Brooklyn's Finest is a funny type of film. It's very well done, there's no doubt about that, but then you would expect that with Antoine Fuqua in charge, director of the hugely successful Training Day. It's polished, shot in a similar way to that film, shaky camera work, grey colour palettes, bloody violence pulled off with aplomb - it has all the hallmarks of a film made by an accomplished film maker who knows what he's up to and is confident in his own ability.
It's got a good cast as well. Richard Gere, Don Cheadle and Ethan Hawke, with a little treat in the form of Wesley Snipes before he was put in the slammer for tax misdemeanours. They all do a good job, very watchable with plenty for them to play with. Set as tensions between police and drug gangs escalate, Gere is the old street cop 7 days from retirement, made to take rookies out on the street and bed them in as the horror of a war unfolds, Cheadle is undercover, fighting the battle from within, fully immersed in the gang world while Hawke is the cop straying into criminality, stealing drug money from police raids to try and support his family. All characters that we have seen before in 101 other movies and television series over the years.
And that is essentially the problem with the film. It's all been done before. We've all seen the story where the boundaries between the good guys and the bad guys blur, everyone has seen a film before where an undercover cop loses a grip on what he is meant to be doing and there is certainly nothing new about an old do-gooder bobbie on the beat losing faith in the job. Plagiarism isn't the main problem though, many great films have taken on elements from and been influenced by other stories, whether it's movies, TV or books, but if you are going to use a set-up as familiar as this, you must attempt to do something fresh with it. Fuqua and writer Michael C Martin does not. He appears to think that because we are so up to speed on these types of characters, that he doesn't need to flesh them out and build them up. We should already know their motivations.
We are given scenes where back story is shown, Hawke's family, growing now because of twins, are shown in poverty, Cheadle misses his old life and begs his boss to be taken off the case, while Gere muses to himself and a prostitute that he visits. It's all paint by numbers story telling and very much there for the sake of it. It doesn't help us to sympathise or connect with the characters, I was never fully taken in.
Once we get to the end, which, to be fair, is not as predictable as I was expecting and therefore far more enjoyable, I didn't really care what happened to the three leads. It was clearly meant to be an emotional conclusion that would shock and upset the viewer, but the detachment continued and, as I did for the entire film, felt at a distance from the proceedings. I should really have been immersed.
Watchable, but no more than that. This is definitely not Brooklyn's finest.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Thursday, 27 January 2011
EXAM (2009)
Exam is a perfect example of the vast distance, a chasm in fact, between a good idea and a good film. It's proof of how a good writer, a good director and a good cast are all vital to turning a brainwave into a memorable piece of cinema.
Simon Garrity (writer) and Stuart Hazledine (directing and writing credits) must have thought they had come up with a nugget of gold, the idea of 8 strangers applying for the same role in a mysterious company, locked in a room taking an exam at the same time. When it comes to the start, they turn their papers over only to be greeted with a completely blank sheet.....The rules don't prohibit the candidates from talking so they begin to co-operate to try and understand the problem that they must solve. It's kind of like The Apprentice meets the first Saw film, with a sprinkling of an automatic lock-in game from the Crystal Maze.
I had heard interesting things and I must admit as the beginning unwound I was intrigued. How could you not be? The trouble is, the suspense lasts about as long as I would do in front of Alan Sugar. The fault of this lies in the first instance with the acting. With the exception of Jimi Mistry (who we know from East is East, 2012 and Rocknrolla), the cast is made up of TV actors and those who have had tiny parts in not very good films. That isn't to say that they aren't going to be talented, they may not have had their big break, but none of them have enough in their locker (including Mistry) to make the opening stages of the film interesting, scenes that rely on the characters not doing much, just talking and gradually coming under psychological pressures. Wooden acting isn't good enough when the people on screen are holding papers up to different types of light. Firth and Franco would probably struggle to keep that interesting.
The acting doesn't pick up either, but then that doesn't really matter as Garrity and Hazledine try to go up a couple of gears and make things interesting. It's as you would expect, factions emerge, tempers fray. Then the plot gets daft. Bits of info about the organisation start to come out and it begins to veer towards silly science fiction, and not in a good way.
It's not a long film, so I wasn't really bored, as I was keen to know what the mystery was, what clever twists did the movie have in store? I was also telling myself (as my girlfriend yawned and fidgeted next to me, not hiding her boredom from me one little bit) that films like this often hinge on their ending, so I was holding hope of an emphatic denouement.
I should have known better. It was messy, anti-climatic, stupid (despite thinking it's clever) and, somehow, pretentious. I felt wholly unsatisfied by the whole thing, just like this year's Apprentice final in fact. Come to think of it, I have no doubt that Stuart Baggs would reign victorious if he was one of the candidates in this film.
So, next time you're day dreaming at work and you think you've come up with a good idea for a movie, stop, think long and hard, because, judging by this film, it needs to be a lot more than that.
Simon Garrity (writer) and Stuart Hazledine (directing and writing credits) must have thought they had come up with a nugget of gold, the idea of 8 strangers applying for the same role in a mysterious company, locked in a room taking an exam at the same time. When it comes to the start, they turn their papers over only to be greeted with a completely blank sheet.....The rules don't prohibit the candidates from talking so they begin to co-operate to try and understand the problem that they must solve. It's kind of like The Apprentice meets the first Saw film, with a sprinkling of an automatic lock-in game from the Crystal Maze.
I had heard interesting things and I must admit as the beginning unwound I was intrigued. How could you not be? The trouble is, the suspense lasts about as long as I would do in front of Alan Sugar. The fault of this lies in the first instance with the acting. With the exception of Jimi Mistry (who we know from East is East, 2012 and Rocknrolla), the cast is made up of TV actors and those who have had tiny parts in not very good films. That isn't to say that they aren't going to be talented, they may not have had their big break, but none of them have enough in their locker (including Mistry) to make the opening stages of the film interesting, scenes that rely on the characters not doing much, just talking and gradually coming under psychological pressures. Wooden acting isn't good enough when the people on screen are holding papers up to different types of light. Firth and Franco would probably struggle to keep that interesting.
The acting doesn't pick up either, but then that doesn't really matter as Garrity and Hazledine try to go up a couple of gears and make things interesting. It's as you would expect, factions emerge, tempers fray. Then the plot gets daft. Bits of info about the organisation start to come out and it begins to veer towards silly science fiction, and not in a good way.
It's not a long film, so I wasn't really bored, as I was keen to know what the mystery was, what clever twists did the movie have in store? I was also telling myself (as my girlfriend yawned and fidgeted next to me, not hiding her boredom from me one little bit) that films like this often hinge on their ending, so I was holding hope of an emphatic denouement.
I should have known better. It was messy, anti-climatic, stupid (despite thinking it's clever) and, somehow, pretentious. I felt wholly unsatisfied by the whole thing, just like this year's Apprentice final in fact. Come to think of it, I have no doubt that Stuart Baggs would reign victorious if he was one of the candidates in this film.
So, next time you're day dreaming at work and you think you've come up with a good idea for a movie, stop, think long and hard, because, judging by this film, it needs to be a lot more than that.
Monday, 24 January 2011
SOUL MEN (2008)
A review that I've written for www.film-news.co.uk
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Soul-Men&nItemID=250
http://www.film-news.co.uk/show-review.asp?H=Soul-Men&nItemID=250
Sunday, 23 January 2011
BLACK SWAN (2010)
I signed up for my Curzon membership in New Year's Day and since then I've been spoilt by the offerings released during January. First The King's Speech, then 127 Hours and now Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan. Rarely do films live up to the hype quite as much as these three, but to have them all released within a fortnight of each other is incredible.
Thought of as a female companion piece to his last film The Wrestler, Black Swan is also the moment where Natalie Portman really steps up a level. Sure she has been in great films and impressed before, but this is a hell of a performance. At the beginning of the film, her Nina is a introverted, overly controlled, almost cowardly dancer who strives for perfection. The dancing is her personality, the be all and end all, nothing else. Portman is a big screen presence but she seems to almost shrink herself during the opening scenes. Her fragility is very convincing and makes her transformation and what comes after even more impressive.
Once she is cast as the Swan Queen in a huge production of Swan Lake the film really gets going. She is told by the sexual predatory artistic director of the production, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) that she must find the Black Swan within her in order to really make the part her own. What follows is a transformation in Nina's character that is at times terrifying, which tests her sanity leaving her constantly questioning what is reality. The duelling personalities and disturbing visions give Portman plenty to get her teeth into and she really excels. The story of the film has parallels to the story of Swan Lake and it very cleverly refers to the story in a lot of the developments.
The world of ballet gives Aronofsky a fantastic canvas to spread his genius across. Rivalry and insecurities are rife in a cut throat world that make it all the more believable that Nina's situation is as serious as a matter of life and death. The main rival (well apart from herself) is Lily, played by Mila Kunis, last seen being as exciting as scenery in The Book of Eli. She is much better on this occasion though, being everything that Nina is not. Confident, unpredictable, impulsive. She acts as the embodiment of the Black Swan that Nina must find in herself, only causing Nina to be even more unsure of herself.
My description so far makes it seem a little like a normal sport-type film, much like the wrestler in fact. Girl wants to succeed but must overcome barriers, blah, blah, blah. However, while The Wrestler is all gritty realism, and to be fair Black Swan does start very much grounded in reality, this film quickly takes a shift into fantasy - dream-like (well more nightmare-like) sequences represent Nina's sanity unravelling. And who better to handle these trips than Aronofsky? There are fantastic moments, involving mirrors, drug-induced visions, some are genuinely terrifying and jumpy, with some quite brutal violence thrown in for good measure. In fact at times it does resemble a horror film and is all the better for it.
Aronofsky also pays a lot attention to the detail of the dancing itself. You see muscles flexing under pressure, you hear bones and toes creak - I was really left under no illusion as to the strain these dancers put on their body. He also manages to put you in the thick of it, the camera twirls with the dancers, almost choreographed itself, the intensity of the performance passed onto the viewer. It's important that special mention goes to Portman's dancing. I've heard that she went through some very intense training, which included a broken rib, to make the performance scenes completely convincing, but it's all worth it as when she is dancing it's beautiful to watch. I'm almost tempted to go to the ballet......
The supporting cast are a mixed bag. Barbara Hersey is very good as Nina's overly controlling and pushy mother, adding to the claustrophobia of Nina's situation. Vincent Cassel does what he is asked to do well, but much of his dialogue is pervy innuendo, a bit Carry On Plie. It's good to see Winona Ryder back in something more fitting to her talent as a bitter, has-been performer. She gets possibly the scariest and most brutal scene which is still sitcking with me now 36 hours later.
Go and see it, I urge you. From the trailer you wouldn't expect it to be one that must be seen at the cinema, but I'm telling you it benefits hugely from the big screen. It won't be what you expect either, you are taken on a ride that you do not want to end. It's an epic piece of film-making, by a creative film-maker with a absolutely first class central performance. Much like 127 Hours then, and if it were up to me, the Best Director Oscar would be a two horse race between Aronofsky and Boyle.
Thought of as a female companion piece to his last film The Wrestler, Black Swan is also the moment where Natalie Portman really steps up a level. Sure she has been in great films and impressed before, but this is a hell of a performance. At the beginning of the film, her Nina is a introverted, overly controlled, almost cowardly dancer who strives for perfection. The dancing is her personality, the be all and end all, nothing else. Portman is a big screen presence but she seems to almost shrink herself during the opening scenes. Her fragility is very convincing and makes her transformation and what comes after even more impressive.
Once she is cast as the Swan Queen in a huge production of Swan Lake the film really gets going. She is told by the sexual predatory artistic director of the production, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) that she must find the Black Swan within her in order to really make the part her own. What follows is a transformation in Nina's character that is at times terrifying, which tests her sanity leaving her constantly questioning what is reality. The duelling personalities and disturbing visions give Portman plenty to get her teeth into and she really excels. The story of the film has parallels to the story of Swan Lake and it very cleverly refers to the story in a lot of the developments.
The world of ballet gives Aronofsky a fantastic canvas to spread his genius across. Rivalry and insecurities are rife in a cut throat world that make it all the more believable that Nina's situation is as serious as a matter of life and death. The main rival (well apart from herself) is Lily, played by Mila Kunis, last seen being as exciting as scenery in The Book of Eli. She is much better on this occasion though, being everything that Nina is not. Confident, unpredictable, impulsive. She acts as the embodiment of the Black Swan that Nina must find in herself, only causing Nina to be even more unsure of herself.
My description so far makes it seem a little like a normal sport-type film, much like the wrestler in fact. Girl wants to succeed but must overcome barriers, blah, blah, blah. However, while The Wrestler is all gritty realism, and to be fair Black Swan does start very much grounded in reality, this film quickly takes a shift into fantasy - dream-like (well more nightmare-like) sequences represent Nina's sanity unravelling. And who better to handle these trips than Aronofsky? There are fantastic moments, involving mirrors, drug-induced visions, some are genuinely terrifying and jumpy, with some quite brutal violence thrown in for good measure. In fact at times it does resemble a horror film and is all the better for it.
Aronofsky also pays a lot attention to the detail of the dancing itself. You see muscles flexing under pressure, you hear bones and toes creak - I was really left under no illusion as to the strain these dancers put on their body. He also manages to put you in the thick of it, the camera twirls with the dancers, almost choreographed itself, the intensity of the performance passed onto the viewer. It's important that special mention goes to Portman's dancing. I've heard that she went through some very intense training, which included a broken rib, to make the performance scenes completely convincing, but it's all worth it as when she is dancing it's beautiful to watch. I'm almost tempted to go to the ballet......
The supporting cast are a mixed bag. Barbara Hersey is very good as Nina's overly controlling and pushy mother, adding to the claustrophobia of Nina's situation. Vincent Cassel does what he is asked to do well, but much of his dialogue is pervy innuendo, a bit Carry On Plie. It's good to see Winona Ryder back in something more fitting to her talent as a bitter, has-been performer. She gets possibly the scariest and most brutal scene which is still sitcking with me now 36 hours later.
Go and see it, I urge you. From the trailer you wouldn't expect it to be one that must be seen at the cinema, but I'm telling you it benefits hugely from the big screen. It won't be what you expect either, you are taken on a ride that you do not want to end. It's an epic piece of film-making, by a creative film-maker with a absolutely first class central performance. Much like 127 Hours then, and if it were up to me, the Best Director Oscar would be a two horse race between Aronofsky and Boyle.
Saturday, 22 January 2011
HOWARD THE DUCK (1986)
This film generally creates two reactions in people when you mention it. For people who haven't seen it, or even heard of it, those three words, Howard The Duck, cause a look of bewilderment and a suspicion that you are having them on. 'What on Earth are you on about?'. For the majority of those who have seen it, particularly in their younger years during the 80's, talking about the film sparks smiles and enthusiastic recollections of their favourite bits. I am firmly ensconced in the latter category, and a couple of Friday nights ago I managed to bully the girlfriend into watching it with me.
Trips down the cinematic memory lane can often be a dangerous thing, which I found recently as I relived The Griswald's holiday in National Lampoon's Vacation, but with the webbed-footed hero here, I was surely in safer hands...?
Based on a Marvel Comic, Howard is an ordinary, all be it very sarcastic, duck (if ordinary means talking and the size of a 10 year old) minding his own business on his egg-shaped planet when he is beamed from his armchair to an American back alley. Desperate to get back home he becomes a reluctant hero as he has to save the planet from some monsters from out of space. It all sounds like a load of hokum, and to be honest, it is. However, there is still a lot of fun to be had with it.
There's some good laughs there, the writers have a lot of fun at the beginning on Howard's home planet, with some nice satire and Duck equivalents of things that we have here on planet earth. A mallard-related Indy type film poster is one example and a duck porn mag. The other thing that generates chuckles is Howard himself, played by midgets/dwarfs, and voiced by Chip Zien. In fact for years I was convinced that it was the voice of Richard Dreyfuss, I thought he sounded just like him. Ironically, watching it again, Howard himself reminds me of Dreyfuss' Hooper in Jaws. All one-liners and put downs. It's the source of a lot of the positives and has a lot to do with holding the film together (just). To have what is essentially a normal, grumpy bloke (as a duck) as the central character helps to ground the story, which as I have already established is a load of nonsense.
There are a two very decent actors in this as well as our feathered friend though. Tim Robbins came from his role in Top Gun to this and never looked back from there. He revels in the role as lab assistant Phil, all nerdy and dopey. Then we have Lea Thompson, the 'love' interest. Back to the Future, Space Camp, then Howard. Other than the Back to the Future sequels, her career never took off. Which is a shame because she is more than a decent actress. Both her and Robbins do well bearing in mind that they are acting with a little bloke in a duck suit with an animatronic head. Some of the banter and dialogue between the three is very funny so credit to the two of them where credit is due.
The jokes do miss as often as they hit though. At one point there is a montage of Howard getting a job in a massage parlour. What could have been a good chance for an amusing set up involving a talking duck in the workplace, is instead a tired and unfunny sequence where we are treated to slapstick and people being pushed in mud. Lazy.
There is also an odd sub-text that alludes to the potential for...er....cross-species relations. It feels a little strange, weirded the girlfriend out actually, but it suggests a desire from the writers and directors and George Lucas (Executive producer) to make a bit more of an edgier film that it actually is. It doesn't sit right tonally with the rest of the film that is clearly pitched as an action comedy adventure for the family.
The action and adventure part of the film is perfectly good. Chases and, now dated, special effects handled in adequate style by Willard Huyck . It's all good fun and pushes along at a healthy pace until it's conclusion, which, I have to admit, was a little bit more emotional than I remember it being.....perhaps my 20 year relationship with Howard, even with a 7 or so year separation, means more to me that I thought.
So how did it compare to my memory? Well it's a mess, there's no doubt about that - It's all over the place. But there is enough humour and charm in there, with decent action set-pieces to ensure that it's all good fun. Not quite harmless fun though with the almost sex scene.....How did I brush over that when I was 10?
Trips down the cinematic memory lane can often be a dangerous thing, which I found recently as I relived The Griswald's holiday in National Lampoon's Vacation, but with the webbed-footed hero here, I was surely in safer hands...?
Based on a Marvel Comic, Howard is an ordinary, all be it very sarcastic, duck (if ordinary means talking and the size of a 10 year old) minding his own business on his egg-shaped planet when he is beamed from his armchair to an American back alley. Desperate to get back home he becomes a reluctant hero as he has to save the planet from some monsters from out of space. It all sounds like a load of hokum, and to be honest, it is. However, there is still a lot of fun to be had with it.
There's some good laughs there, the writers have a lot of fun at the beginning on Howard's home planet, with some nice satire and Duck equivalents of things that we have here on planet earth. A mallard-related Indy type film poster is one example and a duck porn mag. The other thing that generates chuckles is Howard himself, played by midgets/dwarfs, and voiced by Chip Zien. In fact for years I was convinced that it was the voice of Richard Dreyfuss, I thought he sounded just like him. Ironically, watching it again, Howard himself reminds me of Dreyfuss' Hooper in Jaws. All one-liners and put downs. It's the source of a lot of the positives and has a lot to do with holding the film together (just). To have what is essentially a normal, grumpy bloke (as a duck) as the central character helps to ground the story, which as I have already established is a load of nonsense.
There are a two very decent actors in this as well as our feathered friend though. Tim Robbins came from his role in Top Gun to this and never looked back from there. He revels in the role as lab assistant Phil, all nerdy and dopey. Then we have Lea Thompson, the 'love' interest. Back to the Future, Space Camp, then Howard. Other than the Back to the Future sequels, her career never took off. Which is a shame because she is more than a decent actress. Both her and Robbins do well bearing in mind that they are acting with a little bloke in a duck suit with an animatronic head. Some of the banter and dialogue between the three is very funny so credit to the two of them where credit is due.
The jokes do miss as often as they hit though. At one point there is a montage of Howard getting a job in a massage parlour. What could have been a good chance for an amusing set up involving a talking duck in the workplace, is instead a tired and unfunny sequence where we are treated to slapstick and people being pushed in mud. Lazy.
There is also an odd sub-text that alludes to the potential for...er....cross-species relations. It feels a little strange, weirded the girlfriend out actually, but it suggests a desire from the writers and directors and George Lucas (Executive producer) to make a bit more of an edgier film that it actually is. It doesn't sit right tonally with the rest of the film that is clearly pitched as an action comedy adventure for the family.
The action and adventure part of the film is perfectly good. Chases and, now dated, special effects handled in adequate style by Willard Huyck . It's all good fun and pushes along at a healthy pace until it's conclusion, which, I have to admit, was a little bit more emotional than I remember it being.....perhaps my 20 year relationship with Howard, even with a 7 or so year separation, means more to me that I thought.
So how did it compare to my memory? Well it's a mess, there's no doubt about that - It's all over the place. But there is enough humour and charm in there, with decent action set-pieces to ensure that it's all good fun. Not quite harmless fun though with the almost sex scene.....How did I brush over that when I was 10?
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
CRAZY HEART (2009)
Jeff Bridges' turn as Bad Blake, washed out, alcoholic country singer was the one that finally got him his Oscar. He'd been nominated before of course, once as leading man for Starman in 1984 and three other occasions for supporting roles, but this was the one that got him his little statuette. Critics and punters alike raved about him and the film when it was out, but I never got around to seeing it. As a Bridges fan, I should have ventured to a multiplex, and let's be honest if I really wanted to see it, I would have made the time, but for some reason it didn't scream out at me as a film I couldn't miss.
Months later, long after the hype had subsided and Bridge's victory speech was but a distant memory, the DVD came through the post from Lovefilm, and that night my girlfriend and I watched it, knowing that we were about to see an acclaimed and celebrated piece of cinema.
Whatever that nagging feeling was all those months ago, chipping away at me, suggesting that Crazy Heart might not be all it's cracked up to be, must be related to Mystic Meg, because come the end credits, I couldn't help but feel disappointed. And I wasn't the only one either, the girlfriend had the same empty, nonplussed feeling..
It may be down to the hype and constant praise and that it would never be able to live up to that level of hoopla, but I was oddly detached from the whole thing. The film itself felt very safe. The direction was not particularly adventurous, solid enough with the occasional beautiful scene of dusty American country, but to me, I could tell it's the work of a first time director (Scott Cooper) perhaps more concerned with not wanting to put a foot wrong than anything else. Also, for a film about an alcoholic, and one we're not meant to sympathise with for some of the story, it just isn't edgy enough. It smacked a little of a TV movie, alluding to grown up and disturbing themes rather than portraying them and predictable, never once straying from what I expected.
Another thing I wasn't particularly impressed with was Bridges' performance. He was good, but then he is good in everything he does, he just didn't WOW me. It was a very monotone performance, not in a dull way, it just felt like a constant tone. Blake's character doesn't call for a Pacino type shouting and arm-waving, but to me Bridges was at the same emotional level no matter what Blake's state. I'm not arguing with Bridges' idea on how the character should be pitched, I just believe that they way he chose to do it built a barrier between me and the film. Perhaps he was trying to build barriers with the other characters, I'm not sure, it just didn't work for me. I think back to other Bridges films and I can't help but feel he has been better elsewhere. If you ask me he was better in Arlington Road than in this. I saw this in the same week as I saw The King's Speech and 127 Hours and it's telling just how little Bridges' did for me in comparison to Franco, Firth and Rush.
Maggie Gyllenhaal was also nominated (best supporting actress) for her role as Jean Craddock, Blake's love interest. I was much more impressed with her, but it brings me to another problem with the film. The central relationship. I just didn't believe in it. I wasn't sure how she could fall for this past it country singer who can't stay sober. If i can't get past that, the whole thing is going to be an uphill struggle.
Colin Farrell turns up unexpectedly as Tommy Sweet, Blake's younger more successful rival. He is decent, but the role seems pointless. He pops in, it seems as though he might be integral to the plot, then disappears completely, before showing his face at the end but with no real purpose. Nice to see Robert Duvall too, all be it very underused.
The soundtrack is sublime though. Bridges and Farrell both singing their own songs, some of the music was utterly enchanting and, at times, heartbreakingly melancholic and has stayed with me long after watching it. That'll be a definite purchase.
So it's decent, but nothing more than that. It feels worse than it actually is though because it fell so far from the heady heights of all the hype that surrounded it.
Summed up best by a mate of mine - 'The Wrestler with country music'.
Months later, long after the hype had subsided and Bridge's victory speech was but a distant memory, the DVD came through the post from Lovefilm, and that night my girlfriend and I watched it, knowing that we were about to see an acclaimed and celebrated piece of cinema.
Whatever that nagging feeling was all those months ago, chipping away at me, suggesting that Crazy Heart might not be all it's cracked up to be, must be related to Mystic Meg, because come the end credits, I couldn't help but feel disappointed. And I wasn't the only one either, the girlfriend had the same empty, nonplussed feeling..
It may be down to the hype and constant praise and that it would never be able to live up to that level of hoopla, but I was oddly detached from the whole thing. The film itself felt very safe. The direction was not particularly adventurous, solid enough with the occasional beautiful scene of dusty American country, but to me, I could tell it's the work of a first time director (Scott Cooper) perhaps more concerned with not wanting to put a foot wrong than anything else. Also, for a film about an alcoholic, and one we're not meant to sympathise with for some of the story, it just isn't edgy enough. It smacked a little of a TV movie, alluding to grown up and disturbing themes rather than portraying them and predictable, never once straying from what I expected.
Another thing I wasn't particularly impressed with was Bridges' performance. He was good, but then he is good in everything he does, he just didn't WOW me. It was a very monotone performance, not in a dull way, it just felt like a constant tone. Blake's character doesn't call for a Pacino type shouting and arm-waving, but to me Bridges was at the same emotional level no matter what Blake's state. I'm not arguing with Bridges' idea on how the character should be pitched, I just believe that they way he chose to do it built a barrier between me and the film. Perhaps he was trying to build barriers with the other characters, I'm not sure, it just didn't work for me. I think back to other Bridges films and I can't help but feel he has been better elsewhere. If you ask me he was better in Arlington Road than in this. I saw this in the same week as I saw The King's Speech and 127 Hours and it's telling just how little Bridges' did for me in comparison to Franco, Firth and Rush.
Maggie Gyllenhaal was also nominated (best supporting actress) for her role as Jean Craddock, Blake's love interest. I was much more impressed with her, but it brings me to another problem with the film. The central relationship. I just didn't believe in it. I wasn't sure how she could fall for this past it country singer who can't stay sober. If i can't get past that, the whole thing is going to be an uphill struggle.
Colin Farrell turns up unexpectedly as Tommy Sweet, Blake's younger more successful rival. He is decent, but the role seems pointless. He pops in, it seems as though he might be integral to the plot, then disappears completely, before showing his face at the end but with no real purpose. Nice to see Robert Duvall too, all be it very underused.
The soundtrack is sublime though. Bridges and Farrell both singing their own songs, some of the music was utterly enchanting and, at times, heartbreakingly melancholic and has stayed with me long after watching it. That'll be a definite purchase.
So it's decent, but nothing more than that. It feels worse than it actually is though because it fell so far from the heady heights of all the hype that surrounded it.
Summed up best by a mate of mine - 'The Wrestler with country music'.
127 HOURS (2010)
There is no doubt that the story of Aron Ralston and his extraordinary will to survive is a remarkable one, but the fact that Danny Boyle has managed to make such a remarkable film of such a solitary, isolated, personal event is a tribute to his talents.
Boyle could have had his pick of films after the huge success of Slumdog Millionaire, in fact I'm sure he was offered a whole host of projects from various studios and producers, but he followed it up with this tale of a mountain climber, trapped in a narrow crevice when a boulder falls on his arm. It seems ideally suited to a documentary, echoing Touching The Void, especially when you consider that Ralston himself filmed footage of his ordeal on a handheld video camera, but Boyle saw something in it that no one else would have.
There are two stars to the film. The first being Boyle's direction. In a film about an adrenaline-junkie, he ramps up the visuals, starting in a similarly high-octane fashion, thumping music, energetic camerawork as we follow Ralston through his preparation for a trip to the remote canyons where he seeks his thrills. It suits perfectly to the character, I wasn't given time to catch my breath. These impacting, relentless start is made all the more effective when the accident occurs and Ralston if left helpless. No noise, simple shots of his face, I was, along with our protagonist, brought swiftly down to earth.
That is where we are forced to stay for the rest of the film. Boyle again treats us to his creativity behind the camera. Fast, hurried cuts, the camera, and the viewer, is taken on a journey, at times inside a water bottle, inside his arm, at others flying high above the canyon highlighting the isolation and the gravity of Ralston's plight. They are flashy tricks, but they are far from style over substance. In some films these tricks can put a distance between what is on-screen and the viewer, but in this case I was drawn in further, become embroiled in the intensity. No escape.
As time wears on, Ralston's condition worsens and the dehydration takes hold of his sanity. This gives Boyle license to take us on beautiful flashbacks and subject us to trippy visions, leaving me to question what is real and what is not. I really felt as though I was living the ordeal with Ralston.
It's also worth mentioning the sound. It seems as though the volume has been turned up to 11, you hear every crack of rock, every breath, every bit of wildlife. Again it puts us in Ralston's shoes, it's inevitable that he would hear any sound in the hope that it was help on it's way.
The other star is James Franco, who plays Ralston. It's been clear for some time that he is a very talented actor, but this really is a performance where people will take notice. The whole film hangs on him and how convincing his depiction is. He is utterly believable as the thrill-seeker at the beginning of the film, all pumped up arrogance and selfishness, he thinks he has it all sussed. However, it's when he is between a rock and a hard place (see what I've done there) when he is really impressive. His transition from disbelief to will to survive at all costs, via descent into insanity and hopelessness is incredible. I was hanging on every facial movement, every grimace, every word muttered to himself. Some might thing that Boyle's insistence on using widgets and fancy camera angles is a signal of a lack of confidence in his leading man. Far from it. Boyle's visual flair compliments Franco's astonishing display. I have had the pleasure of seeing three great actors at the peak of their powers in one week. Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and now James Franco. I love awards season.
If there is one minor criticism, it's that we all know what happens at the end, it means that you aren't really, deep down, terrified of what is going to happen. Plus because you know what he does in order to survive, you inevitably are waiting for that to happen. Having said that, it doesn't detract from the intensity of the experience and the zippy style and 90 minute running time meant that I was never bored for one second.
Boyle has created a film that is harrowing ('The' scene is very graphic and not for the faint-hearted) at times, but ultimately one of the most uplifting and inspirational films in recent years. He even gets away with a slightly cheesy final frame as I recovered from the tear-jerking finale. I'm desperate to know what his next project will be.
This film rocks.
Boyle could have had his pick of films after the huge success of Slumdog Millionaire, in fact I'm sure he was offered a whole host of projects from various studios and producers, but he followed it up with this tale of a mountain climber, trapped in a narrow crevice when a boulder falls on his arm. It seems ideally suited to a documentary, echoing Touching The Void, especially when you consider that Ralston himself filmed footage of his ordeal on a handheld video camera, but Boyle saw something in it that no one else would have.
There are two stars to the film. The first being Boyle's direction. In a film about an adrenaline-junkie, he ramps up the visuals, starting in a similarly high-octane fashion, thumping music, energetic camerawork as we follow Ralston through his preparation for a trip to the remote canyons where he seeks his thrills. It suits perfectly to the character, I wasn't given time to catch my breath. These impacting, relentless start is made all the more effective when the accident occurs and Ralston if left helpless. No noise, simple shots of his face, I was, along with our protagonist, brought swiftly down to earth.
That is where we are forced to stay for the rest of the film. Boyle again treats us to his creativity behind the camera. Fast, hurried cuts, the camera, and the viewer, is taken on a journey, at times inside a water bottle, inside his arm, at others flying high above the canyon highlighting the isolation and the gravity of Ralston's plight. They are flashy tricks, but they are far from style over substance. In some films these tricks can put a distance between what is on-screen and the viewer, but in this case I was drawn in further, become embroiled in the intensity. No escape.
As time wears on, Ralston's condition worsens and the dehydration takes hold of his sanity. This gives Boyle license to take us on beautiful flashbacks and subject us to trippy visions, leaving me to question what is real and what is not. I really felt as though I was living the ordeal with Ralston.
It's also worth mentioning the sound. It seems as though the volume has been turned up to 11, you hear every crack of rock, every breath, every bit of wildlife. Again it puts us in Ralston's shoes, it's inevitable that he would hear any sound in the hope that it was help on it's way.
The other star is James Franco, who plays Ralston. It's been clear for some time that he is a very talented actor, but this really is a performance where people will take notice. The whole film hangs on him and how convincing his depiction is. He is utterly believable as the thrill-seeker at the beginning of the film, all pumped up arrogance and selfishness, he thinks he has it all sussed. However, it's when he is between a rock and a hard place (see what I've done there) when he is really impressive. His transition from disbelief to will to survive at all costs, via descent into insanity and hopelessness is incredible. I was hanging on every facial movement, every grimace, every word muttered to himself. Some might thing that Boyle's insistence on using widgets and fancy camera angles is a signal of a lack of confidence in his leading man. Far from it. Boyle's visual flair compliments Franco's astonishing display. I have had the pleasure of seeing three great actors at the peak of their powers in one week. Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush and now James Franco. I love awards season.
If there is one minor criticism, it's that we all know what happens at the end, it means that you aren't really, deep down, terrified of what is going to happen. Plus because you know what he does in order to survive, you inevitably are waiting for that to happen. Having said that, it doesn't detract from the intensity of the experience and the zippy style and 90 minute running time meant that I was never bored for one second.
Boyle has created a film that is harrowing ('The' scene is very graphic and not for the faint-hearted) at times, but ultimately one of the most uplifting and inspirational films in recent years. He even gets away with a slightly cheesy final frame as I recovered from the tear-jerking finale. I'm desperate to know what his next project will be.
This film rocks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)