Sunday night in, cooked paella, burnt my finger in the process (got an obscene blister on my left index finger to prove it), watched Spurs get a glorious last minute winner against Liverpool. What next? I entrusted my evening's entertainment in the Movie channels and was served up Roland Emmerich's latest attempt at destroying the planet, 2012. Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow, Godzilla, Universal Soldier, Stargate. Surely I would be in safe hands.
Emmerich doesn't waste much time, with his writing or setting up the plot, as we are thrown straight into the problem facing planet earth. An Indian scientist discovers that solar flares are going to turn the core of the earth into free-flowing, magma which will destabilise the Earth's crust. Some scientific mumbo jumbo is spouted, and then Emmerich moves on to meeting the characters, satisfied that he has done enough to convince the viewer of what is happening.
The characters are the usual, generic, stereotypical people that these films always tend to throw up with relationships that are broken or need to be renewed. A father who doesn't do enough for his kids, a young scientist who just wants to make a different, blah, blah, blah.
So, tragedy explained, people to be affected are introduced, problems to be resolved, stop me if you've seen this before.
Having said that, when I settled down to watch this, I wasn't doing so because I thought I might get an interesting character piece acted out in sonnets or rhyming couplets. No, I knew I was going to get to see our planet destroyed, and was therefore getting a bit twitchy with all this exposition. 'Come on Roland, blow something up'.
And he did. A limo chase through California as buildings and freeways collapse, gaping chasms open up with lorries and people falling to their death, explosions, fire, it's all there. Bit more plot, bit of family interaction acted out in a wooden manner. Then we have a giant super volcano, this time involving a camper van narrowly avoiding a plummet into the Earth's core. Bit more talking. Then Vegas gets destroyed while, guess what, a plane just manages to escape before it's too late. Honestly, how many times can the same people, in different vehicles just manage to survive and be the last people to get out of a scrape alive? Wheels just managing to avoid a crack, just manage to squeak under a collapsing road, just manage to turn the engines on in time to regain altitude.
Perhaps I'm being too fussy. The effects do look good, but so did the effects in The Day After Tomorrow, and in all of his other films. How about something new, something fresh? Roland, can you here me? Oh sorry, you're in the process of rendering a tidal wave to kill the president.
I know what you're thinking, 'Come on Ollie, what did you expect?', and you're right, why should he do something fresh, all those films have made money, this one made a killing too, but how about having an action movie with a bit of depth? This film must have one of the largest death counts ever, but not once do we ever feel sadness, or emotion at the loss of life. One character loses her husband, and stepfather to her children, in one of the final scenes, then minutes later she is kissing some other bloke. 'What about Gordon'? you ask. 'Who's Gordon?'
I better mention the cast, I suppose, if only to say that they should know better than this. John Cusack, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, Woody Harrelson, Oliver Platt. Come on people. They must have got some decent money, which I do not begrudge them, but at some point during the shoot, surely someone could have stood up and suggested that one or two lines be subjected to a re-write. And here's a tip, if you are going to cast someone as a Russian, perhaps it would be good to audition for people who are able to do Russian accents, or if that's a stretch, how about an actual Russian person?
It's two hours 30 minutes long, an overblown, saggy film with some nonsense plot which alludes to the Bible, used to try and blow more stuff up along the way, as it propels towards a 'moral of the story' ending that has all the emotional impact of a soggy piece of origami.
However, people want to see these films, the box office supports that, and it is fun, in a totally disposable way, like Super Noodles, it does a job but you can't say your remotely satisfied afterwards. Wouldn't it be nice if we weren't treated as complete idiots though and given something with a bit more flesh on the bones. Otherwise, it could be the end of the cinema world....
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
ANTICHRIST (2009)
I had this film in my possession from Lovefilm for a long time. A very long time. I just couldn't get round to watching it, and I can only presume it's down to the furore and controversy that surrounded it's release. Everywhere you turned there was outcry, the Daily Mail wanted it banned, it didn't even need to have seen it, they just wanted it gone and no one else to watch it. Even those people who liked it, warned that those seeing it needed to do so with caution and trepidation. If it was a packet of cigarettes it would have a horrific picture of a tar covered lung on it's front.
So with a day off work, and Call of Duty: Black Ops completed I decided that now was the time to get this film out of the way and see what all the fuss was about.
The synopsis of the film is told beautifully by Lars Von Trier himself with a wonderful prologue shot in slow-motion black and white with classical music rousing the viewer, involving a couple (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) having passionate abandoned sex (containing a close up of full penetrative sex - just to give you a flavour of where this film goes) while there young son slowly climbs out of the cot, unknown to them, and playfully wanders to an open window and his death. It's a fantastic introduction to the film and really takes your breath away. Von Trier had me eating out of the palm of his hand.
The film then becomes a study of guilt and grief, with stages of the film split into chapters, each referring to a stage of the grief process. These moments are played out very well by Dafoe's character, a therapist by trade, trying to help his wife Gainsbourg through the trauma. The tone is very contemplative with Dafoe being his simple best and Gainsbourg's moment's of quiet thought interrupted by howling scenes of grief. At the halfway point of the film, I was enjoying myself. Good acting, nice creative direction by a someone hailed as a great of European Cinema, and something to stimulate the grey matter.
Then it all goes a bit....well....er....somewhere else.
Dafoe's 'He' decides that Gainsbourg's 'She' must confront her fears and they retreat to 'Eden' a cabin in the woods where She had been on a retreat a year earlier, and where something strange had happened previously, to do so. Therapist games, whispered conversations and freaky, lustful sex occur and all of a sudden I am in a very different place to where I was 45 minutes ago.
I consider myself an intelligent film goer, I like to look for alternative meanings and try to decipher potential allegories from directors and writers, but I'm afraid I just didn't get this. From being an interesting and emotional insight into guilt and grief, I all of a sudden found myself in the middle of extreme, sexual violence, portrayed at it's most graphic, alongside examples of the cruelty of nature (including a talking fox that sounded a lot like Christian Bale's Batman), disturbing and arresting imagery and misogynistic politics.
I wanted to get it. In fact, I'm sitting here trying to get it now, but I just can't. It was interesting, it was well made, it was well acted, but at the end of the film I sat there thinking' What have I just watched?' and 'Was there any need for blood instead of semen?'.
Would I recommend it? No, I wouldn't. But having said that, if you can stomach a bit of violence, and aren't easily appalled, I would see it, because it is interesting, and you may get everything that Von Trier was trying to say. You may even think the Fox is the greatest talking animal in the history of cinema. But be warned it is a very, very, very tough watch. And for me, with very little reward.
So with a day off work, and Call of Duty: Black Ops completed I decided that now was the time to get this film out of the way and see what all the fuss was about.
The synopsis of the film is told beautifully by Lars Von Trier himself with a wonderful prologue shot in slow-motion black and white with classical music rousing the viewer, involving a couple (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) having passionate abandoned sex (containing a close up of full penetrative sex - just to give you a flavour of where this film goes) while there young son slowly climbs out of the cot, unknown to them, and playfully wanders to an open window and his death. It's a fantastic introduction to the film and really takes your breath away. Von Trier had me eating out of the palm of his hand.
The film then becomes a study of guilt and grief, with stages of the film split into chapters, each referring to a stage of the grief process. These moments are played out very well by Dafoe's character, a therapist by trade, trying to help his wife Gainsbourg through the trauma. The tone is very contemplative with Dafoe being his simple best and Gainsbourg's moment's of quiet thought interrupted by howling scenes of grief. At the halfway point of the film, I was enjoying myself. Good acting, nice creative direction by a someone hailed as a great of European Cinema, and something to stimulate the grey matter.
Then it all goes a bit....well....er....somewhere else.
Dafoe's 'He' decides that Gainsbourg's 'She' must confront her fears and they retreat to 'Eden' a cabin in the woods where She had been on a retreat a year earlier, and where something strange had happened previously, to do so. Therapist games, whispered conversations and freaky, lustful sex occur and all of a sudden I am in a very different place to where I was 45 minutes ago.
I consider myself an intelligent film goer, I like to look for alternative meanings and try to decipher potential allegories from directors and writers, but I'm afraid I just didn't get this. From being an interesting and emotional insight into guilt and grief, I all of a sudden found myself in the middle of extreme, sexual violence, portrayed at it's most graphic, alongside examples of the cruelty of nature (including a talking fox that sounded a lot like Christian Bale's Batman), disturbing and arresting imagery and misogynistic politics.
I wanted to get it. In fact, I'm sitting here trying to get it now, but I just can't. It was interesting, it was well made, it was well acted, but at the end of the film I sat there thinking' What have I just watched?' and 'Was there any need for blood instead of semen?'.
Would I recommend it? No, I wouldn't. But having said that, if you can stomach a bit of violence, and aren't easily appalled, I would see it, because it is interesting, and you may get everything that Von Trier was trying to say. You may even think the Fox is the greatest talking animal in the history of cinema. But be warned it is a very, very, very tough watch. And for me, with very little reward.
Monday, 29 November 2010
AN EDUCATION (2009)
Finally I managed to get back on to my Lovefilm choices, they had somehow taken a bit of a back seat and I was starting to wonder whether my monthly outlay was worth it. However, when An Education landed on my desk at work I knew I had to make some time to see it. Plus it was one that I could easily persuade the girlfriend to watch.
Smothered with critical praise and award nominations after it's release last year, it's the simple coming of age story of a 16 year old girl (Carey Mulligan) in 1961 Suburban London, on track for a stellar education at Oxford University before she falls for the seductive charms of of Peter Sarsgaard's older man. Her life changes and she finds herself at a crossroads, academic education or 'The University of Life'.
Based on the memoirs of British journalist Lynn Barber, and the screenplay written by British novelist Nick Hornby, it's the acting cast that make this film such a pleasure to watch and make it worthy of the praise that it has received. Carey Mulligan, as Jenny, the young girl and lead character is truly fantastic. She was up for an Oscar, and could not have been far off grabbing it, for her portrayal of a girl going from wide eyed innocence to thinking she knows it all as she wrestles with the right way to grow into her adult life. She is equally at ease at playing a geeky, cello playing college girl as she is as a maturing socialite wining and dining in Paris. It's her breakthrough performance and it's clear she has a bright future ahead of her.
Alfred Molina, as Jenny's father is once again fantastic. He represents the now very dated views of the only way that a woman can succeed is to excel academically or to meet a successful man. Even though his opinions are practically prehistoric and is often seen as the baddie of the piece, it is a testament to Molina that he manages to be so likeable. You also feel a great deal of sympathy for him as he is convinced that there is little worth doing outside of their suburban bubble, while Jenny boasts of eating great food, and drinking fine wine. He wants the best for his daughter but he does not know what that is.
Peter Sarsgaard is no doubt in line for the big time as well based on this performance. He is charming and appealing as Jenny's (much) older suitor David, despite the relationship itself being undoubtedly open to misinterpretation. His slick manners and the ease with which he deals with people seduces Jenny despite it being clear that he is not all that he seems and the way he earns his crust is also far from honest.
The cast list goes on - Dominic Cooper as David's good friend and 'business partner', does plenty with what he is given. Like David he is amiable and fun, but you are exposed to moments of aggression that leave you in no doubt that he is capable of being far from nice. Rosamund Pike is good as Cooper's ditsy wife, representing a possible glimpse as to what Jenny's life will become if she choose to enrol in 'The University of Life'.
Then just when you think that the roster must be complete, Emma Thompson turns up as the Headmistress of Jenny's school. She only appears for two scenes but it's a worthy addition and she pulls it off without trying.
The film is well made too, Lone Scherfig doing a tidy job with the material, but she admirably pulls off a reconstruction of 1960's London. Each old car and dated shop front making you feel as though you are there, transported back in time. Nick Hornby must get a mention as well for the screenplay. Having not read the source material I'm not sure how good an adaptation it is, but there is enough good stuff in there to suggest he may have a new penning career there for the taking.
It's not all positives though, there are some issues that stop it from being as good as it promises to be. Once the relationship takes a turn for the worst and Jenny's choices are shown to be far from right, things become very dark very swiftly. However, just as quickly as things went badly, they all turn around for the better again. All of a sudden. An entire academic year is condensed into 5 minutes of screen time and we all live happily ever after. It's not that I dislike a happy ending (although they do irritate me), it's just that this all felt too neat. She learnt her lesson, made it right, and everything is sweetness again. All in the space of ten minutes.
Also, despite the performances being brilliant, the characters themselves are slightly two dimensional, seemingly there to represent a particular point of view of political stance. Only Dominic Cooper and Peter Sarsgaard, other than Jenny herself, have anything resembling depth.
These criticisms though do not detract from what is essentially a lovely, very watchable film, with a brilliant cast, presenting important subject matter in a polished slice of cinema.
We can all relate to it, we've all been a young person convinced that we all know better than anyone else, only to be shown that our innocent naivety will see us caught out by someone else more wily, leaving us to eat our words in the end.
Smothered with critical praise and award nominations after it's release last year, it's the simple coming of age story of a 16 year old girl (Carey Mulligan) in 1961 Suburban London, on track for a stellar education at Oxford University before she falls for the seductive charms of of Peter Sarsgaard's older man. Her life changes and she finds herself at a crossroads, academic education or 'The University of Life'.
Based on the memoirs of British journalist Lynn Barber, and the screenplay written by British novelist Nick Hornby, it's the acting cast that make this film such a pleasure to watch and make it worthy of the praise that it has received. Carey Mulligan, as Jenny, the young girl and lead character is truly fantastic. She was up for an Oscar, and could not have been far off grabbing it, for her portrayal of a girl going from wide eyed innocence to thinking she knows it all as she wrestles with the right way to grow into her adult life. She is equally at ease at playing a geeky, cello playing college girl as she is as a maturing socialite wining and dining in Paris. It's her breakthrough performance and it's clear she has a bright future ahead of her.
Alfred Molina, as Jenny's father is once again fantastic. He represents the now very dated views of the only way that a woman can succeed is to excel academically or to meet a successful man. Even though his opinions are practically prehistoric and is often seen as the baddie of the piece, it is a testament to Molina that he manages to be so likeable. You also feel a great deal of sympathy for him as he is convinced that there is little worth doing outside of their suburban bubble, while Jenny boasts of eating great food, and drinking fine wine. He wants the best for his daughter but he does not know what that is.
Peter Sarsgaard is no doubt in line for the big time as well based on this performance. He is charming and appealing as Jenny's (much) older suitor David, despite the relationship itself being undoubtedly open to misinterpretation. His slick manners and the ease with which he deals with people seduces Jenny despite it being clear that he is not all that he seems and the way he earns his crust is also far from honest.
The cast list goes on - Dominic Cooper as David's good friend and 'business partner', does plenty with what he is given. Like David he is amiable and fun, but you are exposed to moments of aggression that leave you in no doubt that he is capable of being far from nice. Rosamund Pike is good as Cooper's ditsy wife, representing a possible glimpse as to what Jenny's life will become if she choose to enrol in 'The University of Life'.
Then just when you think that the roster must be complete, Emma Thompson turns up as the Headmistress of Jenny's school. She only appears for two scenes but it's a worthy addition and she pulls it off without trying.
The film is well made too, Lone Scherfig doing a tidy job with the material, but she admirably pulls off a reconstruction of 1960's London. Each old car and dated shop front making you feel as though you are there, transported back in time. Nick Hornby must get a mention as well for the screenplay. Having not read the source material I'm not sure how good an adaptation it is, but there is enough good stuff in there to suggest he may have a new penning career there for the taking.
It's not all positives though, there are some issues that stop it from being as good as it promises to be. Once the relationship takes a turn for the worst and Jenny's choices are shown to be far from right, things become very dark very swiftly. However, just as quickly as things went badly, they all turn around for the better again. All of a sudden. An entire academic year is condensed into 5 minutes of screen time and we all live happily ever after. It's not that I dislike a happy ending (although they do irritate me), it's just that this all felt too neat. She learnt her lesson, made it right, and everything is sweetness again. All in the space of ten minutes.
Also, despite the performances being brilliant, the characters themselves are slightly two dimensional, seemingly there to represent a particular point of view of political stance. Only Dominic Cooper and Peter Sarsgaard, other than Jenny herself, have anything resembling depth.
These criticisms though do not detract from what is essentially a lovely, very watchable film, with a brilliant cast, presenting important subject matter in a polished slice of cinema.
We can all relate to it, we've all been a young person convinced that we all know better than anyone else, only to be shown that our innocent naivety will see us caught out by someone else more wily, leaving us to eat our words in the end.
Friday, 26 November 2010
ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST (1975)
Last Sunday I finally managed to do what I have been threatening to do for a long time - go to a Secret Cinema event. Ever since I first heard about this brilliant idea I've been desperate to go, but it was only recently that I managed to pull my finger out and actually do something about it.
More on the Secret Cinema itself later, but by the time the mystery and intrigue evaporated and the opening credits of Milos Foreman's mid-seventies film began, I really was chuffed to bits. Not because it is such a classic and I'd love to sit through it again, but because, and I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, I have never actually seen the film. The closest I have come is when I saw the play at the West End starring Christian Slater which was very good and only made me feel more guilt for not having seen the film, or read the book by Ken Kesey for that matter.
Set in a mental institution is tells the story of R P McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) on the day of his admittance. What unfolds is at times a tale of liberation, at others a duel of minds and finally at others a bold statement about the use of certain medical procedures in these hospitals.
McMurphy has been in and out of prison, the most recent crime being statutory rape, when he decides to feign madness in an attempt to get away from a life behind bars for an easier life in an asylum. He gets his way and is put on a ward with a whole host of colourful characters and he goes about attempting to make himself as popular among the other patients as possible. This opening stage of the film is very light-hearted, with the madness of the patients being present humorously, almost giving them all a childlike innocence. McMurprhy's attempts to win them over are also comedic, sort of like a class clown at school attempting to prove his worth.
This all plays out nicely until it becomes clear that life in the Asylum is not as nice and easy as he had hoped. He becomes locked in a conflict with Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), who oversees the ward. He tries to fight but its clear that she rules through fear and has control over all of the patience. McMurphy's attempts to overcome her and her stranglehold get more desperate, confrontational and violent until it all results in horrific consequences.
Nicholson and Fletcher give this battle a real heightened impact, they do not confront each other physically (until very late on) but each stare exchanged between the two of them ramps up the tension as they allude to the violence and evil that both are capable of. There is both a hatred and a mutual respect. A battle between good and evil, like a fantasy epic, but played out in the confines of a hospital ward.
It's almost as if Nicholson was born for this role. A massive personality, infectious, one moment hilariously zany, the next brooding with a malicious intensity. He has turned in some tremendous performances over the years in some fantastic films but I do think is the best I have seen of him. Narrowly pushing ahead of Jack Torrence in The Shining and The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman.
The acting is a real strong point of the film. However it isn't limited to just the two leads. There are some (now) very famous faces here that deliver top performances. Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd and Sydney Lassick all play patients on the ward and do so brilliantly. The over the top personalities of DeVito and Lloyd, in particular, are perfectly suited to the tone of this film. Each character has an arc, you join them on a journey through the film as the character develops and changes. It's not often that a supporting cast and characters are so fundamental to the progression of the story. I really developed an emotional attachment to all of the characters on show with a sequence containing a 'bonding field trip spontaneously organised by McMurphy, behind particularly heart warming. You can't stop yourself from grinning as these deranged individuals all go fishing while McMurphy tries to get some alone time with this girlfriend.
Milos Foreman has put together a film here that takes you through the full range of emotions. As I mentioned earlier, there are some very funny moments as the patients lark around during therapy, mocking one another and trying the patience of Nurse Radchet. Then the film takes a darker turn as it becomes a study of control before we are exposed to the true sadness behind the inmates, the majority of them there not against their will and the methods the staff use to keep order within the ward. Throughout there are very touching and liberating scenes as McMurphy helps the others to get one over on nurse Ratched. One scene I particularly enjoyed was when Ratched refused them permission to watch the World Series, so in response McMurphy leads the troops in watching a black tv screen while they cheer on an imaginary game of baseball. This topsy-turvy tone is one of the strengths of the film. You never know where it's going. The stark contrast between the tones mean that the funny bits become funnier, the touching moments really get you and the hard-hitting, shocking moments towards the films arresting and troubling climax, really do impact on you. if you make a mental note of where you are at the start of the film, then compare that to how you feel at the end, you really know that you've been taken on a bit of a ride.
Now that I've seen it, I can see why people have raved about it and consider it a classic. Made with real thought by Foreman, acted tremendously by it's cast, a career defining performance from Jack Nicholson ably supported by Louise Fletcher and others, it really is tremendous. It's also a very important film for the time it was made, exploring issues of mental illness, lobotomy and electrolysis treatment, it asks the question is anyone really crazy and does the treatment of the time really do any good. Although these issues are not as relevant in today's society with the advances of medicine and treatment it is still a very interesting commentary on the time and deserves to be seen for that reason and also because, aside from that, it is a masterpiece.
I can not recommend the Secret Cinema set up enough. I'm not going to go into too much detail because the pleasure that I found in it was all to do with the complete mystery of what I was entering into. If I were to give away what happened it may detract from people's enjoyment of future events. All I will say is that it is a brilliant way to enjoy a film in an incredibly interesting and interactive way and to see classic movies in different and compelling locations. The organisers transport you into the film and it's world with real care and attention to detail, so that by the time you settle down to watch, you are a part of what is happening on screen. - http://www.secretcinema.org/
More on the Secret Cinema itself later, but by the time the mystery and intrigue evaporated and the opening credits of Milos Foreman's mid-seventies film began, I really was chuffed to bits. Not because it is such a classic and I'd love to sit through it again, but because, and I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, I have never actually seen the film. The closest I have come is when I saw the play at the West End starring Christian Slater which was very good and only made me feel more guilt for not having seen the film, or read the book by Ken Kesey for that matter.
Set in a mental institution is tells the story of R P McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) on the day of his admittance. What unfolds is at times a tale of liberation, at others a duel of minds and finally at others a bold statement about the use of certain medical procedures in these hospitals.
McMurphy has been in and out of prison, the most recent crime being statutory rape, when he decides to feign madness in an attempt to get away from a life behind bars for an easier life in an asylum. He gets his way and is put on a ward with a whole host of colourful characters and he goes about attempting to make himself as popular among the other patients as possible. This opening stage of the film is very light-hearted, with the madness of the patients being present humorously, almost giving them all a childlike innocence. McMurprhy's attempts to win them over are also comedic, sort of like a class clown at school attempting to prove his worth.
This all plays out nicely until it becomes clear that life in the Asylum is not as nice and easy as he had hoped. He becomes locked in a conflict with Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), who oversees the ward. He tries to fight but its clear that she rules through fear and has control over all of the patience. McMurphy's attempts to overcome her and her stranglehold get more desperate, confrontational and violent until it all results in horrific consequences.
Nicholson and Fletcher give this battle a real heightened impact, they do not confront each other physically (until very late on) but each stare exchanged between the two of them ramps up the tension as they allude to the violence and evil that both are capable of. There is both a hatred and a mutual respect. A battle between good and evil, like a fantasy epic, but played out in the confines of a hospital ward.
It's almost as if Nicholson was born for this role. A massive personality, infectious, one moment hilariously zany, the next brooding with a malicious intensity. He has turned in some tremendous performances over the years in some fantastic films but I do think is the best I have seen of him. Narrowly pushing ahead of Jack Torrence in The Shining and The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman.
The acting is a real strong point of the film. However it isn't limited to just the two leads. There are some (now) very famous faces here that deliver top performances. Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd and Sydney Lassick all play patients on the ward and do so brilliantly. The over the top personalities of DeVito and Lloyd, in particular, are perfectly suited to the tone of this film. Each character has an arc, you join them on a journey through the film as the character develops and changes. It's not often that a supporting cast and characters are so fundamental to the progression of the story. I really developed an emotional attachment to all of the characters on show with a sequence containing a 'bonding field trip spontaneously organised by McMurphy, behind particularly heart warming. You can't stop yourself from grinning as these deranged individuals all go fishing while McMurphy tries to get some alone time with this girlfriend.
Milos Foreman has put together a film here that takes you through the full range of emotions. As I mentioned earlier, there are some very funny moments as the patients lark around during therapy, mocking one another and trying the patience of Nurse Radchet. Then the film takes a darker turn as it becomes a study of control before we are exposed to the true sadness behind the inmates, the majority of them there not against their will and the methods the staff use to keep order within the ward. Throughout there are very touching and liberating scenes as McMurphy helps the others to get one over on nurse Ratched. One scene I particularly enjoyed was when Ratched refused them permission to watch the World Series, so in response McMurphy leads the troops in watching a black tv screen while they cheer on an imaginary game of baseball. This topsy-turvy tone is one of the strengths of the film. You never know where it's going. The stark contrast between the tones mean that the funny bits become funnier, the touching moments really get you and the hard-hitting, shocking moments towards the films arresting and troubling climax, really do impact on you. if you make a mental note of where you are at the start of the film, then compare that to how you feel at the end, you really know that you've been taken on a bit of a ride.
Now that I've seen it, I can see why people have raved about it and consider it a classic. Made with real thought by Foreman, acted tremendously by it's cast, a career defining performance from Jack Nicholson ably supported by Louise Fletcher and others, it really is tremendous. It's also a very important film for the time it was made, exploring issues of mental illness, lobotomy and electrolysis treatment, it asks the question is anyone really crazy and does the treatment of the time really do any good. Although these issues are not as relevant in today's society with the advances of medicine and treatment it is still a very interesting commentary on the time and deserves to be seen for that reason and also because, aside from that, it is a masterpiece.
I can not recommend the Secret Cinema set up enough. I'm not going to go into too much detail because the pleasure that I found in it was all to do with the complete mystery of what I was entering into. If I were to give away what happened it may detract from people's enjoyment of future events. All I will say is that it is a brilliant way to enjoy a film in an incredibly interesting and interactive way and to see classic movies in different and compelling locations. The organisers transport you into the film and it's world with real care and attention to detail, so that by the time you settle down to watch, you are a part of what is happening on screen. - http://www.secretcinema.org/
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 1 (2010)
In the world of Harry Potter there are two types of people, those who can practice magic (Wizards) and those who don't have the powers (Muggles). This dual society extends to the real world as well. Those who love Potter and his adventures and those who have not fallen under the spell of J K Rowling's creation (or is it really her creation...?).
Having read all the books and seen (and enjoyed) all of the films thus far, I firmly fall within the first category. So with this in mind, there was never any danger of me not seeing this film in it's opening weekend.
Bill Nighy's Minister of Magic sets the the tone of the story, and the film for that matter, in the opening moments. 'There are dark times ahead'. The penultimate film in the series (the final book being split into two halves) is indeed the darkest yet, although I appreciate that this has been said of every sequel in the series so far. I'll do my best to avoid any spoilers, but it picks up where the previous film, The Half-Blood Prince, left off with Voldemort growing stronger and the Death Eaters seizing a firmer grip on power and stepping up their efforts to kill Harry Potter.
Although the story is familiar, this film is very unlike any other in the series so far. Fairly early on in the film, the three main characters, Harry, Hermione and Ron become separated from their protectors and consequently have to fend for themselves. This means that the usual locales of Hogwarts and the like are not seen at all and much of the film is played out in sweeping rural landscapes, beautifully presented by director David Yates (at the helm since film 5) with some earlier scenes taken place in Central London. These alien surroundings give this film a freshness and a maturity.
The action set-pieces are superbly done, including a thrilling chase through the Dartford Tunnel and a great sequence where the Ministry of Magic is infiltrated, to both comedic and exciting dramatic effect. However these set-pieces are not as frequent as in the other films with long stretches without any magic or visual effects. The reason being that at the centre of this film is the three characters and little else: by breaking the final book into two halves, the makers have been given the opportunity to use this episode to build gradually towards the finale and in doing so they can really explore the relationship between Harry, Hermione and Ron. I suspect that younger fans of the series will be disappointed and perhaps lost at the long stretches of contemplative dialogue, but in doing this, Yates and co have made a proper film. A study into teenagers growing up, adult issues of jealousy are explored, coming to terms with death and the horrible occurrences that are taking place. This really is grim stuff. We have spent 6 films with the three of them, put them through all sorts, but we get to know them more in the space of this 146 minute film that all of those put together.
The actors themselves have come a long way since being cute but annoying child actors in the Philosopher's Stone. Daniel Radcliffe is probably the weaker of the three, although he is given the worst dialogue with moany mournful lines that act as exposition. Emma Watson is turning into a very good actress. it remains to be seen whether she will continue with the craft but she plays Hermione with enthusiasm but also a sadness. One scene in particular at the beginning of the film involving her parents is particularly heartbreaking, as well as a very touching scene where Harry and Hermione dance, trying to put all the troubles to the back of their minds. Rupert Grint is easily the most improved. Gone is the wooden, clunky delivery, he is now polished using facial expressions very proficiently to convey a frustrated teenager, struggling to understand his emotions and just wanting the quiet life. These performances have to be strong as they carry the film for the length of the substantial mid-section.
The full cast really is a who's who of British actors. Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as Voldemort, a real baddie, none of this pantomime nonsense. He really reminded me of Darth Vader with his ruthless blood lust. We are under no illusion that should Voldemort be successful, then the world will be in a lot of trouble. Helena Bonham-Carter also has great fun as the nightmarish Bellatrix Lestrange, the truly psychotic sidekick to Lord Voldemort. Plus it is always a joy to see Alan Rickman as Snape, although you don't get much of him. You can only hope he comes to the fore in the final film.
The darkness is not all about the actors though. The rise of the new Ministry smacks of the rise of fascism and it's propaganda. There are also some very tough scenes to watch that include torture, murder and pure evil. There's blood in this film, more than you would expect, and there are some properly scary moments, particularly for children. It really is not all plain sailing. As we get to the end, there is a moment that really hit me hard, proper tears let me tell you.
Ah the ending....I've heard some people call it a non-ending. The sort of cliff hanger you would have at the end of a tv
I loved this film. It really felt like a proper grown up flick, a character study, almost an art-house film. The film makers, and the cast, have done such a fine job with this film, made it with great care and good intentions, that the decision to spilt the film in two has been proved to be the right one. To have attempted to shoe-horn the final book, in it's entirety, into a 3 hour film would have meant that we would not have been taken with on the quest with Harry, Hermione and Ron and the feeling of dread as the finale approaches would not have had half the impact. This, and the decision to not make it 3D (a change of tact from the studio's original position, which must have resulted in financial loss), clearly proves that Yates and co really want to ensure that these films do the rest of series justice. They only get one shot at this.
As for the Muggles, if you've managed to resist the magic of the films and story so far, I doubt I'll be able to change your minds here. I suppose there really is no saving you.
I saw the film at the Everyman Cinema in Baker Street. First time I've been to this two-screen picture house but I'd thoroughly recommend it. Nice and comfy seats, good snacks and lovely bar to have a drink before and after. A great Central London alternative to the Sin-e-world mulitplexes.
Having read all the books and seen (and enjoyed) all of the films thus far, I firmly fall within the first category. So with this in mind, there was never any danger of me not seeing this film in it's opening weekend.
Bill Nighy's Minister of Magic sets the the tone of the story, and the film for that matter, in the opening moments. 'There are dark times ahead'. The penultimate film in the series (the final book being split into two halves) is indeed the darkest yet, although I appreciate that this has been said of every sequel in the series so far. I'll do my best to avoid any spoilers, but it picks up where the previous film, The Half-Blood Prince, left off with Voldemort growing stronger and the Death Eaters seizing a firmer grip on power and stepping up their efforts to kill Harry Potter.
Although the story is familiar, this film is very unlike any other in the series so far. Fairly early on in the film, the three main characters, Harry, Hermione and Ron become separated from their protectors and consequently have to fend for themselves. This means that the usual locales of Hogwarts and the like are not seen at all and much of the film is played out in sweeping rural landscapes, beautifully presented by director David Yates (at the helm since film 5) with some earlier scenes taken place in Central London. These alien surroundings give this film a freshness and a maturity.
The action set-pieces are superbly done, including a thrilling chase through the Dartford Tunnel and a great sequence where the Ministry of Magic is infiltrated, to both comedic and exciting dramatic effect. However these set-pieces are not as frequent as in the other films with long stretches without any magic or visual effects. The reason being that at the centre of this film is the three characters and little else: by breaking the final book into two halves, the makers have been given the opportunity to use this episode to build gradually towards the finale and in doing so they can really explore the relationship between Harry, Hermione and Ron. I suspect that younger fans of the series will be disappointed and perhaps lost at the long stretches of contemplative dialogue, but in doing this, Yates and co have made a proper film. A study into teenagers growing up, adult issues of jealousy are explored, coming to terms with death and the horrible occurrences that are taking place. This really is grim stuff. We have spent 6 films with the three of them, put them through all sorts, but we get to know them more in the space of this 146 minute film that all of those put together.
The actors themselves have come a long way since being cute but annoying child actors in the Philosopher's Stone. Daniel Radcliffe is probably the weaker of the three, although he is given the worst dialogue with moany mournful lines that act as exposition. Emma Watson is turning into a very good actress. it remains to be seen whether she will continue with the craft but she plays Hermione with enthusiasm but also a sadness. One scene in particular at the beginning of the film involving her parents is particularly heartbreaking, as well as a very touching scene where Harry and Hermione dance, trying to put all the troubles to the back of their minds. Rupert Grint is easily the most improved. Gone is the wooden, clunky delivery, he is now polished using facial expressions very proficiently to convey a frustrated teenager, struggling to understand his emotions and just wanting the quiet life. These performances have to be strong as they carry the film for the length of the substantial mid-section.
The full cast really is a who's who of British actors. Ralph Fiennes is fantastic as Voldemort, a real baddie, none of this pantomime nonsense. He really reminded me of Darth Vader with his ruthless blood lust. We are under no illusion that should Voldemort be successful, then the world will be in a lot of trouble. Helena Bonham-Carter also has great fun as the nightmarish Bellatrix Lestrange, the truly psychotic sidekick to Lord Voldemort. Plus it is always a joy to see Alan Rickman as Snape, although you don't get much of him. You can only hope he comes to the fore in the final film.
The darkness is not all about the actors though. The rise of the new Ministry smacks of the rise of fascism and it's propaganda. There are also some very tough scenes to watch that include torture, murder and pure evil. There's blood in this film, more than you would expect, and there are some properly scary moments, particularly for children. It really is not all plain sailing. As we get to the end, there is a moment that really hit me hard, proper tears let me tell you.
Ah the ending....I've heard some people call it a non-ending. The sort of cliff hanger you would have at the end of a tv
I loved this film. It really felt like a proper grown up flick, a character study, almost an art-house film. The film makers, and the cast, have done such a fine job with this film, made it with great care and good intentions, that the decision to spilt the film in two has been proved to be the right one. To have attempted to shoe-horn the final book, in it's entirety, into a 3 hour film would have meant that we would not have been taken with on the quest with Harry, Hermione and Ron and the feeling of dread as the finale approaches would not have had half the impact. This, and the decision to not make it 3D (a change of tact from the studio's original position, which must have resulted in financial loss), clearly proves that Yates and co really want to ensure that these films do the rest of series justice. They only get one shot at this.
As for the Muggles, if you've managed to resist the magic of the films and story so far, I doubt I'll be able to change your minds here. I suppose there really is no saving you.
I saw the film at the Everyman Cinema in Baker Street. First time I've been to this two-screen picture house but I'd thoroughly recommend it. Nice and comfy seats, good snacks and lovely bar to have a drink before and after. A great Central London alternative to the Sin-e-world mulitplexes.
Sunday, 21 November 2010
SEXY BEAST (2000)
Friday night, tough week at work, can't be bothered to booze it up and spend half the night queueing up at bars with drunk men in suits being obnoxious. The solution - round to a friend's house for home made pizzas (from scratch, dough and everything ) and a DVD.
I wasn't in charge of the viewing choice, which always makes me feel a little uncomfortable, but I was delighted when I discovered that the choice was Sexy Beast, Jonathan Glazer's first feature film.
It tells the story of Gary 'Gal' Dove (Ray Winstone), lovable rogue and retired gangster. Now living the quiet life with his wife (Amanda Redman), former porn star, in the sunnier climes of Spain. One of his old 'colleagues', Don Logan (Sir Ben Kingsley) turns up for a surprise visit to try and persuade Gal out of retirement for one last job. On the face of it, it's a story that has been told a million times before, and a brief synopsis like that probably wouldn't have you running out to grab a copy on DVD. The reality is though, that the story is very much secondary and it's the characters that grab this film by the lapels and elevate it above most other British gangster fare.
Ray Winstone, in a role that gave his a career a much needed jolt in the arm, is very understated and excellent as Gal Dove. We all know a Brit who has upped sticks for Spain and quickly turned their skin to leather and Winstone morphs in to this role with ease. This is what he is capable of, it's a shame that Hollywood entrusts him with pointless roles such as the one he was given in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal skull.
Although Dove is the character that the film follows, he is not the most important and memorable of the piece. (Sir) Ben Kingsley's Don Logan is easily one of the most striking and unforgettable persona's in British cinema. At first look, he seems to resemble a teacher, pressed trousers and short sleeve shirts. Then he opens his mouth, barking expletives creatively and aggressively. The tidy attire, seemingly harmless before, now takes on a more sinister note as it becomes an obsessive part of his psychotic behaviour. Some moments he is softly spoken, the next he shouts 'No, no, no, no' followed by the inevitable tired of swearing. The unpredictability makes him all the more scarier. Truly terrifying. The writers have also managed to give Logan some great creative use of swear words. Only Malcolm Tucker has managed to trump him since. In fact, Logan's dialogue is funny and does raise laughs, but not for long because any humour is quickly consumed by another tirade of abuse.
Ian McShane also crops up as Teddy Bass, the real boss of the heist. Bass is another creepy character but in a very different way to Logan. No raised voices, no threatening swearing, just softly spoken words, laden with the suggestion of violence. The other members of the gang clearly fear him and it's not until the last few moments that you are shown just what he is capable of. This was the role for McShane that reinvented him, made him hot property again. Lovejoy to Deadwood and The West Wing.
The film is very simple, it really is a character piece that is stripped down to the bare bones. In fact, it could almost be a play covering 2 or 3 locations, letting thespians strut their stuff on the boards. Jonathan Glazer's direction gives the film something more, adds flesh to the bones. And what flesh it is. The film is full of stylised tricks, a camera attached to a rolling boulder or a revolving door, fast editing between present day and flashbacks, thumping music propelling scenes along. I also loved the stark contrasts in colours between the two locations, Spain full of vibrant, hot colours, filmed in day, while London is all blacks and greys, only seen during cold, rainy nights. The film is visually beautiful, almost becoming an additional character itself.
It really is a modern British classic. Great cast, at the peak of their powers, superbly shot, creatively put together with a narrative structure that has keeps you guessing until after the credits,. Occasionally in the world of film, the stars align and you have something that really sticks out. This is one of those occasions.
The film Guy Ritchie wished he could have made.
I wasn't in charge of the viewing choice, which always makes me feel a little uncomfortable, but I was delighted when I discovered that the choice was Sexy Beast, Jonathan Glazer's first feature film.
It tells the story of Gary 'Gal' Dove (Ray Winstone), lovable rogue and retired gangster. Now living the quiet life with his wife (Amanda Redman), former porn star, in the sunnier climes of Spain. One of his old 'colleagues', Don Logan (Sir Ben Kingsley) turns up for a surprise visit to try and persuade Gal out of retirement for one last job. On the face of it, it's a story that has been told a million times before, and a brief synopsis like that probably wouldn't have you running out to grab a copy on DVD. The reality is though, that the story is very much secondary and it's the characters that grab this film by the lapels and elevate it above most other British gangster fare.
Ray Winstone, in a role that gave his a career a much needed jolt in the arm, is very understated and excellent as Gal Dove. We all know a Brit who has upped sticks for Spain and quickly turned their skin to leather and Winstone morphs in to this role with ease. This is what he is capable of, it's a shame that Hollywood entrusts him with pointless roles such as the one he was given in Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal skull.
Although Dove is the character that the film follows, he is not the most important and memorable of the piece. (Sir) Ben Kingsley's Don Logan is easily one of the most striking and unforgettable persona's in British cinema. At first look, he seems to resemble a teacher, pressed trousers and short sleeve shirts. Then he opens his mouth, barking expletives creatively and aggressively. The tidy attire, seemingly harmless before, now takes on a more sinister note as it becomes an obsessive part of his psychotic behaviour. Some moments he is softly spoken, the next he shouts 'No, no, no, no' followed by the inevitable tired of swearing. The unpredictability makes him all the more scarier. Truly terrifying. The writers have also managed to give Logan some great creative use of swear words. Only Malcolm Tucker has managed to trump him since. In fact, Logan's dialogue is funny and does raise laughs, but not for long because any humour is quickly consumed by another tirade of abuse.
Ian McShane also crops up as Teddy Bass, the real boss of the heist. Bass is another creepy character but in a very different way to Logan. No raised voices, no threatening swearing, just softly spoken words, laden with the suggestion of violence. The other members of the gang clearly fear him and it's not until the last few moments that you are shown just what he is capable of. This was the role for McShane that reinvented him, made him hot property again. Lovejoy to Deadwood and The West Wing.
The film is very simple, it really is a character piece that is stripped down to the bare bones. In fact, it could almost be a play covering 2 or 3 locations, letting thespians strut their stuff on the boards. Jonathan Glazer's direction gives the film something more, adds flesh to the bones. And what flesh it is. The film is full of stylised tricks, a camera attached to a rolling boulder or a revolving door, fast editing between present day and flashbacks, thumping music propelling scenes along. I also loved the stark contrasts in colours between the two locations, Spain full of vibrant, hot colours, filmed in day, while London is all blacks and greys, only seen during cold, rainy nights. The film is visually beautiful, almost becoming an additional character itself.
It really is a modern British classic. Great cast, at the peak of their powers, superbly shot, creatively put together with a narrative structure that has keeps you guessing until after the credits,. Occasionally in the world of film, the stars align and you have something that really sticks out. This is one of those occasions.
The film Guy Ritchie wished he could have made.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
LET ME IN (2010)
Let's get it out of the way, I loved Let The Right One In. I saw it for the first time at Somerset House, in a double bill with The Lost Boys, and I remember being blown away by it. It was so simple yet so complicated, it was visually striking and beautiful, delicate in tone but with a ruthless violence as well. I loved it. But I'm not reviewing that film here, I'm referring to the English Language remake, directed by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) and starring Chloe Moretz (Kick Ass) and Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road).
I'm determined here to look at Let Me In, it's merits and it's downfalls as a stand alone film. What I want to try to avoid is comparing it with the original in a box ticking exercise (Scene with the alley, yep. Scene at the gym, hang on, they changed that). So as I popped myself into the obscenely comfortable seat at the Electric Cinema with my bottle of beer, I tried to empty my mind of any thoughts and memories of Let The Right One In, and enjoy the film as just that, a film.
Set in New Mexico, it's tells the story of loner Owen, troubled my his lack of friends and his parents' messy divorce. Then he finds himself a friend, the girl next door and as the friendship blossoms it becomes clear that she is not as she seems and hides a nasty secret. It really is a simple tale of friendship made all the more interesting and heartbreaking because of the complications and obstacles that the relationship must overcome. After all, what is Romeo and Juliet if not a love story with obstacles. In fact, Let Me In refers to Shakespeare's story, in a clumsy attempt to subtly invoke the similarities.
The two leads are very good here. Moretz in particular - Kick Ass was no fluke or one off and here she again revels in the violence, though this time not tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't just her ability to swear and dismember limbs that got her plaudits in that film though, she played Hit Girl with a youthful innocence and vulnerability that really stood out and was largely responsible for Kick Ass' heart. Her role here is much more serious and she excels. Wanting to hold back, knowing she can't let herself be free but also being unable to stop herself from diving straight into the friendship, her performance is full of internal conflict.
Kodi Smit-McPhee turns in an equally good performance, though much more understated and therefore slightly less noticeable than Moretz. He plays Owen, bullied, downtrodden and with no self-esteem, with a tremendous innocence that reminded me of Nicholas Holt in About A Boy. Seemingly with no hope, but with a resolve that refuses to die. Once again, a young actor seemingly with a future.
The two lead characters are both a bundle of contradictions, which actually also applies when looking at the tone of the film. There are soft tender moments between them both, or small, barely noticeable looks from them individually, but then the next scene will feature bloody violence and jumpy scares which are handled well by Reeves as he gets back into the more familiar Cloverfield territory. The two contrasts make each opposite have all the more impact, as you're not sure which to expect, once they do hit home, they do so. With interest.
But, and there is a but. I could easily have been referring to Let The Right One In with the comments above. All of the positives are positives that are taken from the original. The Story, identical. The snowy atmospheric setting, identical. Tender moments and the violence, all present. Tragic central relationship, check, although in this case I was not nearly as involved and connected to the relationship, the Swedish original gripped me much more. It appears as though the makers of this film saw Let The Right One In, loved it and felt that the story needed to be seen by a bigger audience and an English language version was the way to do that. Except that all they did was copy it, almost scene for scene and add some special effects, which ultimately had a detrimental effect. The only time I was impressed with the added bells and whistles was a well executed car crash. However, the scene it mimicked and built upon was so much more heartfelt with greater desperation in the character involved. This lost a lot of what was great about that moment. My favourite scenes in the original, without giving too much away, were the swimming pool at the end and a vampire being exposed to daylight in a hospital ward. Both scenes were copied, almost shot for shot, but both felt much more hollow. Much like the rest of the film in fact. As thought it's missing something. Lost in translation perhaps.
Ultimately the reason for this goes back to my opening to above. I tried to empty my mind of Let The Right One In, but I couldn't. Because it has stuck with me and whatever Reeves and co tried to serve up, it just isn't as memorable and it's impossible not to compare the two. Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho was shot for shot identical, but did anyone watch it without thinking about Hitchcock's original? And did it have the same impact?
Is Let Me In good? Yes it is. Should you see it? Why not, it is well-made and considerably better than most horror out there. Should you see it if you haven't seen Let The Right One In? No. You must see the original because if you see this before it, you will not see a truly great film as it should be and will never enjoy it in the way it deserves to be.
I'm determined here to look at Let Me In, it's merits and it's downfalls as a stand alone film. What I want to try to avoid is comparing it with the original in a box ticking exercise (Scene with the alley, yep. Scene at the gym, hang on, they changed that). So as I popped myself into the obscenely comfortable seat at the Electric Cinema with my bottle of beer, I tried to empty my mind of any thoughts and memories of Let The Right One In, and enjoy the film as just that, a film.
Set in New Mexico, it's tells the story of loner Owen, troubled my his lack of friends and his parents' messy divorce. Then he finds himself a friend, the girl next door and as the friendship blossoms it becomes clear that she is not as she seems and hides a nasty secret. It really is a simple tale of friendship made all the more interesting and heartbreaking because of the complications and obstacles that the relationship must overcome. After all, what is Romeo and Juliet if not a love story with obstacles. In fact, Let Me In refers to Shakespeare's story, in a clumsy attempt to subtly invoke the similarities.
The two leads are very good here. Moretz in particular - Kick Ass was no fluke or one off and here she again revels in the violence, though this time not tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't just her ability to swear and dismember limbs that got her plaudits in that film though, she played Hit Girl with a youthful innocence and vulnerability that really stood out and was largely responsible for Kick Ass' heart. Her role here is much more serious and she excels. Wanting to hold back, knowing she can't let herself be free but also being unable to stop herself from diving straight into the friendship, her performance is full of internal conflict.
Kodi Smit-McPhee turns in an equally good performance, though much more understated and therefore slightly less noticeable than Moretz. He plays Owen, bullied, downtrodden and with no self-esteem, with a tremendous innocence that reminded me of Nicholas Holt in About A Boy. Seemingly with no hope, but with a resolve that refuses to die. Once again, a young actor seemingly with a future.
The two lead characters are both a bundle of contradictions, which actually also applies when looking at the tone of the film. There are soft tender moments between them both, or small, barely noticeable looks from them individually, but then the next scene will feature bloody violence and jumpy scares which are handled well by Reeves as he gets back into the more familiar Cloverfield territory. The two contrasts make each opposite have all the more impact, as you're not sure which to expect, once they do hit home, they do so. With interest.
But, and there is a but. I could easily have been referring to Let The Right One In with the comments above. All of the positives are positives that are taken from the original. The Story, identical. The snowy atmospheric setting, identical. Tender moments and the violence, all present. Tragic central relationship, check, although in this case I was not nearly as involved and connected to the relationship, the Swedish original gripped me much more. It appears as though the makers of this film saw Let The Right One In, loved it and felt that the story needed to be seen by a bigger audience and an English language version was the way to do that. Except that all they did was copy it, almost scene for scene and add some special effects, which ultimately had a detrimental effect. The only time I was impressed with the added bells and whistles was a well executed car crash. However, the scene it mimicked and built upon was so much more heartfelt with greater desperation in the character involved. This lost a lot of what was great about that moment. My favourite scenes in the original, without giving too much away, were the swimming pool at the end and a vampire being exposed to daylight in a hospital ward. Both scenes were copied, almost shot for shot, but both felt much more hollow. Much like the rest of the film in fact. As thought it's missing something. Lost in translation perhaps.
Ultimately the reason for this goes back to my opening to above. I tried to empty my mind of Let The Right One In, but I couldn't. Because it has stuck with me and whatever Reeves and co tried to serve up, it just isn't as memorable and it's impossible not to compare the two. Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho was shot for shot identical, but did anyone watch it without thinking about Hitchcock's original? And did it have the same impact?
Is Let Me In good? Yes it is. Should you see it? Why not, it is well-made and considerably better than most horror out there. Should you see it if you haven't seen Let The Right One In? No. You must see the original because if you see this before it, you will not see a truly great film as it should be and will never enjoy it in the way it deserves to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)