Diablo Cody made a name for herself with her script for the much loved and hyped Juno, she won an Oscar and a Bafta, she was nominated for a Golden Globe. She was marked for big things and everyone waited with anticipation to see what her next move would be. I'm not sure anyone thought it might take the shape of Jennifer's Body, a high school horror film.
Megan Fox (yes the really irritating one from Transformers) is Jennifer, popular high school chick/slapper. She is friends with, and has been since they were kids, Needy Lesnicky (Amanda Seyfried). I don't think the name Needy is a coincidence, as she constantly craves the approval of her cooler pal resulting in a very one-way relationship. Then after the pair are caught up in a fire at a local bar, a rock band and their devil worshipping ways see a change in Jennifer's behaviour. First there are just mood swings and the occasional bad hair day, then things really get bad as she starts eating boys at her school. The story is all told in flashback by Needy, who is locked up in prison - 'how has she got there' we ask ourselves.
Nothing original there then and all a bit daft - for most of the film I found myself thinking that Cody had copped out and attempted to do a 'genre' piece but forgetting to actually put any effort into it. And when I wasn't thinking that, I was bored. I had seen this sort of thing many times before, and other than the occasional witty quip, it felt staler than the contents of my badly maintained fridge.
Fox is perfectly adequate in this, basically playing the village bicycle which isn't too much of a stretch for her, but she can't quite manage to get as much out of Cody's screenwriting as the undoubtedly more talented Ellen Page in Juno. Seyfried is a bit more interesting, nerdy girl trying to make sense of all this madness while at the same time coming to terms with love, life and growing up. Oh and saving the school as well. Johnny Simmons makes up the cast as Needy's boyfriend Chip, essentially playing Michael Cera, the now standard issue geek performance, but as well as Michael Cera.
Then we hit the final act and things get a bit more interesting. Jennifer turns up at the High School dance which will effectively be a buffet table for her carnivorous appetite and focuses her attention on poor Chip. This all culminates in a nicely done battle between Jennifer and Needy with some fizzy banter that shows Cody can still do it and doesn't end as you would anticipate. Then we have one final pay off that again, is far from predictable and is also little upsetting.
The best part of the film though is the closing credits (not in a sarcastic way), as we are treated to stills of a vengeful bloodbath in a hotel room with some nasty imagery. It's a great way to end the story, instead of just tacking the scene on at the end of the film which would have made it feel overlong and baggy. A nice touch.
So, a ploddingly predictable and largely unoriginal film until the last 15 minutes, when it all of a sudden becomes enjoyable and a bit left field. If you are a Megan Fox fan, you will probably love it (and you should be ashamed of yourself), but if you aren't, it's just about worth a watch. Only just though.
This is 3rd film I've seen recently where the majority of the film isn't very good but picks up at the end to trick us into thinking the film was more enjoyable than it actually was. This film, Tron: Legacy and The Proposal all had me looking at my watch, then there is a decent finale and I come away thinking, that wasn't that bad....is this a good thing? Well I always maintain that the ending is the most important part of a film, you must get that right otherwise you feel let down (such as Deja Vu). However, having said that, it doesn't give you the right to not bother with 75% of a movie only to ensure that the finale pays off and has us all leaving the cinema in a good mood.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Sunday, 9 January 2011
THE PROPOSAL (2009)
Monday 3rd January, day before we all finally return to work. Desperately trying to stave off the impending fear of 'to-do' lists and counting the number of 'get-up's until my next holiday, I decided that a day of films was clearly what was needed. The first was 3 Men and a Baby, then, my choice, The Road. That left decision of the 8 o clock movie in the hands of my girlfriend. She sifted through my DVD collection - nothing there to inspire her, I offered my next Lovefilm rental, Jennifer's Body - nope, not her cup of tea, so she flicked through the film channels.....and stopped on The Proposal....I'm a fair man, it was her turn, and I know that I need to hone my talents in reviewing films that I would not choose to watch....
Sandra Bullock plays Margaret Tate, high up on the food chain in a publishing firm and generally thought of by her colleagues as an evil bitch, often referred to as 'It'. Ryan Reynolds is Andrew Paxton her long-suffering young assistant, who has to run around after her night and day, constantly treading on egg shells. Then Tate is told that she is about to be deported back to Canada and she has the spontaneous brainwave that she can marry Paxton and get her Green Card. Then, for some not particularly clear reason, the proof of the relationship, at the request of the immigration office, rests on the success of a trip to Paxton's parents' house in the back-end of nowhere in Alaska. Oh the hilarity ensues.
I'd like to point out here that I am a Sandra Bullock fan and will always want to enjoy a film that she is in. There is a lot of good will stored up inside me for her. However, being a fan of Bullock is a frustrating thing, because she has really put out some dross over the years. Real, top level dross. Here she isn't very convincing as a nasty boss which is mostly because these films are so predictable and you know that as soon as you get used to her being evil, she is going to see the error of her ways and soften up. Plus she is one of Hollywood's good girls. It just doesn't work. She is also starting to look a bit, well, plastic. A bit too done up.....it's a little off putting. Reynolds is better than this as well, and I think he knows it because he is just going through the motions throughout this film. He seems as though he wants to be somewhere else. Anywhere else.
If you brush over the nonsensical plot set-up at the beginning you end up in Alaska for yet another attempt to recreate the success of Meet The Parents. Four Christmases tried to do it, failed miserably, and here I was having to endure this recycled idea yet again. There are strange, kooky characters that aren't compatible with Tate's big city sensibility. 90 year old 'Gammie' (played with good humour by Betty White) takes Tate to a strip bar, the stripper also works in the hardware store, Craig T Nelson is Paxton's hard to please father (hang on a second....I'm sure that reminds me of another film), Gammie also does strange ritualistic dances in the woods that Tate gets caught up in. It's not original, it's barely funny at all - What was my girlfriend making me watch. Mary Steenburgen plays Paxton mum and her role is incidental to say the least. Hold on a second, Steenburgen was in Four Christmases and Nelson was in Meet The Parents. It's not the idea they've nicked, they're also just re-using the same actors.
The whole story is the two leads needing to convince everyone that they are a couple, and this is another area in the film that fails to deliver on the humour front, awkward affection and accidental nudity is resorted to. It's all rather desperate.
The final attempt to get laughs is through the use of slapstick, which, as the makers of this film have discovered, is not as easy as it looks. There is a bizarre scene involving a bird stealing Tate's mobile as she chases after it. It's painful to watch.
Having said all of this, the last part of the film did win me over to an extent. And I'm not sure why I fell for it, it's over the top cheese, not funny and totally predictable. I can only put it down to the good will for Sandra Bullock and the fact that she can actually act. In fact, now that I really think about it, she is the only redeemable feature of the film. She gives it her all and isn't afraid to make a fool out of herself. It's not enough to even nearly save the film though. An utter load of tosh.
Another dagger to the heart of a Sandra Bullock fan.
Sandra Bullock plays Margaret Tate, high up on the food chain in a publishing firm and generally thought of by her colleagues as an evil bitch, often referred to as 'It'. Ryan Reynolds is Andrew Paxton her long-suffering young assistant, who has to run around after her night and day, constantly treading on egg shells. Then Tate is told that she is about to be deported back to Canada and she has the spontaneous brainwave that she can marry Paxton and get her Green Card. Then, for some not particularly clear reason, the proof of the relationship, at the request of the immigration office, rests on the success of a trip to Paxton's parents' house in the back-end of nowhere in Alaska. Oh the hilarity ensues.
I'd like to point out here that I am a Sandra Bullock fan and will always want to enjoy a film that she is in. There is a lot of good will stored up inside me for her. However, being a fan of Bullock is a frustrating thing, because she has really put out some dross over the years. Real, top level dross. Here she isn't very convincing as a nasty boss which is mostly because these films are so predictable and you know that as soon as you get used to her being evil, she is going to see the error of her ways and soften up. Plus she is one of Hollywood's good girls. It just doesn't work. She is also starting to look a bit, well, plastic. A bit too done up.....it's a little off putting. Reynolds is better than this as well, and I think he knows it because he is just going through the motions throughout this film. He seems as though he wants to be somewhere else. Anywhere else.
If you brush over the nonsensical plot set-up at the beginning you end up in Alaska for yet another attempt to recreate the success of Meet The Parents. Four Christmases tried to do it, failed miserably, and here I was having to endure this recycled idea yet again. There are strange, kooky characters that aren't compatible with Tate's big city sensibility. 90 year old 'Gammie' (played with good humour by Betty White) takes Tate to a strip bar, the stripper also works in the hardware store, Craig T Nelson is Paxton's hard to please father (hang on a second....I'm sure that reminds me of another film), Gammie also does strange ritualistic dances in the woods that Tate gets caught up in. It's not original, it's barely funny at all - What was my girlfriend making me watch. Mary Steenburgen plays Paxton mum and her role is incidental to say the least. Hold on a second, Steenburgen was in Four Christmases and Nelson was in Meet The Parents. It's not the idea they've nicked, they're also just re-using the same actors.
The whole story is the two leads needing to convince everyone that they are a couple, and this is another area in the film that fails to deliver on the humour front, awkward affection and accidental nudity is resorted to. It's all rather desperate.
The final attempt to get laughs is through the use of slapstick, which, as the makers of this film have discovered, is not as easy as it looks. There is a bizarre scene involving a bird stealing Tate's mobile as she chases after it. It's painful to watch.
Having said all of this, the last part of the film did win me over to an extent. And I'm not sure why I fell for it, it's over the top cheese, not funny and totally predictable. I can only put it down to the good will for Sandra Bullock and the fact that she can actually act. In fact, now that I really think about it, she is the only redeemable feature of the film. She gives it her all and isn't afraid to make a fool out of herself. It's not enough to even nearly save the film though. An utter load of tosh.
Another dagger to the heart of a Sandra Bullock fan.
Saturday, 8 January 2011
THE ROAD (2009)
Cormac McCarthy is flavour of the month at the moment. After the Coen Brothers' lauded adaptation of his novel No Country For Old Men you can't swing a cat at the moment without hitting another fan coming out of the woodwork. In fact this week, it was announced that James Franco will be behind the camera for an imagining of Blood Meridian. Among all of this hoopla John Hillcoat quietly went about his business bringing McCarthy's bleak tale The Road to the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen plays a nameless father trying to protect his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) in an apocalyptic world after an unexplained disaster has left the planet barren and desolate while a select few survivors scavenge, kill and do whatever it takes to stay out of harms way. A real bundle of laughs then.
I read the book recently for the first time on holiday (interesting choice for beach-reading) and if you ever want an example of a director being completely faithful to the source material, then this is it. McCarthy leaves the origins of the disaster unsaid, and it takes a brave man to take the same tack with the film in today's age of the idiot viewer (in this case John Hillcoat, a music video director known for working with a Nick Cave). The plot then progresses in exactly the same way as the book as the father and son encounter a host of characters and situations that put them into perilous situations, but without much really actually happening. For a film about the end of the world, there is no big action set pieces, no race against time, no damsel in distress to save. This isn't popcorn fodder, 2012 fans should look elsewhere.
The story is essentially just about the father and son, as they journey towards in the coast, with the slim, vague hope that something will be different there. Stripped down, it is fundamentally a character piece exploring the paternal relationship, but also, more importantly what it means to be human. The boy constantly needing reassurances that he and his father are 'the good guys' and struggling to understand why the people they encounter won't help them and vice versa. As things become more desperate for the pair, the child's idealism comes into conflict with the father's willingness to do anything to keep them both alive. The film poses the question 'what lengths would you go to to survive, and at what cost?'. It's an interesting theme for the film to be based around and is very affecting.
At the centre of it are excellent performances from Mortensen (as you would expect) and Smit-McPhee even more so. He will be better known for the recent Let Me In but this was his real breakthrough and is far more impressive in this turn. Both are utterly believable in their roles, Mortensen unrelenting in his desperation to protect his son, while Smit-McPhee's trust in his father never wavers. There are nice moments where they find small joy in tins of food or a cuddly toy where there are flickers of what normal life once was, but these quickly evaporate as we have to endure a scene where the father teaches his son how to kill himself if the need arises. Charlize Theron also features as the mother/wife in various flashbacks that offer some background to the family and how it came to just be the two of them. These scenes are a nice contrast to the bulk of the film, with splashes of colour and touching moments that really offer depth to the central relationship but also yank at the heart strings. The legend that is Robert Duvall also turns up which is a nice treat.
If there is a criticism to be had, it's that it is a very tough watch. It's very bleak and dark throughout with very little hope, and culminates in a heart breaking ending that offers very little relief and resolution, to both the story and humanity - both McCarthy and the film clearly don't have a lot of faith if the end of the world were to occur.
However, just because it isn't full of optimism and light, it should not mean that you should not see it. Beautifully acted, excellently made, thought provoking and arresting. Perseverance will bring you massive rewards.
Viggo Mortensen plays a nameless father trying to protect his son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) in an apocalyptic world after an unexplained disaster has left the planet barren and desolate while a select few survivors scavenge, kill and do whatever it takes to stay out of harms way. A real bundle of laughs then.
I read the book recently for the first time on holiday (interesting choice for beach-reading) and if you ever want an example of a director being completely faithful to the source material, then this is it. McCarthy leaves the origins of the disaster unsaid, and it takes a brave man to take the same tack with the film in today's age of the idiot viewer (in this case John Hillcoat, a music video director known for working with a Nick Cave). The plot then progresses in exactly the same way as the book as the father and son encounter a host of characters and situations that put them into perilous situations, but without much really actually happening. For a film about the end of the world, there is no big action set pieces, no race against time, no damsel in distress to save. This isn't popcorn fodder, 2012 fans should look elsewhere.
The story is essentially just about the father and son, as they journey towards in the coast, with the slim, vague hope that something will be different there. Stripped down, it is fundamentally a character piece exploring the paternal relationship, but also, more importantly what it means to be human. The boy constantly needing reassurances that he and his father are 'the good guys' and struggling to understand why the people they encounter won't help them and vice versa. As things become more desperate for the pair, the child's idealism comes into conflict with the father's willingness to do anything to keep them both alive. The film poses the question 'what lengths would you go to to survive, and at what cost?'. It's an interesting theme for the film to be based around and is very affecting.
At the centre of it are excellent performances from Mortensen (as you would expect) and Smit-McPhee even more so. He will be better known for the recent Let Me In but this was his real breakthrough and is far more impressive in this turn. Both are utterly believable in their roles, Mortensen unrelenting in his desperation to protect his son, while Smit-McPhee's trust in his father never wavers. There are nice moments where they find small joy in tins of food or a cuddly toy where there are flickers of what normal life once was, but these quickly evaporate as we have to endure a scene where the father teaches his son how to kill himself if the need arises. Charlize Theron also features as the mother/wife in various flashbacks that offer some background to the family and how it came to just be the two of them. These scenes are a nice contrast to the bulk of the film, with splashes of colour and touching moments that really offer depth to the central relationship but also yank at the heart strings. The legend that is Robert Duvall also turns up which is a nice treat.
If there is a criticism to be had, it's that it is a very tough watch. It's very bleak and dark throughout with very little hope, and culminates in a heart breaking ending that offers very little relief and resolution, to both the story and humanity - both McCarthy and the film clearly don't have a lot of faith if the end of the world were to occur.
However, just because it isn't full of optimism and light, it should not mean that you should not see it. Beautifully acted, excellently made, thought provoking and arresting. Perseverance will bring you massive rewards.
Tuesday, 4 January 2011
THREE MEN AND A BABY (1987)
What is it with Christmas and New Year? Terrestial channels seem desperate to get out any well-remembered 80's film with a view to getting people in their late 20's and early 30's stuck in front of the telly finishing off the Minstrels purchased by a grandmother, unable to move due to laziness and a fortnight of gluttony. And this is how I came to be watching Three Men and a Baby on 3rd Jan, desperately trying to prolong my last full day off before going back to work.
I watched this thinking to myself that the modern day equivalent would be a film starring Will Ferrell, Sacha Baron Cohen and Adam Sandler, comedy heavyweights (now I must qualify that Sandler hasn't done anything good in a long while and he is not really to my taste, I include his name just because he is a big name and has box office pull) brought together in one blockbuster film. Then I did a spot of internet research and it became clear that it wasn't the juggernaught I thought it might be, Ted Danson and Tom Selleck (has he aged at all since?) were TV actors (Cheers and Magnum PI respetively - both pleasures for me growing up), all be it very popular ones, and Guttenberg was fresh from Police Academy 1 & 2 and Cocoon. Not exactly the dream team on paper.
Having said that, just because they didn't have a bundle of huge films under their belt, doesn't mean that they weren't any good, and this film certainly proves that the trio had something about them. The story of three bachelors living in a New York penthouse together, being left to look after a baby is a simple comedy set-up getting characters out of their depth and seeing the consequences unfold. The expected set-pieces and foul ups are made funny by Danson, Selleck and Guttenberg with great timing, visual gags and some nice one liners as the three exchange banter between them.
The problem with the film is that the makers (the one and only Leonard 'Spock' Nimoy behind the camera after a couple of Trek films) didn't have the confidence in the central idea to last a whole film. Instead they shoehorn in a stupid sub-plot about a drug deal that creates a botched action (ish) scene in the middle of the film, completley out of place with the rest of the piece. Then once that is resolved, we are back to the baby plot, with a well played-out and touching finale as they have to give the baby back to it's mother. It's like a spam sandwich made with exquisite focaccia bread, the vile meat stuffed between to lovely chunks of suculent bread.
It's a real pity that there wasn't enough conviction to concentrate solely on the three characters and the child, because when it's just about that, it's a lovely film, the three stars really shining, both comically and dramtically, with some genuinely funny moments. There is a real desire for everything 80's at the moment and the more I revisit cinematic nuggets from this decade, the more I believe that the films are flawed.....
Now if they're going to remake this one....Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld and Jason Alexander please.
Oh and one more thing, there was an urban legend about this film - was there a ghost behind the curtain....?
I watched this thinking to myself that the modern day equivalent would be a film starring Will Ferrell, Sacha Baron Cohen and Adam Sandler, comedy heavyweights (now I must qualify that Sandler hasn't done anything good in a long while and he is not really to my taste, I include his name just because he is a big name and has box office pull) brought together in one blockbuster film. Then I did a spot of internet research and it became clear that it wasn't the juggernaught I thought it might be, Ted Danson and Tom Selleck (has he aged at all since?) were TV actors (Cheers and Magnum PI respetively - both pleasures for me growing up), all be it very popular ones, and Guttenberg was fresh from Police Academy 1 & 2 and Cocoon. Not exactly the dream team on paper.
Having said that, just because they didn't have a bundle of huge films under their belt, doesn't mean that they weren't any good, and this film certainly proves that the trio had something about them. The story of three bachelors living in a New York penthouse together, being left to look after a baby is a simple comedy set-up getting characters out of their depth and seeing the consequences unfold. The expected set-pieces and foul ups are made funny by Danson, Selleck and Guttenberg with great timing, visual gags and some nice one liners as the three exchange banter between them.
The problem with the film is that the makers (the one and only Leonard 'Spock' Nimoy behind the camera after a couple of Trek films) didn't have the confidence in the central idea to last a whole film. Instead they shoehorn in a stupid sub-plot about a drug deal that creates a botched action (ish) scene in the middle of the film, completley out of place with the rest of the piece. Then once that is resolved, we are back to the baby plot, with a well played-out and touching finale as they have to give the baby back to it's mother. It's like a spam sandwich made with exquisite focaccia bread, the vile meat stuffed between to lovely chunks of suculent bread.
It's a real pity that there wasn't enough conviction to concentrate solely on the three characters and the child, because when it's just about that, it's a lovely film, the three stars really shining, both comically and dramtically, with some genuinely funny moments. There is a real desire for everything 80's at the moment and the more I revisit cinematic nuggets from this decade, the more I believe that the films are flawed.....
Now if they're going to remake this one....Larry David, Jerry Seinfeld and Jason Alexander please.
Oh and one more thing, there was an urban legend about this film - was there a ghost behind the curtain....?
TRON: LEGACY (2010)
To people of a certain age, namely around mine, this film needs little introduction. In 1982, children brought up on arcade machines and Atari consoles were given a film that was for them. An adventure set inside a computer, 'The Grid', it looked like a video game and therefore watching it felt like being in a game. Visual effects that were, at that time, state of the art transported us into a virtual reality world and, even for some of it's faults, film makers are still trying to recreate that sensation with countless video game adaptations. And failing. Now almost 30 years on, we are treated to a sequel - a new generation, but more importantly the old guard (my lot), are given access to The Grid again.
There has been a lot of anticipation for this release, people desperate to see what today's technology can do to the world of Tron, in Imax and 3D. The task of bringing it into the 21st Century was entrusted in an unknown director, Joseph Kosinski and a team of writers without a notable credit, other than TV between them (although Lisberger and MacBird are back from the original and credited as being responsible for 'characters), a bit of a risk I'm sure you'll agree. The big coup that they manage though is the retention of Jeff Bridges. He plays Kevin Flynn again, but also stars, in digital form, as Clu, Flynn's creation to create the perfect system in The Grid that turns rogue. The digital Bridges looks just as he did 28 years ago and is a remarkable creation by the effects team. However, when Clu is moving around, or more importantly speaking, you can tell that he is CGI and it becomes slightly distracting. He is not as seamless as Gollum or Dobby, but knocks the living daylights out of Jar Jar Binks.
The plot is as you would expect, a bit daft and nonsensical but it gets us into the action and provides a conflict to kick the film along. Flynn's son Sam (played as unintentionally wooden as possible by Garrett Hedlund) stumbles across the Tron machine in the arcade and is thrown into a Grid-wide battle between Flynn and Clu. There is a genocide story in there which is now a standard device for action-adventures that need to be child friendly, it's essentially good vs evil. We know who we are siding with, simple.
What we are then treated to is a mixture of spectacular visual scenes involving bikes, planes, fist fights inter-spliced with contemplative scenes where Jeff Bridges sounds a lot like 'The Dude', good but a) seen it before and b) oddly out of place. It's worth saying that the action does look great, when characters die, they dissolve into small pieces (similar to the coins in Scott Pilgrim, but much more effective and better looking), and the cityscapes and panoramas look fantastic. However, when 'stuff' isn't happening it really is dull. It reminded me of the disappointing philosophy of Matrix 2 and 3, blah, blah, blah......It's not as though I'm a simpleton who needs something to blow up to keep me interested, it's just this particular brand of waffle was just too bland to bear. Kosinski thought it would be acceptable to have these long scenes but have something pretty in the background that might distract us for long enough for them to get away with it. Nope, I need a bit more than a modern looking apartment with stars outside to make me blissfully unaware of what people are saying.
Having said that, it does a good job at being faithful to the tone and pace of the original and it finishes with a real fizz and a bang, so much so that I left the cinema thinking I had been more entertained for a sustained period than I actually had. Sneaky....Plus it has a great cameo performance from Michael Sheen, very Bowie-esque, and a cracking soundtrack from Daft Punk.
If you liked the original Tron there will be enough goodwill in the bank and there is enough here to mean that you will enjoy yourself, but there will be a little part of your brain that can't help but feel disappointed. If you didn't like the original, I wouldn't bother, there's not enough here to convert you to a 'User'.....
Quick note on two things, firstly 3D - this is another example where I didn't think 3D added anything whatsoever. After watching Toy Story 3 in 3D, and forgetting it was in 3D (if this happens what is the point?), here I was once again, getting irritated with the glasses and struggling to see what all the fuss was about. The effects would still have been impressive in 2D. Avatar and Piranha 3D are still the only two to have made it worthwhile. Secondly, I saw it at the HMV Curzon in Wimbledon, lovely little cinema, very reasonably priced and another great alternative to the horrible multiplexes....vote with your feet people.
There has been a lot of anticipation for this release, people desperate to see what today's technology can do to the world of Tron, in Imax and 3D. The task of bringing it into the 21st Century was entrusted in an unknown director, Joseph Kosinski and a team of writers without a notable credit, other than TV between them (although Lisberger and MacBird are back from the original and credited as being responsible for 'characters), a bit of a risk I'm sure you'll agree. The big coup that they manage though is the retention of Jeff Bridges. He plays Kevin Flynn again, but also stars, in digital form, as Clu, Flynn's creation to create the perfect system in The Grid that turns rogue. The digital Bridges looks just as he did 28 years ago and is a remarkable creation by the effects team. However, when Clu is moving around, or more importantly speaking, you can tell that he is CGI and it becomes slightly distracting. He is not as seamless as Gollum or Dobby, but knocks the living daylights out of Jar Jar Binks.
The plot is as you would expect, a bit daft and nonsensical but it gets us into the action and provides a conflict to kick the film along. Flynn's son Sam (played as unintentionally wooden as possible by Garrett Hedlund) stumbles across the Tron machine in the arcade and is thrown into a Grid-wide battle between Flynn and Clu. There is a genocide story in there which is now a standard device for action-adventures that need to be child friendly, it's essentially good vs evil. We know who we are siding with, simple.
What we are then treated to is a mixture of spectacular visual scenes involving bikes, planes, fist fights inter-spliced with contemplative scenes where Jeff Bridges sounds a lot like 'The Dude', good but a) seen it before and b) oddly out of place. It's worth saying that the action does look great, when characters die, they dissolve into small pieces (similar to the coins in Scott Pilgrim, but much more effective and better looking), and the cityscapes and panoramas look fantastic. However, when 'stuff' isn't happening it really is dull. It reminded me of the disappointing philosophy of Matrix 2 and 3, blah, blah, blah......It's not as though I'm a simpleton who needs something to blow up to keep me interested, it's just this particular brand of waffle was just too bland to bear. Kosinski thought it would be acceptable to have these long scenes but have something pretty in the background that might distract us for long enough for them to get away with it. Nope, I need a bit more than a modern looking apartment with stars outside to make me blissfully unaware of what people are saying.
Having said that, it does a good job at being faithful to the tone and pace of the original and it finishes with a real fizz and a bang, so much so that I left the cinema thinking I had been more entertained for a sustained period than I actually had. Sneaky....Plus it has a great cameo performance from Michael Sheen, very Bowie-esque, and a cracking soundtrack from Daft Punk.
If you liked the original Tron there will be enough goodwill in the bank and there is enough here to mean that you will enjoy yourself, but there will be a little part of your brain that can't help but feel disappointed. If you didn't like the original, I wouldn't bother, there's not enough here to convert you to a 'User'.....
Quick note on two things, firstly 3D - this is another example where I didn't think 3D added anything whatsoever. After watching Toy Story 3 in 3D, and forgetting it was in 3D (if this happens what is the point?), here I was once again, getting irritated with the glasses and struggling to see what all the fuss was about. The effects would still have been impressive in 2D. Avatar and Piranha 3D are still the only two to have made it worthwhile. Secondly, I saw it at the HMV Curzon in Wimbledon, lovely little cinema, very reasonably priced and another great alternative to the horrible multiplexes....vote with your feet people.
Monday, 3 January 2011
INCEPTION (2010)
I must admit, I've stopped buying myself DVD's to add to the collection, especially Blu-Rays. With Lovefilm, the PS3, Sky film channels, a mum that doesn't seem to know that you can actually rent DVD's these days, there's little point in me filling up my small one-bed flat with rows and rows of DVD's. Having said that, Inception was an exception to the rule. I was always going to get this one, and Blu-Ray was a must. So, on New Years Day, Spag bol made, I plonked myself down on the sofa to revisit Christopher Nolan's summer blockbuster, and as I did so, I wanted to try and explain why I was so desperate to get my hands on this on it's release and why UK cinema-goers loved it so much, pushing it into number 4 in the UK box office in 2010.
Leo DiCaprio plays Tom Cobb, who heads up a team of thieves. But they are no ordinary thieves, they steal thoughts and information which means the vaults they are cracking are people's minds, and the best way to do this is through the dreams of the 'subjects'. Cobb is offered one final job (it's always the final jobs that are the hardest aren't they?) but instead of theft, he must plant an idea - Inception. An apparent impossibility. Nolan, who wrote and directed, has really come up with a genius idea here for an action film. It means that he can do whatever he wants, wherever he wants - no location is beyond the realms of possibility. Irritating things such as gravity and common sense are eradicated immediately. However, if anyone knows Nolan, it's not going to be that straightforward and he isn't going to pin a whole film on one good idea. He adds depth and complex themes by using sub-plots involving corporate espionage and a complicated father/son relationship as well as a back story for Cobb that puts the whole operation in jeopardy.
Cobb has a team in place to help him with this job, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe and Dileep Rao, each having a specific job, just like an orthodox bank job. Ellen Page plays the architect, it's her job to create the dream world and this premise gives some tremendous scenes where Nolan toys with our perceptions of what is possible. Tom Hardy, pretty much stealing the show here, plays a fraudster, he impersonates other people in the dream world, again an idea that gives Nolan's imagination the opportunity to run riot. And what a riot it is. The action set pieces are a wonder to behold. Fights in corridors that roll, defying gravity, a massive shoot out in an arctic base (very Bond), a kidnap scene in torrential rain as a freight train batters city streets in to submission. Nolan's execution of action is expertly done, every stunt and special effect feels physical, it feels real. Even where CGI is used, it feels weighty, none of the light, bouncy Spiderman effects here.
As I mentioned previously though, it isn't just this aspect that makes the film so appealing. Nolan wouldn't let one of his films be so superficial and shallow. Cobb's back story about his wife has a darkness and an edge to it, and as it slowly creeps into his sub-conscious you really feel that he is out of control and that he is on the brink of madness. Another fine performance from Leo, really becoming a fine actor and choosing films that are challenging and roles that have a depth, something for him to really get his teeth into. Tom Hardy is all machismo and is great to watch, Page and Gordon-Levitt feel under-used and as though they are going through the motions, Cillian Murphy is always a pleasure to watch (I just wish he was in more), Tom Berenger pops up with a nice cameo, bit of Michael Caine, and the late, great Pete Postlethwaite is dependable as always with the little screen time he is given.
The second viewing of this film did chuck up a negative I'm afraid though. Some of the dialogue at times felt laden with exposition, which I suppose is inevitable when you are dealing with a plot as complex as this - dreams within a dream, within a dream, all coming together at the end - but when you have actors as fine as this on show, it's a shame that some of the dialogue is limited to pointing us in the right direction. Having said that, it's never spelt out to us, we are given freedom to come to conclusions ourselves - Nolan clearly respects his audience.
This negative though is a minor blip on an otherwise faultless film and it is a measure of Nolan's stock in Hollywood at the moment - off the back of the Batman films, a studio has given him a substantial wedge of money, left him to his own devices and this is what he has come up with. An imaginative, expertly crafted, action thriller, set inside the minds of it's protagonists with an ending that exhilarates and moves you in equal measure with the final frame continuing to rattle around in your brain long after the closing credits.
This film's success, and that of Nolan's Batman reboot, is proof that we want films with substance and you can create an action film that can stimulate the grey matter and still rake it in at the box office. Michael Bay take note.
Leo DiCaprio plays Tom Cobb, who heads up a team of thieves. But they are no ordinary thieves, they steal thoughts and information which means the vaults they are cracking are people's minds, and the best way to do this is through the dreams of the 'subjects'. Cobb is offered one final job (it's always the final jobs that are the hardest aren't they?) but instead of theft, he must plant an idea - Inception. An apparent impossibility. Nolan, who wrote and directed, has really come up with a genius idea here for an action film. It means that he can do whatever he wants, wherever he wants - no location is beyond the realms of possibility. Irritating things such as gravity and common sense are eradicated immediately. However, if anyone knows Nolan, it's not going to be that straightforward and he isn't going to pin a whole film on one good idea. He adds depth and complex themes by using sub-plots involving corporate espionage and a complicated father/son relationship as well as a back story for Cobb that puts the whole operation in jeopardy.
Cobb has a team in place to help him with this job, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe and Dileep Rao, each having a specific job, just like an orthodox bank job. Ellen Page plays the architect, it's her job to create the dream world and this premise gives some tremendous scenes where Nolan toys with our perceptions of what is possible. Tom Hardy, pretty much stealing the show here, plays a fraudster, he impersonates other people in the dream world, again an idea that gives Nolan's imagination the opportunity to run riot. And what a riot it is. The action set pieces are a wonder to behold. Fights in corridors that roll, defying gravity, a massive shoot out in an arctic base (very Bond), a kidnap scene in torrential rain as a freight train batters city streets in to submission. Nolan's execution of action is expertly done, every stunt and special effect feels physical, it feels real. Even where CGI is used, it feels weighty, none of the light, bouncy Spiderman effects here.
As I mentioned previously though, it isn't just this aspect that makes the film so appealing. Nolan wouldn't let one of his films be so superficial and shallow. Cobb's back story about his wife has a darkness and an edge to it, and as it slowly creeps into his sub-conscious you really feel that he is out of control and that he is on the brink of madness. Another fine performance from Leo, really becoming a fine actor and choosing films that are challenging and roles that have a depth, something for him to really get his teeth into. Tom Hardy is all machismo and is great to watch, Page and Gordon-Levitt feel under-used and as though they are going through the motions, Cillian Murphy is always a pleasure to watch (I just wish he was in more), Tom Berenger pops up with a nice cameo, bit of Michael Caine, and the late, great Pete Postlethwaite is dependable as always with the little screen time he is given.
The second viewing of this film did chuck up a negative I'm afraid though. Some of the dialogue at times felt laden with exposition, which I suppose is inevitable when you are dealing with a plot as complex as this - dreams within a dream, within a dream, all coming together at the end - but when you have actors as fine as this on show, it's a shame that some of the dialogue is limited to pointing us in the right direction. Having said that, it's never spelt out to us, we are given freedom to come to conclusions ourselves - Nolan clearly respects his audience.
This negative though is a minor blip on an otherwise faultless film and it is a measure of Nolan's stock in Hollywood at the moment - off the back of the Batman films, a studio has given him a substantial wedge of money, left him to his own devices and this is what he has come up with. An imaginative, expertly crafted, action thriller, set inside the minds of it's protagonists with an ending that exhilarates and moves you in equal measure with the final frame continuing to rattle around in your brain long after the closing credits.
This film's success, and that of Nolan's Batman reboot, is proof that we want films with substance and you can create an action film that can stimulate the grey matter and still rake it in at the box office. Michael Bay take note.
BIG (1988)
As you will have seen I had quite a disappointing experience recently with an 80's film that I fondly remember from my childhood, National Lampoon's Vacation. So it was with trepidation that I began watching Big on New Year's Day, nursing a hangover that should have been far worse than it actually was. Was another of my favourites about to be panned by my new old person outlook?
Penny Marshall's film, co-written by Steven Spielberg's sister, Anna (not a bad fact for you there) about a 13 year old boy getting his wish to become 'Big' (a grown up, nothing more sinister than that for those of you with a filthy mind) is often talked about as a modern classic and people rarely, if ever, have a bad word to say about it. So, after all these years (I hadn't seen it for about 10 years), would it still have the magic?
Yes it would, and emphatically so at that. And in all honesty a lot of that is down to the central performance of Tom Hanks, for which he received an Oscar nomination (losing out to Dustin Hoffman for Rain Man). He manages to have the facial expressions, body language and movement of a 13 year old boy in a man's body, a human being who's body is completely alien to him. It's striking how he pulls it off. He hares about the corridors of his office like a kid desperate not to be late for class, he eats strange looking canapes as you would expect a stroppy teenager to do so, experiencing life through a process of trial and error. But it isn't just the physical aspect of Hank's performance, in fact it's only a very small part of what makes this film so special. There is an undoubted vulnerability to his Josh Baskin. When he first wakes in the morning and discovers his transformation he is desperate to get his mum's help but she is terrified of him, convinced he has done something to her son. He turns to his best friend Billy (great turn from Jared Rushton) and in order to convince him that he is his best mate in the body of a grown up, he has to sing one of their childhood tunes, and Hanks does so with pumped up desperation. He sings it like his life depends on it. He also cuts a forlorn isolated figure as he sits alone in a tatty hotel room in New York, trying to shut out the screams and gun fire outside. It's heartbreaking - he doesn't want this. A true lesson in being careful what you wish for.
Grown up Baskin's relationships in the film are important to giving the character real depth. Firstly, there is his friendship with Billy. Some of the best and most touching scenes are of the two of them just hanging out, eating ice cream in diners, playing with toys in Baskin's office, again Hanks nails it, acting just as you would expect a 13 boy to do so. The second element, is his blossoming relationship with Susan (Elizabeth Perkins), a work colleague. She falls for his love of life and the way he meets all challenges head on with a naivety and innocence. Hanks plays these scenes superbly, countering affection and emotional questions with punches on shoulders and embarrassed looks away. Penny Marshall cleverly avoids obvious jokes about sex, instead opting for nice moments between the two such as Baskin insisting on being on the top bunk bed when she stays over, then giving her a plastic compass ring 'to stop her getting lost'.
A lot of credit should go to Marshall and the writers (the writers were actually nominated for an Academy Award for this, again losing out to Rain Man) for not going for the obvious comedy route in this set up, unlike Vice Versa released in the same year. There are very few generic jokes about a young person in a grown up situation, instead a lot of the humour and joy is to be found in the performance of the actors rather than any slap stick gags.
So it is still a lovely film. Watching it now, as a grown up, I was really impressed at how good a film it is. As a child you don't see how subtle it is and how top notch the acting and writing is. Hanks in the performance that really launched him into the big time, a giant piano you play with your feet, the best apartment ever seen on film, a lovely ending without any needless chase scenes or races against time, it's the ultimate cautionary tale to warn you against growing up too quickly.
Stay youthful and dig out your copy now.
Penny Marshall's film, co-written by Steven Spielberg's sister, Anna (not a bad fact for you there) about a 13 year old boy getting his wish to become 'Big' (a grown up, nothing more sinister than that for those of you with a filthy mind) is often talked about as a modern classic and people rarely, if ever, have a bad word to say about it. So, after all these years (I hadn't seen it for about 10 years), would it still have the magic?
Yes it would, and emphatically so at that. And in all honesty a lot of that is down to the central performance of Tom Hanks, for which he received an Oscar nomination (losing out to Dustin Hoffman for Rain Man). He manages to have the facial expressions, body language and movement of a 13 year old boy in a man's body, a human being who's body is completely alien to him. It's striking how he pulls it off. He hares about the corridors of his office like a kid desperate not to be late for class, he eats strange looking canapes as you would expect a stroppy teenager to do so, experiencing life through a process of trial and error. But it isn't just the physical aspect of Hank's performance, in fact it's only a very small part of what makes this film so special. There is an undoubted vulnerability to his Josh Baskin. When he first wakes in the morning and discovers his transformation he is desperate to get his mum's help but she is terrified of him, convinced he has done something to her son. He turns to his best friend Billy (great turn from Jared Rushton) and in order to convince him that he is his best mate in the body of a grown up, he has to sing one of their childhood tunes, and Hanks does so with pumped up desperation. He sings it like his life depends on it. He also cuts a forlorn isolated figure as he sits alone in a tatty hotel room in New York, trying to shut out the screams and gun fire outside. It's heartbreaking - he doesn't want this. A true lesson in being careful what you wish for.
Grown up Baskin's relationships in the film are important to giving the character real depth. Firstly, there is his friendship with Billy. Some of the best and most touching scenes are of the two of them just hanging out, eating ice cream in diners, playing with toys in Baskin's office, again Hanks nails it, acting just as you would expect a 13 boy to do so. The second element, is his blossoming relationship with Susan (Elizabeth Perkins), a work colleague. She falls for his love of life and the way he meets all challenges head on with a naivety and innocence. Hanks plays these scenes superbly, countering affection and emotional questions with punches on shoulders and embarrassed looks away. Penny Marshall cleverly avoids obvious jokes about sex, instead opting for nice moments between the two such as Baskin insisting on being on the top bunk bed when she stays over, then giving her a plastic compass ring 'to stop her getting lost'.
A lot of credit should go to Marshall and the writers (the writers were actually nominated for an Academy Award for this, again losing out to Rain Man) for not going for the obvious comedy route in this set up, unlike Vice Versa released in the same year. There are very few generic jokes about a young person in a grown up situation, instead a lot of the humour and joy is to be found in the performance of the actors rather than any slap stick gags.
So it is still a lovely film. Watching it now, as a grown up, I was really impressed at how good a film it is. As a child you don't see how subtle it is and how top notch the acting and writing is. Hanks in the performance that really launched him into the big time, a giant piano you play with your feet, the best apartment ever seen on film, a lovely ending without any needless chase scenes or races against time, it's the ultimate cautionary tale to warn you against growing up too quickly.
Stay youthful and dig out your copy now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)