bland tones, the characters look as though they all need a good dose of sunshine (apart from Clive Owen of course), no one smiles, all the baddies are men in suits meeting in big rooms in remote lavishly designed buildings. It's very familiar territory.
That isn't to say that it isn't done well. There are some great set pieces, an opening that catches you off guard, an assassination at a political rally, a well executed 'tape recorder' moment that almost feels like a car chase as it gets the pulse racing and a sensational shoot out in the Guggenheim Museum in New York. All stand out scenes that deserve a lot of credit. But Bourne and Casino Royale aren't lauded just for the action. It's what happens between the explosions and gun fights that sets them aside. Bourne struggling to come to terms with his existence as the truth about himself unravels, Craig's Bond was the first incarnation of that character that really got wounded, physically and emotionally, and they both had a jet black streak that made them unpredictable and unsettling.
Clive Owen's equivalent here, an Interpol agent named Louise Salinger, is basically Clive Owen. He's good at the jumping around part but there isn't an arc to his character, the only development being that he becomes more and more determined as the film goes on. Salinger lacked another dimension that would have made the film much more interesting.
Naomi Watts is there as well in a remarkably inconsequential role that is clearly there as exposition and padding. Plus the presence of Neil from The Office (Patrick Baladi) as an evil lawyer is very distracting and unconvincing. The only one who is really decent enough to give the film any emotion is Armin Mueller-Stahl as baddie/goodie/which one is he?
The truth is that The International is decent popcorn fodder and will keep you entertained but it's nowhere near as good as the films it borrows from and aspires to be.
The final credits are interesting though - inane newspaper reports, buried well behind the front page, somewhere in the business supplements, detailing the fall-out of the events of the film - they provide a glimpse of how little the public might know about the shady dealings of international companies, banks and hedge funds. Thought provoking stuff but let down by the grittily presented 120 minutes of fluff that preceded it.
Monday 7 February 2011
MONSTERS VS ALIENS (2009)
Sunday evening, just come through the worst hangover in living memory, curry ordered, Monday morning approaching fast.....film choice was always going to be a tough decision. I've got a couple of arty subtitled films to get through, a bit of ultra violent dross as well, but I just needed something.....well nice. And Easy. I scrolled through the film channels and there on Sky Family, was Monsters vs Aliens.
Another digitally animated film from the prolific Dreamworks studio (responsible for the Shrek series and the much underrated Jerry Seinfeld film Bee Movie), I felt safe, I had expectations of what I was getting into and I was fairly sure that they would be met. You would have cute characters, they would be voiced buy a range of current stars, there will be enough action and slap stick to keep the kids happy, but there will also be a fair dose of jokes aimed at the grown ups with film references galore, bit of peril but everyone living happily ever after.
I don't know what is more remarkable - me getting the checklist so spot on or the film ticking all the boxes so unashamedly. It seems that their is now a recognised formula for these films and Dreamworks think they've got it licked.
It's a story that has quite a bit of promise. Earth under attack from an evil Alien and Humankind's only hope are the monsters that the American government have kept locked away. There is a 50 foot woman (Reese Witherspoon), a blob (Seth Rogen), a fish man (Will Arnett), a human-sized genius professor cockroach (Hugh Laurie - hasn't he done well) and a giant bug/insect/thing. Its a clever idea that plays on the modern fascination with UFO's and conspiracy theories. At times it looks as though it will try to be daring and to play on the 1950's genre films and paranoia that went with it, but these are only flirtations and it soon gets back on to safe ground and box ticking. It all trundles along well enough, the first two acts being mechanical but enjoyable, working towards a big set-piece that feels like an ending. The trouble is, it isn't the ending. It carries on. What happens afterwards doesn't really work though and it all becomes a bit tiresome, still chucking the gags at you, enough to keep you amused, but not enough to stop you thinking about something else.
One thing this movie does have is sublime animation. It's very ambitious and relatively realistic looking so the big action scenes do look superb. A huge battle on the Golden Gate Bridge, particularly stands out as well as the real finale aboard a huge spaceship.
Once I got to that finale though and the credits rolled, I was surprised at how little effect the film had on me. It seems that the Dreamworks formula has a flaw. It does not factor in a heart, something that Pixar would not dare to forget. Films like Up, Wall-E and the Toy Story trilogy all tick the same boxes but do it with a dash of flair and creativity and above all else characterisation that really makes the viewer care what is happening.
Monsters vs Aliens is good fun, it's entertaining, it is funny (the American President should get special mention), the voice acting is well done, the action is gripping, but the whole film is instantly forgettable. It was perfect for the hungover mood I was in, disposable entertainment to go with the dirty grub I was guiltily putting away, but it's not something I would ever seek out again.
Another digitally animated film from the prolific Dreamworks studio (responsible for the Shrek series and the much underrated Jerry Seinfeld film Bee Movie), I felt safe, I had expectations of what I was getting into and I was fairly sure that they would be met. You would have cute characters, they would be voiced buy a range of current stars, there will be enough action and slap stick to keep the kids happy, but there will also be a fair dose of jokes aimed at the grown ups with film references galore, bit of peril but everyone living happily ever after.
I don't know what is more remarkable - me getting the checklist so spot on or the film ticking all the boxes so unashamedly. It seems that their is now a recognised formula for these films and Dreamworks think they've got it licked.
It's a story that has quite a bit of promise. Earth under attack from an evil Alien and Humankind's only hope are the monsters that the American government have kept locked away. There is a 50 foot woman (Reese Witherspoon), a blob (Seth Rogen), a fish man (Will Arnett), a human-sized genius professor cockroach (Hugh Laurie - hasn't he done well) and a giant bug/insect/thing. Its a clever idea that plays on the modern fascination with UFO's and conspiracy theories. At times it looks as though it will try to be daring and to play on the 1950's genre films and paranoia that went with it, but these are only flirtations and it soon gets back on to safe ground and box ticking. It all trundles along well enough, the first two acts being mechanical but enjoyable, working towards a big set-piece that feels like an ending. The trouble is, it isn't the ending. It carries on. What happens afterwards doesn't really work though and it all becomes a bit tiresome, still chucking the gags at you, enough to keep you amused, but not enough to stop you thinking about something else.
One thing this movie does have is sublime animation. It's very ambitious and relatively realistic looking so the big action scenes do look superb. A huge battle on the Golden Gate Bridge, particularly stands out as well as the real finale aboard a huge spaceship.
Once I got to that finale though and the credits rolled, I was surprised at how little effect the film had on me. It seems that the Dreamworks formula has a flaw. It does not factor in a heart, something that Pixar would not dare to forget. Films like Up, Wall-E and the Toy Story trilogy all tick the same boxes but do it with a dash of flair and creativity and above all else characterisation that really makes the viewer care what is happening.
Monsters vs Aliens is good fun, it's entertaining, it is funny (the American President should get special mention), the voice acting is well done, the action is gripping, but the whole film is instantly forgettable. It was perfect for the hungover mood I was in, disposable entertainment to go with the dirty grub I was guiltily putting away, but it's not something I would ever seek out again.
Tuesday 1 February 2011
FOUR LIONS (2010)
A comedy, about suicide bombers. By Chris Morris. You could hear the gasps. You would expect it to be just about the most outrageous and offensive piece of cinema ever. Or art for that matter. The politically correct brigade were sharpening their knives in anticipation of the film's release. People braced themselves for the backlash.
It's not at all what you would expect though. It doesn't attempt shock comedy just for the sake of headlines, it is much cleverer than that in it's pursuit of laughs. It doesn't focus on hate and anger, instead it is a film with heart and emotion. It explores the issues at the crux of home-grown terrorism but doesn't get bogged down in trying to make an overblown statement.
Morris and his writing team avoid the temptation to portray the group of terrorists that we follow as fanatical lunatics, instead opting to have a collection of idiotic clowns and a white Muslim convert (Nigel Lindsay on very funny form) led by everyman Omar (played by Riz Ahmed). Much of the early comedy is taken from their calamitous attempts at getting their Jihad plan into action, a video where they address the Nation of Islam with one of them holding a toy gun. Another tries to cover up buying dozens of bottle of bleach from the same shop by putting on different voices. Two of the group go to a training camp in Pakistan where they inevitably make a pig's ear out of it all. After a while though it becomes clear that the film is about a group of friends, it doesn't really matter what they are trying to do, it's just about friends, all be it brain-dead friends, trying to achieve something together and how it affects their relationship.
This is where the more serious undertones start to come through and the film explores the idea that the suicide bombers in the world might not know fully what they are doing, and that they are led into it by more intelligent associates. It's interesting that the real moral of the story is nothing to do with terrorism but is actually about being a good friend. It's impressive that the film focuses on such a small idea while it could easily have a grander mission, beyond it's station.
Morris is a satirist and this shines through constantly. The film highlights some of the inconsistencies with religion as they try to make sense of what they are doing, only to confuse themselves further. It's not just Islam and religion that gets dealt with though, the incompetency of the police and the stereotypical assumptions that people make are all raised and mocked accordingly. Subtle digs consistently crop up, I probably need to see the film again just to pick up on them all.
The climax of the film, The London Marathon, makes for the most obvious laughs and is very entertaining, including possibly the funniest sniper moment in the history of film, but it does go off the boil as it nears the conclusion. The viewer is expected to be moved by how it plays out, but the reality is that the characters, with the exception of Omar, are all basically two-dimensional caricatures solely there for chuckles throughout the film, and I therefore didn't really feel connected. It feels laboured and clunky, fall out of step with how impressive the film was before that point. It just goes to show how difficult comedy is, to write characters for your amusement and also your emotions. It's a shame because there are some nice touching moments, again centred on Omar, with his son (likening the fight against the West to The Lion King) and his wife.
So Chris Morris has managed to make a touching, intimate, understated and funny film about suicide bombers, without once resorting to shock tactics, violence and over the top drama. The comedy being instant with the more mature themes lingering long after the film has finished. In essence, a very British film. It's a great achievement and has got him, and the film, well deserved nods at the Baftas, although I suspect it will lose out on both awards for which it is nominated.
Do not be put off by the subject matter, well worth a watch.
It's not at all what you would expect though. It doesn't attempt shock comedy just for the sake of headlines, it is much cleverer than that in it's pursuit of laughs. It doesn't focus on hate and anger, instead it is a film with heart and emotion. It explores the issues at the crux of home-grown terrorism but doesn't get bogged down in trying to make an overblown statement.
Morris and his writing team avoid the temptation to portray the group of terrorists that we follow as fanatical lunatics, instead opting to have a collection of idiotic clowns and a white Muslim convert (Nigel Lindsay on very funny form) led by everyman Omar (played by Riz Ahmed). Much of the early comedy is taken from their calamitous attempts at getting their Jihad plan into action, a video where they address the Nation of Islam with one of them holding a toy gun. Another tries to cover up buying dozens of bottle of bleach from the same shop by putting on different voices. Two of the group go to a training camp in Pakistan where they inevitably make a pig's ear out of it all. After a while though it becomes clear that the film is about a group of friends, it doesn't really matter what they are trying to do, it's just about friends, all be it brain-dead friends, trying to achieve something together and how it affects their relationship.
This is where the more serious undertones start to come through and the film explores the idea that the suicide bombers in the world might not know fully what they are doing, and that they are led into it by more intelligent associates. It's interesting that the real moral of the story is nothing to do with terrorism but is actually about being a good friend. It's impressive that the film focuses on such a small idea while it could easily have a grander mission, beyond it's station.
Morris is a satirist and this shines through constantly. The film highlights some of the inconsistencies with religion as they try to make sense of what they are doing, only to confuse themselves further. It's not just Islam and religion that gets dealt with though, the incompetency of the police and the stereotypical assumptions that people make are all raised and mocked accordingly. Subtle digs consistently crop up, I probably need to see the film again just to pick up on them all.
The climax of the film, The London Marathon, makes for the most obvious laughs and is very entertaining, including possibly the funniest sniper moment in the history of film, but it does go off the boil as it nears the conclusion. The viewer is expected to be moved by how it plays out, but the reality is that the characters, with the exception of Omar, are all basically two-dimensional caricatures solely there for chuckles throughout the film, and I therefore didn't really feel connected. It feels laboured and clunky, fall out of step with how impressive the film was before that point. It just goes to show how difficult comedy is, to write characters for your amusement and also your emotions. It's a shame because there are some nice touching moments, again centred on Omar, with his son (likening the fight against the West to The Lion King) and his wife.
So Chris Morris has managed to make a touching, intimate, understated and funny film about suicide bombers, without once resorting to shock tactics, violence and over the top drama. The comedy being instant with the more mature themes lingering long after the film has finished. In essence, a very British film. It's a great achievement and has got him, and the film, well deserved nods at the Baftas, although I suspect it will lose out on both awards for which it is nominated.
Do not be put off by the subject matter, well worth a watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)