Warning! Spoilers!
In the growing popularity of post-Armageddon films to come from Hollywood, there has to be a gimmick, a twist to the tale to make another version seem more original. In the case of The Book Of Eli, this gimmick is certainly a clever, if slightly predictable one. Sadly the rest of the film, save for one or two moments of potential brilliance, does not live up to the expectations that you may have after watching the trailer or seeing the cast list.
Eli (Denzel Washington) walks the land of ruined America, armed only with a very large machete and a backpack containing, among other things, the only surviving copy of the King James Bible. He is heading west; a voice has told him he will find the place for the book there. Along the dangerous path, he walks through a town ruled by Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a cruel dictator type who, like Eli, knows of the power of the words in his book and wants then for himself...
There's no denying the anticipation one feels about a film starring Washington and Oldman, two heavyweight actors - sadly, it feels for a lot of the time that they're sleepwalking the parts, that this is just another day job for them. Substantially better is Mila Kunis in the role of Solara, the young girl who joins Eli on his journey. Having only heard Kunis in Family Guy as the put-upon Meg, and seen her in That 70s Show, it is probably going a little too far to describe her performance as a revelation (no pun intended), but it is still more impressive than the two leading men. The film is also enlightened by brief but hilariously strange cameos from Michael Gambon and Frances de la Tour as two deranged survivors living on a farmhouse packed to the brim with automatic weapons.
When the action happens it is fast but far between. The scenes are played out well, with plenty of gunfire and explosions and even in a couple of cases decapitations to keep an action buff happy. But the scenes are sandwiched in to a script that relies heavily on deep, meaningful, and often somewhat preachy dialogue about the nature of the Bible and words. Though there are a couple of rather excellent twists towards the end, it is marred by a rather strange final ending which seems to want to evoke the final scenes of the excellent Aronofsky film The Fountain (2006), but fail sadly.
There will probably be many people who go to see this film and are surprised at just how religious it actually is. Perhaps that was not the true intention of the film's directors, the Hughes brothers, whose last film was (ironically) the adaptation of the graphic novel From Hell (2001); perhaps what they are trying to do is to look at what we look to for hope when there seems to be absolutely none left, and how powerful inspirational words can be. Unfortuatley, their reliance on the Bible squashes these intentions, and I think a lot of people will leave the film very disappointed.
6/10
Showing posts with label Film Tuesday. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film Tuesday. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
The Assasination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford Review
Warning! Spoliers Alert!
There are perhaps few films in which the basic synopsis of the script can be summed up in the title. One thinks of lesser fare than this, certainly (Zack And Miri Make A Porno, for example) or rather interesting Spanish translations of titles (classic Family Guy joke here, top prize for whoever gets the reference first). With this film, the title does just that - it is about the assassination of the notorious Western criminal by one of his associates, Robert Ford, who ends up being defamed in the history books as a coward, and the time line leading up to the aforementioned event. Simple.
But not quite, for, as with most great films, there is always something more, another message that the film is trying to say. And this is a great film. A really great film.
Visually, it's stunning. The bleak Western landscape perfectly captures the mood of the story, with slight out of focus shots beautifully helping to add to the unhinged portrayal of the anti-hero James by Brad Pitt. This is one of those films where you suddenly remember that Pitt, the second half of 'Brangelina', can act occasionally. It's a fantastic performance, showing James as an out of control beast, but also with some very quiet melancholic foreboding, as if he knows he's living on borrowed time.
It's matched, and perhaps even bettered, by a superb performance by Casey Affleck as Ford; Affleck is a dreamer, a man refusing to grow up, whose fantasies of riding with the James gang and being the criminal's best buddy seem to have corrupted his naive innocence. When the cold-blooded reality sinks in of the true nature of Jesse's work and Jesse's character, it becomes unbearable. There are other terrific performances in the film, not least from Sam Rockwell as Ford's older brother, whose own gullibility is soon swallowed up by fear, and a short but mesmerising turn from Garret Dillahunt as Ed Miller, whose paranoia costs him his life and lights the fuse for James' own fragile sense of trust to be shattered.
The script is well paced, exploring the story like a history documentary with Hugh Ross' calm narration. There's no point in hiding the ending - the title's given it away already. Instead, the script is full of explanations, showing why Ford did what he did, and leaving it up to us to determine whether or not it was a good thing and whether or not he really was a 'coward', as suggested in the ballad sung by one of the film's co-composers, Nick Cave. He and Warren Ellis do a fine job with the score, leaving it subtle and calm, and adding to the quiet life out in the wilderness.
Overall, the film is about fame and the hunger for fame. James is famous for his notoriety, a man who, like the characters played by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in Natural Born Killers, becomes famous for all the wrong reasons. Ford wants the same kind of fame, but when he gets it in the aftermath of his role in James' death, he finds it stifling and unsatisfying, and over far too quickly; the fame of a coward does not last as long as the fame of a 'hero'. And so the film speaks volumes for us today, in this age where we've lived through the last decade as the Decade of 15 Minutes, the decade where anyone and everyone can be famous for as long as Ford was, and can still find it as he does.
A fantastic film.
8/10
There are perhaps few films in which the basic synopsis of the script can be summed up in the title. One thinks of lesser fare than this, certainly (Zack And Miri Make A Porno, for example) or rather interesting Spanish translations of titles (classic Family Guy joke here, top prize for whoever gets the reference first). With this film, the title does just that - it is about the assassination of the notorious Western criminal by one of his associates, Robert Ford, who ends up being defamed in the history books as a coward, and the time line leading up to the aforementioned event. Simple.
But not quite, for, as with most great films, there is always something more, another message that the film is trying to say. And this is a great film. A really great film.
Visually, it's stunning. The bleak Western landscape perfectly captures the mood of the story, with slight out of focus shots beautifully helping to add to the unhinged portrayal of the anti-hero James by Brad Pitt. This is one of those films where you suddenly remember that Pitt, the second half of 'Brangelina', can act occasionally. It's a fantastic performance, showing James as an out of control beast, but also with some very quiet melancholic foreboding, as if he knows he's living on borrowed time.
It's matched, and perhaps even bettered, by a superb performance by Casey Affleck as Ford; Affleck is a dreamer, a man refusing to grow up, whose fantasies of riding with the James gang and being the criminal's best buddy seem to have corrupted his naive innocence. When the cold-blooded reality sinks in of the true nature of Jesse's work and Jesse's character, it becomes unbearable. There are other terrific performances in the film, not least from Sam Rockwell as Ford's older brother, whose own gullibility is soon swallowed up by fear, and a short but mesmerising turn from Garret Dillahunt as Ed Miller, whose paranoia costs him his life and lights the fuse for James' own fragile sense of trust to be shattered.
The script is well paced, exploring the story like a history documentary with Hugh Ross' calm narration. There's no point in hiding the ending - the title's given it away already. Instead, the script is full of explanations, showing why Ford did what he did, and leaving it up to us to determine whether or not it was a good thing and whether or not he really was a 'coward', as suggested in the ballad sung by one of the film's co-composers, Nick Cave. He and Warren Ellis do a fine job with the score, leaving it subtle and calm, and adding to the quiet life out in the wilderness.
Overall, the film is about fame and the hunger for fame. James is famous for his notoriety, a man who, like the characters played by Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis in Natural Born Killers, becomes famous for all the wrong reasons. Ford wants the same kind of fame, but when he gets it in the aftermath of his role in James' death, he finds it stifling and unsatisfying, and over far too quickly; the fame of a coward does not last as long as the fame of a 'hero'. And so the film speaks volumes for us today, in this age where we've lived through the last decade as the Decade of 15 Minutes, the decade where anyone and everyone can be famous for as long as Ford was, and can still find it as he does.
A fantastic film.
8/10
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Apocalypse Now?
There's definitely something pessimistic in the atmosphere in Hollywood. Though big-budget, large-scale disaster movies have never really disappeared (instead returning as forms of aliens attacking, be they serious or non-serious), recently the focus seems to be more and more on the end of the world as we know it. 2012, The Road, The Book Of Eli (out this Friday and one of my Top Ten Of 2010) - and more are on their way.
What gives? Why all of a sudden are we so obsessed with Armageddon? 2012 makes a little bit of sense - it's timely, with now just two years to go until the Mayan predicted catastrophe. The Road makes sense too in a way; filmmakers jumping on the Cormac McCarthy bandwagon after the massive awards success of No Country For Old Men.
But The Book Of Eli and co...now there's a bandwagon jumper, right? It just seems that, having done every and any kind of disaster imaginable, both fictional and non-fictional (one could easily argue that the gripping United 93 is a disaster movie), we've run out of them and now have to look to the Big Daddy of them all. The end of everything. Well, that's jolly, isn't it.
Still within these kinds of films, there is at least one certainty. People wouldn't dare make them without at least some kind of hope, some survival. And at the end of the day, in theory, that's what Armageddon will ultimately bring - survivors, a heck of a lot of them too, mark my words. Some we'll know why they survived, others we'll have no bloody clue - just like any good disaster movie.
Sit back and enjoy the ride. But ask yourself this: will I be a survivor? And if not, how can I become one? I'm going to say that you can take these questions anyway you want - I don't expect a lot of people to take them religiously, but that's fine, that's your interpretation. That's what makes us all unique and brilliant. And, in the end, that's what will ultimately mark us out as survivors.
Laters.
What gives? Why all of a sudden are we so obsessed with Armageddon? 2012 makes a little bit of sense - it's timely, with now just two years to go until the Mayan predicted catastrophe. The Road makes sense too in a way; filmmakers jumping on the Cormac McCarthy bandwagon after the massive awards success of No Country For Old Men.
But The Book Of Eli and co...now there's a bandwagon jumper, right? It just seems that, having done every and any kind of disaster imaginable, both fictional and non-fictional (one could easily argue that the gripping United 93 is a disaster movie), we've run out of them and now have to look to the Big Daddy of them all. The end of everything. Well, that's jolly, isn't it.
Still within these kinds of films, there is at least one certainty. People wouldn't dare make them without at least some kind of hope, some survival. And at the end of the day, in theory, that's what Armageddon will ultimately bring - survivors, a heck of a lot of them too, mark my words. Some we'll know why they survived, others we'll have no bloody clue - just like any good disaster movie.
Sit back and enjoy the ride. But ask yourself this: will I be a survivor? And if not, how can I become one? I'm going to say that you can take these questions anyway you want - I don't expect a lot of people to take them religiously, but that's fine, that's your interpretation. That's what makes us all unique and brilliant. And, in the end, that's what will ultimately mark us out as survivors.
Laters.
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
2009 At The Movies!
Last year I only had about five films that I knew would definitely distract me from writing: some of them more than lived up to my expectations (Sweeney Todd, The Dark Knight), some were a little disappointing (Quantum Of Solace, Inkheart) and one of them I never even got to see (Cloverfield, though I did get the DVD for Christmas! Haven't watched it yet, though.) )
But this year - this year I can think of at least ten films that could pull me away from my computer as I try to get on with my work! I've put the list of them to the side in a brand new list box thing, but here they are for you in all their glory!
Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince: big fan, been waiting a while for this one.
Public Enemies: Johnny Depp in a 1930s gangster film!
Sherlock Holmes : Robert Downey Jr in a Guy Ritchie film!
Star Trek: Small, low budget astronomical feature...I think.
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button: Brad Pitt re teams with David Fight Club Fincher.
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus: Terry Gilliam's hopeful return to the top, and Heath Ledger's last ever film.
The Lovely Bones: Long awaited Peter Jackson film, could rival Heavenly Creatures.
Up: Pixar. 'Nuff said.
Watchmen: The Comic Book (sorry, Graphic Novel) film of the year.
Where The Wild Things Are: Always loved this book as a kid - hope Spike Jonze don't muck it up.
Looking at this list, I think I can be pretty pleased with the mixture of my taste - hopefully, I don't look too shallow and pedantic. Also (hopefully) ten films shouldn't be enough to stop me from writing, unless I do a Dark Knight and go and watch them again...and again...and again...and again...
Laters.
But this year - this year I can think of at least ten films that could pull me away from my computer as I try to get on with my work! I've put the list of them to the side in a brand new list box thing, but here they are for you in all their glory!
Harry Potter And The Half Blood Prince: big fan, been waiting a while for this one.
Public Enemies: Johnny Depp in a 1930s gangster film!
Sherlock Holmes : Robert Downey Jr in a Guy Ritchie film!
Star Trek: Small, low budget astronomical feature...I think.
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button: Brad Pitt re teams with David Fight Club Fincher.
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus: Terry Gilliam's hopeful return to the top, and Heath Ledger's last ever film.
The Lovely Bones: Long awaited Peter Jackson film, could rival Heavenly Creatures.
Up: Pixar. 'Nuff said.
Watchmen: The Comic Book (sorry, Graphic Novel) film of the year.
Where The Wild Things Are: Always loved this book as a kid - hope Spike Jonze don't muck it up.
Looking at this list, I think I can be pretty pleased with the mixture of my taste - hopefully, I don't look too shallow and pedantic. Also (hopefully) ten films shouldn't be enough to stop me from writing, unless I do a Dark Knight and go and watch them again...and again...and again...and again...
Laters.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Burton's Ephiphany
Below is the review for one of my most eagerly anticipated movies of this year, Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street, based on the epic musical by American legend Stephen Sondheim.
Tim Burton has, despite his frequent insistence on his dislike for the genre, always been a director of musicals. You only need to look at the animated films of Corpse Bride or The Nightmare Before Christmas to see his unique take on show stopping numbers, and in his other films there are often moments of musical tomfoolery, such as in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory or Mars Attacks! The difference between these films and something like, say The Sound Of Music is pretty obvious. Burton is a dark, Gothic auteur whose own brand of black comedy and love of ghoulish storytelling is now legendary in its own right.
So Sweeney Todd was perfect for him. In fact there is no other living film director who comes to mind who would have been as perfect a director of the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's perhaps most celebrated musical (though its more of a light opera than anything else - not in its subject matter, but in the amount of dialogue and songs). The actual show just oozes Burton in its horror story qualities, and you have the chance to bring more gore to the proceedings being much more up close and personal than in the theatre. Yet Burton never goes OTT with this gore, unlike some very unfortunate film franchises that are circulating today. It is INTENTIONAL gore, and though it may shock you when you first experience it (it comes in rather late into the movie) you quickly get over the surprise and begin to enjoy it in a rather unnerving way.
There are other reasons for this other than Burton's handling. Depp and Bonham Carter are brilliant in their roles. Neither are strong singers, yet they perform their songs with such intensity it would be hard to believe they have not performed this on the stage themselves. Depp has added another memorable character to his vastly growing CV of kooks, and Bonham Carter's credibility has once again shot up above the Merchant Ivory costume dramas she was first discovered in. The supporting cast work very well too, though the love story between Todd's daughter and his sailor friend does suffer from the necessity of cutting for time.
It helps that the music is extraordinary too. Though Sondheim has not been as successful in the UK as he has been in the States, its incredibly difficult to grasp just why this show was not more popular over here. The songs segue beautifully into each other , always with a dark undertone lurking somewhere, even in the lighter pieces (and there are one or two). A new production will no doubt be planned in the near future - and if not, why not?
Burton has returned back to his roots after a few films that, though brilliant, were very family orientated. This is a film for grown ups, a fable for grown ups, and Burton does very well indeed with these fables.
8/10
Laters!
Tim Burton has, despite his frequent insistence on his dislike for the genre, always been a director of musicals. You only need to look at the animated films of Corpse Bride or The Nightmare Before Christmas to see his unique take on show stopping numbers, and in his other films there are often moments of musical tomfoolery, such as in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory or Mars Attacks! The difference between these films and something like, say The Sound Of Music is pretty obvious. Burton is a dark, Gothic auteur whose own brand of black comedy and love of ghoulish storytelling is now legendary in its own right.
So Sweeney Todd was perfect for him. In fact there is no other living film director who comes to mind who would have been as perfect a director of the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's perhaps most celebrated musical (though its more of a light opera than anything else - not in its subject matter, but in the amount of dialogue and songs). The actual show just oozes Burton in its horror story qualities, and you have the chance to bring more gore to the proceedings being much more up close and personal than in the theatre. Yet Burton never goes OTT with this gore, unlike some very unfortunate film franchises that are circulating today. It is INTENTIONAL gore, and though it may shock you when you first experience it (it comes in rather late into the movie) you quickly get over the surprise and begin to enjoy it in a rather unnerving way.
There are other reasons for this other than Burton's handling. Depp and Bonham Carter are brilliant in their roles. Neither are strong singers, yet they perform their songs with such intensity it would be hard to believe they have not performed this on the stage themselves. Depp has added another memorable character to his vastly growing CV of kooks, and Bonham Carter's credibility has once again shot up above the Merchant Ivory costume dramas she was first discovered in. The supporting cast work very well too, though the love story between Todd's daughter and his sailor friend does suffer from the necessity of cutting for time.
It helps that the music is extraordinary too. Though Sondheim has not been as successful in the UK as he has been in the States, its incredibly difficult to grasp just why this show was not more popular over here. The songs segue beautifully into each other , always with a dark undertone lurking somewhere, even in the lighter pieces (and there are one or two). A new production will no doubt be planned in the near future - and if not, why not?
Burton has returned back to his roots after a few films that, though brilliant, were very family orientated. This is a film for grown ups, a fable for grown ups, and Burton does very well indeed with these fables.
8/10
Laters!
Tuesday, 7 October 2008
G'day! Can I Have A Job?
So recently my dear mother has developed something of an obsession with a certain famous film actor from Australia - Hugh Jackman. This has become so great that she has bought quite a lot of DVDs of his work, including a lot of the stuff he did for Australia and, lets face it, some very, very bad b-movies that he had to be in before he was "discovered".
It's interesting to me how long it takes for us to realise an actor or actresses' potential to be a star. I got nothing against Jackman, I think he's a very talented wallaby. But the first I heard of him was when he was in Oklahoma! over here in Blighty almost a decade ago, and then he turned up in Swordfish which is, at times, an okay film (and I don't say that because Halle Berry gets out her Ayres Rocks). Of course after that he went from strength to strength, including the X-Men trilogy, Kate & Leopold, and The Prestige which is in my view his bet performance.
But looking at all the work he did before breaking through to the big time makes you realise just how much work is needed for a actor to do before he gets noticed. I've met a few professional actors in my life, including one who turned into a drama teacher because it paid better money then he was getting as an actor. My experience with Ash Green Youth Theatre and knowing the irrepressible director of that has also giving me a realisation that, lets face it, the world of performing arts, in whatever field, is not the big-money, LA mansion world that many people dream of. For a hell of lot of people the reality is a long hard slog through life tyring to get a job.
Which brings me to A Chorus Line - didn't plan to get here when I started writing this, but my brain doesn't always act rationally at 8:37 in the morning. I watched the film of this legendary musical recently. Admittedly the film is very dated, but the urgency hidden underneath it, the motive of practically every character in it, is: "God, I hope I get it/I hope I get it...I need this job/Oh God, I need this show." That's what 9/10 professional actors go through every single day. Going into this profession is a brave, risky step - and I salute all of you who decide to take that step. After all, who knows? You might be the next Hugh Jackman, and then some middle-aged woman will obsessively buy all of your work, good and bad, on DVD!
Laters.
It's interesting to me how long it takes for us to realise an actor or actresses' potential to be a star. I got nothing against Jackman, I think he's a very talented wallaby. But the first I heard of him was when he was in Oklahoma! over here in Blighty almost a decade ago, and then he turned up in Swordfish which is, at times, an okay film (and I don't say that because Halle Berry gets out her Ayres Rocks). Of course after that he went from strength to strength, including the X-Men trilogy, Kate & Leopold, and The Prestige which is in my view his bet performance.
But looking at all the work he did before breaking through to the big time makes you realise just how much work is needed for a actor to do before he gets noticed. I've met a few professional actors in my life, including one who turned into a drama teacher because it paid better money then he was getting as an actor. My experience with Ash Green Youth Theatre and knowing the irrepressible director of that has also giving me a realisation that, lets face it, the world of performing arts, in whatever field, is not the big-money, LA mansion world that many people dream of. For a hell of lot of people the reality is a long hard slog through life tyring to get a job.
Which brings me to A Chorus Line - didn't plan to get here when I started writing this, but my brain doesn't always act rationally at 8:37 in the morning. I watched the film of this legendary musical recently. Admittedly the film is very dated, but the urgency hidden underneath it, the motive of practically every character in it, is: "God, I hope I get it/I hope I get it...I need this job/Oh God, I need this show." That's what 9/10 professional actors go through every single day. Going into this profession is a brave, risky step - and I salute all of you who decide to take that step. After all, who knows? You might be the next Hugh Jackman, and then some middle-aged woman will obsessively buy all of your work, good and bad, on DVD!
Laters.
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Review: The Dark Knight
So obviously during my long absence from the blog I've watched quite a few films. I thought I'd better start catching up on my reviews, starting with probably my most eagerly anticpated film and the incredible box office smash that is The Dark Knight.
WARNING: This review could contain SPOILERS!
It is after the events of Batman Begins. An anarchic terrorist known only as the Joker (Heath Ledger) is creating havoc in the streets of Gotham City. The people are divided between how they should feel about the masked vigilante patrolling the streets(Christian Bale). And new district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhardt) is busy making promises that may not be easy to keep...
First off, wow. Simply wow. From the very first moment, this film catches your attention and holds it for as long as possible. It shocks you, it amuses you, it horrifies you, it thrills you. And it is truly the work of a genius. For that is what the film is full of, both in front and behind of the camera. Christopher Nolan, who just keeps rolling in hit after hit, does not disappoint.Woe betide him when he makes that slip-up that can only happen soon, because it will be a major slip-up when viewed alongside films of this calibre.
One thing The Dark Knight is not, however, is a fun film. It is not even a funny film, though there are one or two chuckles. Even if you have seen Batman Begins, you may still be surprised at how dark this film actually is. There is an air of gloom and bleakness to the whole event, much more so than its predecessor, which was perhaps darker than even Tim Burton's original visions (Batman, 1989,and the superior Batman Returns, 1992). But this picture takes darkness to a whole new level.This is partly due to the story and to the nature of its characters; Batman has always been the most psychological of all comic book characters, and the most realistic. Just as before, Nolan takes that realism and uses it to help the bleakness, the air of despair that hovers around the film.
There are of course other reasons besides the plot. Firstly, you cannot help but watch this film without remembering the death of Heath Ledger. This is not as morbid as you might think; it's just that he's SO GOOD in the role. Completely unrecognisable under the makeshift make up, with a brilliantly nasal voice and vicious laugh, he wipes the slate clean. Although Jack Nicholon's portrayal of the same character in Burton's original was good, this is a completely different take on the character - again, a more realistic feel to him. And you cannot help feeling how Ledger's death was such a waste of talent, especially after watching his performance here.
The other factor to mention briefly is the presence of Harvey Dent. Though brilliantly portrayed by Aaron Eckhardt, his performance is mared by the fact that we all know what is going to happen next: the acid related accident, the snapping of the already weak mind, the emergence of Two-Face. A much better and and more fulfilling take on the role than that of Tommy Lee Jones' fair attempt in Batman Forever (Schumacher, 1995), you leave the film wishing to have seen a lot more of him, but grateful for the chance to have witnessed him at all, and the make up is superb.
All the other performers in this are, of course magnificent; Bale is at his brooding best as the caped crusader, and the three wise men of Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine all reprise their previous roles without breaking a sweat. The re-casting of Rachel Dawes from Katie Holmes into Maggie Gyllenhall does upset the balance a little, not because of her performance but because, again, there is not enough time spent with her for us to warm to her being this character.
My other criticism - and it's a little criticism, mind - is that the film is a tad too long, and towards the end you've had at least one stage where you could have arguably ended the film altogether much earlier. For the most part, however, The Dark Knight does not disappoint. With a few surprises, and some loose ends both on and off the camera still to be tied up, you will literally be gagging for (hopefully) the next instalment. Brilliant.
9/10
Laters!
WARNING: This review could contain SPOILERS!
It is after the events of Batman Begins. An anarchic terrorist known only as the Joker (Heath Ledger) is creating havoc in the streets of Gotham City. The people are divided between how they should feel about the masked vigilante patrolling the streets(Christian Bale). And new district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhardt) is busy making promises that may not be easy to keep...
First off, wow. Simply wow. From the very first moment, this film catches your attention and holds it for as long as possible. It shocks you, it amuses you, it horrifies you, it thrills you. And it is truly the work of a genius. For that is what the film is full of, both in front and behind of the camera. Christopher Nolan, who just keeps rolling in hit after hit, does not disappoint.Woe betide him when he makes that slip-up that can only happen soon, because it will be a major slip-up when viewed alongside films of this calibre.
One thing The Dark Knight is not, however, is a fun film. It is not even a funny film, though there are one or two chuckles. Even if you have seen Batman Begins, you may still be surprised at how dark this film actually is. There is an air of gloom and bleakness to the whole event, much more so than its predecessor, which was perhaps darker than even Tim Burton's original visions (Batman, 1989,and the superior Batman Returns, 1992). But this picture takes darkness to a whole new level.This is partly due to the story and to the nature of its characters; Batman has always been the most psychological of all comic book characters, and the most realistic. Just as before, Nolan takes that realism and uses it to help the bleakness, the air of despair that hovers around the film.
There are of course other reasons besides the plot. Firstly, you cannot help but watch this film without remembering the death of Heath Ledger. This is not as morbid as you might think; it's just that he's SO GOOD in the role. Completely unrecognisable under the makeshift make up, with a brilliantly nasal voice and vicious laugh, he wipes the slate clean. Although Jack Nicholon's portrayal of the same character in Burton's original was good, this is a completely different take on the character - again, a more realistic feel to him. And you cannot help feeling how Ledger's death was such a waste of talent, especially after watching his performance here.
The other factor to mention briefly is the presence of Harvey Dent. Though brilliantly portrayed by Aaron Eckhardt, his performance is mared by the fact that we all know what is going to happen next: the acid related accident, the snapping of the already weak mind, the emergence of Two-Face. A much better and and more fulfilling take on the role than that of Tommy Lee Jones' fair attempt in Batman Forever (Schumacher, 1995), you leave the film wishing to have seen a lot more of him, but grateful for the chance to have witnessed him at all, and the make up is superb.
All the other performers in this are, of course magnificent; Bale is at his brooding best as the caped crusader, and the three wise men of Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine all reprise their previous roles without breaking a sweat. The re-casting of Rachel Dawes from Katie Holmes into Maggie Gyllenhall does upset the balance a little, not because of her performance but because, again, there is not enough time spent with her for us to warm to her being this character.
My other criticism - and it's a little criticism, mind - is that the film is a tad too long, and towards the end you've had at least one stage where you could have arguably ended the film altogether much earlier. For the most part, however, The Dark Knight does not disappoint. With a few surprises, and some loose ends both on and off the camera still to be tied up, you will literally be gagging for (hopefully) the next instalment. Brilliant.
9/10
Laters!
Tuesday, 20 May 2008
"The Good Shepherd"
After a brief hiatus on film reviews, here's my latest one for Robert De Nero's The Good Shepherd. Enjoy!
When an actor with a reputation as huge as Robert De Nero steps behind the camera, you expect big things. After all this is an actor who has been constantly named as one of the greatest of his generation, second only to Al Pacino - if anyone should know how to make a powerful, hard-hitting movie, it should be De Nero.
For most of the duration of the film, The Good Shepherd does not disappoint. First of all, its subject matter - the genesis and development of the CiA - is actually pretty interesting. The film tries to pass itself off as a spy thriller, but its really more of a biography of one of the most famous security organisations in the world.
There are some excellent performances in this film too, but sadly they don't seem to belong to any of the headline actors. De Nero does a good job in a small cameo which you want to have more of, as you do John Turturro in his "personal assistant" role. On the British end Michael Gambon is great as usual, and John Sessions does an brilliant job as a Russian defector, and it was a bit of a surprise to see him in a film like this. Perhaps the biggest waste here is the fact that the legendary Joe Pesci's role is laughably minuscule, yet he still completely out acts Matt Damon.
Damon isn't bad in this film, but I have an unfortunate problem in watching him with his glasses on, because I instantly think of The Talented Mr Ripley. You also get pangs for Damon's other great spy character, Jason Bourne, but I think that's because of the mislabelling of the film as a thriller. Angelina Jolie is reduced to playing a very, very annoying character, and that annoyance factor seems to be passed on down the family line to their son, who REALLY got on my nerves for some reason.
Another problem with the film is the length of it. Sometimes a long film works and sometimes it doesn't. This was a sort of mix between the two. Most of the time you enjoy the film, yet there are occasions where you look at your watch and think "How much longer are we going to stay with this scene?" On the whole, if you know what you're letting yourself in for - subject matter, length, etc - then you should enjoy this film. Otherwise you may be very disappointed.
7/10
Laters.
When an actor with a reputation as huge as Robert De Nero steps behind the camera, you expect big things. After all this is an actor who has been constantly named as one of the greatest of his generation, second only to Al Pacino - if anyone should know how to make a powerful, hard-hitting movie, it should be De Nero.
For most of the duration of the film, The Good Shepherd does not disappoint. First of all, its subject matter - the genesis and development of the CiA - is actually pretty interesting. The film tries to pass itself off as a spy thriller, but its really more of a biography of one of the most famous security organisations in the world.
There are some excellent performances in this film too, but sadly they don't seem to belong to any of the headline actors. De Nero does a good job in a small cameo which you want to have more of, as you do John Turturro in his "personal assistant" role. On the British end Michael Gambon is great as usual, and John Sessions does an brilliant job as a Russian defector, and it was a bit of a surprise to see him in a film like this. Perhaps the biggest waste here is the fact that the legendary Joe Pesci's role is laughably minuscule, yet he still completely out acts Matt Damon.
Damon isn't bad in this film, but I have an unfortunate problem in watching him with his glasses on, because I instantly think of The Talented Mr Ripley. You also get pangs for Damon's other great spy character, Jason Bourne, but I think that's because of the mislabelling of the film as a thriller. Angelina Jolie is reduced to playing a very, very annoying character, and that annoyance factor seems to be passed on down the family line to their son, who REALLY got on my nerves for some reason.
Another problem with the film is the length of it. Sometimes a long film works and sometimes it doesn't. This was a sort of mix between the two. Most of the time you enjoy the film, yet there are occasions where you look at your watch and think "How much longer are we going to stay with this scene?" On the whole, if you know what you're letting yourself in for - subject matter, length, etc - then you should enjoy this film. Otherwise you may be very disappointed.
7/10
Laters.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
Decade Of Success
Recently I've been reading a very revealing book entitled Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by a guy named Peter Biskind. It's all about Hollywood in the 1970s and the big filmmakers who emerged in that decade - Spielberg, Lucas, Scorsese, Bogdanovich, and so on. If you're at all interested in the inner workings of Hollywood studios at this time I can't recommend this book highly enough. It is incredibly open and honest about the goings on that took place behind the scenes of some of the greatest movies ever made: copious drug abuse, lots of bed-hopping, much, much swearing.
Today on the IMDB's daily poll they list a large chunck of the 70s films of a selection of films that the famous critic Roger Ebert lists as the Greatest Movies ever. It's an incredible chunk if you think about it. Some of these films are the most timeless, exciting, re-watchable films. Annie Hall, Apocalypse Now, Chinatown, The Godfather, Star Wars, Taxi Driver, etc.
Which leads me to wonder - was the 70s the greatest film decade? It seems to me that the decades after haven't exactly thrown up as large an impressive list as the 70s did. Don't get me wrong, there were some great films made in the 80s, but for some reason I feel that most of them are incredibly dated, something you don't really notice in the 70s films. And, yeah, thanks to the technology boom of the 90s we've had some incredible blockbusters to rival films like Jaws or Alien, but they don't have the same atmosphere as these films still constantly do.
Maybe its just a time thing - not enough time has passed by to recognise the true merits of the 80s. Maybe we need to wait another decade. In a way it would be quite interesting to find out which of the films that have been made in this decade will be remembered as well as the movies Ebert lists. Only problem is I have to grow older to see it. Dang.
Laters.
Today on the IMDB's daily poll they list a large chunck of the 70s films of a selection of films that the famous critic Roger Ebert lists as the Greatest Movies ever. It's an incredible chunk if you think about it. Some of these films are the most timeless, exciting, re-watchable films. Annie Hall, Apocalypse Now, Chinatown, The Godfather, Star Wars, Taxi Driver, etc.
Which leads me to wonder - was the 70s the greatest film decade? It seems to me that the decades after haven't exactly thrown up as large an impressive list as the 70s did. Don't get me wrong, there were some great films made in the 80s, but for some reason I feel that most of them are incredibly dated, something you don't really notice in the 70s films. And, yeah, thanks to the technology boom of the 90s we've had some incredible blockbusters to rival films like Jaws or Alien, but they don't have the same atmosphere as these films still constantly do.
Maybe its just a time thing - not enough time has passed by to recognise the true merits of the 80s. Maybe we need to wait another decade. In a way it would be quite interesting to find out which of the films that have been made in this decade will be remembered as well as the movies Ebert lists. Only problem is I have to grow older to see it. Dang.
Laters.
Tuesday, 26 February 2008
Oscars 2008 & "Notes On A Scandal"
As has been mentioned by many people, there weren't that many surprises at this year's Oscars for me. It seems that any film Daniel Day-Lewis is in means he's always going to win Best Actor (I know that's not true but that's how it feels). I had a suspicious feeling that Marion Cotillard would win after her triumph at BAFTA earlier this year, and it once again falls into the Oscar rule that anyone who plays a real-life person is more likely to win these days. Tilda Swinton was a bit of a surprise, I must admit - I really felt that Cate Blantchett would win for her role in I'm Not There.
All the awards for No Country For Old Men were worthy but predictable. One big surprise for me was that Ratatouille won Best Animated Feature when it was up against arguably the more academy friendly Persepolis. I was also disappointed with the rules and regulations that meant The Diving Bell And The Butterfly could not be nominated for Best Foreign Film, which I'm sure it would have won easily if it had been.
Have already raved about "Falling Slowly" winning Best Original Song...but I'll rave about it again - yay! In fact, this year's Oscars was a nice, spaced out event where each of the big hitters won at least one Oscar. All I can say is thank goodness Norbit didn't win for Best Make Up, unless it was make up to hide Eddie Murphy's embarrassment.
All the awards for No Country For Old Men were worthy but predictable. One big surprise for me was that Ratatouille won Best Animated Feature when it was up against arguably the more academy friendly Persepolis. I was also disappointed with the rules and regulations that meant The Diving Bell And The Butterfly could not be nominated for Best Foreign Film, which I'm sure it would have won easily if it had been.
Have already raved about "Falling Slowly" winning Best Original Song...but I'll rave about it again - yay! In fact, this year's Oscars was a nice, spaced out event where each of the big hitters won at least one Oscar. All I can say is thank goodness Norbit didn't win for Best Make Up, unless it was make up to hide Eddie Murphy's embarrassment.
*****
[Also today I thought I'd treat you all with my review of Notes On A Scandal which I watched a couple of weeks ago. Enjoy!]
Throughout history, the power of the diary has been displayed in numerous ways. Without the surviving memoirs of Anne Frank we would not have such a heartbreaking piece of evidence of, not only entrapment and Nazi Europe, but also the growth and maturity of a young girl into a young woman. Recently Alistair Campbell, the former PR man of Tony Blair, former Prime Minister, caused a slight scandal by publishing his own diaries from the Blair period.
In Notes On A Scandal the power of the diary is paramount to the story and characters. Barbara Covett (Judi Dench) writes daily of her disgust at the society around her, of the school where she works and its students, of her blossoming friendship with new art teacher Sheba Hart (Cate Blanchett). But as the film progresses Barbara's diary becomes much more than a journal of mere observation. It becomes a detailed dossier of a rather sinister yet simple plot of blackmail, when Barbara catches Sheba in a very compromising position with a student, Steven Connolly (Andrew Simpson), which threatens both her job and her marriage to older husband Richard (Bill Nighy).
This film is more or less a showcase for two powerful performances by two very fine actresses. This is probably the most satisfying character I have seen Dench play since the first time she appeared as 'M', 007's boss in GoldenEye. At first resembling nothing more than a bitter, lonely old crone, Barbara slowly unravels into a cold-hearted, creepy, manipulative woman intent on gaining companionship and more whatever the cost. Blanchett goes from bohemian to lust addict, tired of just being a wife and mother, yet terrified of losing everything she has. Towards the end of the film, however, there is a scene of complete emotional breakdown where, unfortunately, she seems to go into rather unbelievable OTT mode.
The rest of the cast don't really stand a chance when you have two such commanding leads. Nighy, always likable, is good in his role, yet it feels rather one-sided. There doesn't seem to be a reason as to why Sheba wants to have an affair, for Nighy's character seems to be the perfect husband and father figure, and a potential deja vu history that is brought out later on in the film is brushed aside to concentrate more on the relationship between Barbara and Sheba. Andrew Simpson is quite impressive, but again there do not seem to be many reasons why Sheba would want to risk everything for this character.
The power of the diary, and I feel the film's final message, is what also brings Barbara down. The book on which the film is based is perhaps more powerful than this better-than-average adaptation simply because it IS the diary that she is writing in. The endless debate of books vs films rages on, of course, but this film will be a worthy addition to either side's argument.
7/10
Laters.
Tuesday, 19 February 2008
A Mistake, Surely?
Okay, so decided to buy the Total Film 100 Greatest Film Characters Of All Time special, only available in WH Smiths, which is always the case for these things - why, I dunno - and eagerly flipped forward to the number one spot. It has to be Bond, I thought to myself. Or maybe it's Indiana Jones. Or maybe, just maybe, it's someone like Atticus Finch, played by Gregory Peck in To Kill A Mocking Bird (1962). But no. Number one, the greatest film character of all times, as voted for by the readers of Total Film - a group of which I am a member so no funny ideas please - the top dog in the list was...
Captain Jack Sparrow from the Pirates Of The Carribean trilogy.
Ooooooookay.
One question springs to mind, really, erm, WHY? Look, unlike famous film critic Mark Kermode (what, you've never heard of him?) I like Captain Jack. Johnny Depp is one of the greatest, most versatile actors in the world today and the character is a very funny, at times quite mysterious, but always mischevous work of fiction. But the number one film character of all time? Surely not!
As a Bond fan (and the Bond Fanatic on the IMDB) of course I'm rooting for Bond, but there are so many, many other better film characters in the cellulouid world that deserve that top spot. What about Finch and his continuing struggle for justice for all? What about Batman? What about Hannibal Lecter, Veto Corleone, Oskar Schindler, Rick Blaine? What about Mia Wallace, Nurse Ratched, Princess Leia? What about nearly every role played by Daniel Day-Lewis? Or okay, go for Depp, but what about Edward Scissorhands or Ed Wood or Donnie Brasco?
I guess my pleas are in vain, though, especially since the bloody things been printed already. Roll on next year, I say, roll on the next list. Captain Jack's all very well and good but unless he's not looking for some rum he's just not Hollywood Walk of Stars if you know what I mean.
Laters.
Captain Jack Sparrow from the Pirates Of The Carribean trilogy.
Ooooooookay.
One question springs to mind, really, erm, WHY? Look, unlike famous film critic Mark Kermode (what, you've never heard of him?) I like Captain Jack. Johnny Depp is one of the greatest, most versatile actors in the world today and the character is a very funny, at times quite mysterious, but always mischevous work of fiction. But the number one film character of all time? Surely not!
As a Bond fan (and the Bond Fanatic on the IMDB) of course I'm rooting for Bond, but there are so many, many other better film characters in the cellulouid world that deserve that top spot. What about Finch and his continuing struggle for justice for all? What about Batman? What about Hannibal Lecter, Veto Corleone, Oskar Schindler, Rick Blaine? What about Mia Wallace, Nurse Ratched, Princess Leia? What about nearly every role played by Daniel Day-Lewis? Or okay, go for Depp, but what about Edward Scissorhands or Ed Wood or Donnie Brasco?
I guess my pleas are in vain, though, especially since the bloody things been printed already. Roll on next year, I say, roll on the next list. Captain Jack's all very well and good but unless he's not looking for some rum he's just not Hollywood Walk of Stars if you know what I mean.
Laters.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
Must See Movie
[Last week I had the good fortune to be sent The Fountain on DVD. Reviewed down below! (May contain spoilers)]
I like to think of myself as a fairly universal film viewer, in that I watch both mainstream and art house films. Personally I don't really like the fact that there is such a thing as art house cinema – films are for everyone, and we should all be given the chance to watch them, whatever their subject matter, country of origin, etc. Thank goodness, then, for DVDs, or else I know I probably would have had to wait a very long time before seeing The Fountain.
This film totally staggered me. I knew I was in for a wild ride in a technological sense, and I wasn't proved wrong. The visual effects, particularly those set in the "future/inner self" segments of the film are awesome to watch and beautiful. But this film has a hell of a lot of emotion in it too, and I wasn't expecting to be taken on a wild ride inwards.
I guess it's kind of difficult to work out the exact synopsis – Aronofsky gives the plot just enough ambiguity for everyone to have their own opinion on what exactly is going on. It all revolves around the characters of Tommy and Izzie, played respectively by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Izzie is sick, dying of a brain tumour, and Tommy has made it his mission to find a cure for it and save her life. Izzie, meanwhile, spends her time writing a manuscript for a novel about a Spanish conquistador who is sent on a seemingly impossible expedition by his love, the Queen of Spain – again, both of these characters played by Jackman and Weisz.
This film is a real tour de force for both these actors, and Weisz is fast becoming one of my top five favourite actresses who make films watchable simply because they are in them. Thankfully, this doesn't have to be the case with The Fountain. Jackman is probably the stand out performance here, however, his character (or characters) going through a wide range of emotions and journeys whose endings, though perhaps are sometimes predictable, are not tedious in their predictability.
Several images repeat themselves through the film; for example a ring, skin, and, perhaps most important of all, a tree. Not just any tree, mark you, but the Tree of Life, the perhaps less famous one from the book of genesis in the Bible, the one whose slightly overshadowed by the big bad Tree of Knowledge. If anything, this film made me actually see for the first time what several of the sentences mean in this segment of the biblical text, words that I and I'm sure a lot of others would have simply blanked over.
I urge you to see this film. I know it won't be everybody's cup of tea – after all, that's why it's not mainstream. It's intellectual, has a confusing plot line, only has two major stars in it, and it's director's last film was Requiem For A Dream, another flick which divided film goers and critics alike. But it's also about grief, about love and hope and of acceptance. This would be a great therapy film for those going through a terminal illness, or for those who have recently lost someone in that way. It is a beautiful, beautiful film, and the first chance that you get, please, watch it.
9/10
Laters.
I like to think of myself as a fairly universal film viewer, in that I watch both mainstream and art house films. Personally I don't really like the fact that there is such a thing as art house cinema – films are for everyone, and we should all be given the chance to watch them, whatever their subject matter, country of origin, etc. Thank goodness, then, for DVDs, or else I know I probably would have had to wait a very long time before seeing The Fountain.
This film totally staggered me. I knew I was in for a wild ride in a technological sense, and I wasn't proved wrong. The visual effects, particularly those set in the "future/inner self" segments of the film are awesome to watch and beautiful. But this film has a hell of a lot of emotion in it too, and I wasn't expecting to be taken on a wild ride inwards.
I guess it's kind of difficult to work out the exact synopsis – Aronofsky gives the plot just enough ambiguity for everyone to have their own opinion on what exactly is going on. It all revolves around the characters of Tommy and Izzie, played respectively by Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz. Izzie is sick, dying of a brain tumour, and Tommy has made it his mission to find a cure for it and save her life. Izzie, meanwhile, spends her time writing a manuscript for a novel about a Spanish conquistador who is sent on a seemingly impossible expedition by his love, the Queen of Spain – again, both of these characters played by Jackman and Weisz.
This film is a real tour de force for both these actors, and Weisz is fast becoming one of my top five favourite actresses who make films watchable simply because they are in them. Thankfully, this doesn't have to be the case with The Fountain. Jackman is probably the stand out performance here, however, his character (or characters) going through a wide range of emotions and journeys whose endings, though perhaps are sometimes predictable, are not tedious in their predictability.
Several images repeat themselves through the film; for example a ring, skin, and, perhaps most important of all, a tree. Not just any tree, mark you, but the Tree of Life, the perhaps less famous one from the book of genesis in the Bible, the one whose slightly overshadowed by the big bad Tree of Knowledge. If anything, this film made me actually see for the first time what several of the sentences mean in this segment of the biblical text, words that I and I'm sure a lot of others would have simply blanked over.
I urge you to see this film. I know it won't be everybody's cup of tea – after all, that's why it's not mainstream. It's intellectual, has a confusing plot line, only has two major stars in it, and it's director's last film was Requiem For A Dream, another flick which divided film goers and critics alike. But it's also about grief, about love and hope and of acceptance. This would be a great therapy film for those going through a terminal illness, or for those who have recently lost someone in that way. It is a beautiful, beautiful film, and the first chance that you get, please, watch it.
9/10
Laters.
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
My Holiday Memories
Okay, so my plans to really update this blog proved fruitless as I arrived back in Winchester yesterday to an empty, cold house with no food - so plenty of work to do! I hope to have a few minutes tomorrow just to muck about with it, but for now all I can think of doing for today's blog is to list the films I watched over the christmas holidays.
- The Golden Compass
- Sky Captain & The World Of Tomorrow
- The Simpsons Movie (again)
- Shrek The Third
- Muppets From Space (again)
Good times, good times.
Laters.
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
It's Christmas: Part One
Ho ho ho! As we are in the festive season, I thought I should let you know a little about what classifies as Christmas entertainment in the old Hardgraves head! As it is usually Film Tuesday today, I thought I'd start with films...doi!
So here, in no order whatsoever except for when I remember them, are my top Christmas films!
So here, in no order whatsoever except for when I remember them, are my top Christmas films!
- Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas - as a huge Tim Burton fan, this is always a must. You don't see a lot of stop motion animation these days, and when its done so wonderfully as it is here you celebrate the fact that at least someone is still flying the flag for this particularly painfully slow animation technique. The story is typical Burton - ghoulish and full of dark humour, when Jack Skelington, king of Halloween, decides to liven up his rather boring life by having a go at Christmas for a change. The characters are all individually gorgeous, and the atmosphere is added to by Danny Elfman's gorgeous songs and score.
- A Christmas Carol - now there are a lot of versions of this film out there, one more of which I will cite in a mo. This particular one is a fairly recent made for television adaptation starring Patrick Stewart as the famous Mr Scrooge, with Richard E Grant as Bob Cratchit and a cast of faces you may recognise but are not sure where from exactly. This is a very faithful adap of the book, which is one of my favourite stories anyway. However, try as it might, this version can never uphold to the standards set by...
- ...The Muppets Christmas Carol - here, instead of dumbing down the story to make it feel more family friendly, the wonders of the Jim Henson group actually at times make a fairly frightening but faithful vision of Dickens' tale. Yes, so I doubt there ever was a rubber chicken factory in Victorian London, and yes, nearly all the cast have American accents - that's all the felt cast, mind - but it is a witty, dark film with plenty of good songs and a great performance from Michael Caine as Scrooge.
- Fred Claus - this is very recent, having only just been released. It was also mercilessly slated by the critics, but then of course it would be. All in all, we know its a pile of Christmas wrapping paper, but it is full of sugar and spice and everything nice, with a good name cast featuring Vince Vaughan, Kevin Spacey, Paul Giamatti, etc. You can't help but feel christmassy when you watch this film.
- Snow Day - another interesting one, as technically it's not set at Christmas. But I'm dreaming of a white Christmas, so it works for me. Again not very popular with critics, it again is full of the sweet candy cane good stuff that just makes you feel all good inside, just like a decent Christmas film should do.
- It's A Wonderful Life - not much else can be said about this that hasn't already been said.It's a masterpiece, a work of genius, with a brilliant performance from James Stewart. I find the little girl semi-annoying, but other than that this deserves to be the number one Christmas film on any list!
Well, that's all the films I can think of. Tomorrow: music!
Laters.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
The Spy Who Loved Him
Below is my latest film review, Paul Verhoeven's Black Book. Enjoy!
I think I could probably count the number of foreign films I've seen out of my own choice on one hand. I am also not exactly the hugest fan of Paul Verhoeven. But there was so much hype surrounding this film that I just had to see it.
I'm glad I did. This film brings back to memory the classic war spy films of the 40s, 50s and 60s, where brave men and women risked their lives against the Nazis for freedom. But the fact that it is based on real events creates a very sinister atmosphere to it, none more so than during the final third of the film, where history once again shoves a bitter blow to the face of "peace lovers" by showing what happened to those poor men and women who fell in love with Nazi soldiers or sympathised with them.
There are some excellent performances here, but although he seems to have come back with a bang, I just can't stick Verhoeven. It is now obvious after more than 20 years of his films where his interests lie - blonde women and violence. Just look at Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, Denise Richards in Starship Troopers, even Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls - and now Carice van Houten. If this is the way in which Verhoeven is to become an auteur, I suppose you could argue that he is a sub-par Hitchcock, but then I shudder at the comparison.
It's a shame, because this is a great movie, with plenty of twists and good historical background. You genuinely feel for Rachel/Ellis as life keeps dealing her with bitter blows. In the same instance, however, it does leave quite a few questions open and there are some parts of the plot which are left unexplained. Ultimately, the theme is of violence once again - with the ending shot a rather pessimistic view of the rest of the 20th century.
7/10
The next film review will be of Perfume.
Laters.
I think I could probably count the number of foreign films I've seen out of my own choice on one hand. I am also not exactly the hugest fan of Paul Verhoeven. But there was so much hype surrounding this film that I just had to see it.
I'm glad I did. This film brings back to memory the classic war spy films of the 40s, 50s and 60s, where brave men and women risked their lives against the Nazis for freedom. But the fact that it is based on real events creates a very sinister atmosphere to it, none more so than during the final third of the film, where history once again shoves a bitter blow to the face of "peace lovers" by showing what happened to those poor men and women who fell in love with Nazi soldiers or sympathised with them.
There are some excellent performances here, but although he seems to have come back with a bang, I just can't stick Verhoeven. It is now obvious after more than 20 years of his films where his interests lie - blonde women and violence. Just look at Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, Denise Richards in Starship Troopers, even Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls - and now Carice van Houten. If this is the way in which Verhoeven is to become an auteur, I suppose you could argue that he is a sub-par Hitchcock, but then I shudder at the comparison.
It's a shame, because this is a great movie, with plenty of twists and good historical background. You genuinely feel for Rachel/Ellis as life keeps dealing her with bitter blows. In the same instance, however, it does leave quite a few questions open and there are some parts of the plot which are left unexplained. Ultimately, the theme is of violence once again - with the ending shot a rather pessimistic view of the rest of the 20th century.
7/10
The next film review will be of Perfume.
Laters.
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
"You Don't Get Me, I'm Part Of The Union..."
I'm not sure how I should respond to the strikes going on over in the US of A by my fellow Struggling Writers over the shores. Obviously, I'm all for them getting better pay, better screen credits, or whatever they can get out of these protests. But the film/television viewer in me is panicking so much right now.
Already several films in pre-production have been hit by these strikes. Admittedly the only one that bears me any sort of interest would be Angels And Demons, the Ron Howard directed and Tom Hanks starring prequel to The DaVinci Code, which coincidentally I haven't actually watched yet but will probably do so at some point. But the number of films is slowly increasing, and I can't help feeling that some films that I'm really looking forward to will soon be affected.
Unfortunately I have fallen out of love with Ugly Betty, having missed so many episodes of the second series that joining it now would be pretty pointless. But I'm still looking forward to the next series of Desperate Housewives, and knowing that this series has also been affected by the strikes...well, it just breaks my hearts.
All in all, I'm totally behind the strikers, but I just hope that it's resolved quickly.
Laters.
Already several films in pre-production have been hit by these strikes. Admittedly the only one that bears me any sort of interest would be Angels And Demons, the Ron Howard directed and Tom Hanks starring prequel to The DaVinci Code, which coincidentally I haven't actually watched yet but will probably do so at some point. But the number of films is slowly increasing, and I can't help feeling that some films that I'm really looking forward to will soon be affected.
Unfortunately I have fallen out of love with Ugly Betty, having missed so many episodes of the second series that joining it now would be pretty pointless. But I'm still looking forward to the next series of Desperate Housewives, and knowing that this series has also been affected by the strikes...well, it just breaks my hearts.
All in all, I'm totally behind the strikers, but I just hope that it's resolved quickly.
Laters.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
"Oh, I'm Sorry, Did I Break Your Concentration?"
As promised, here is my review for Pulp Fiction. Enjoy!
Given the opportunity to get this on a cheap DVD, I decided to seize the day as it were and find out what all the fuss was about. Having only seen one Tarantino film - Kill Bill: Part One, which I suppose actually means I'd only seen half a Taraniton film - and having enjoyed it a lot, plus having read and heard all the hype surrounding Pulp Fiction, my expectations were higher than I would say they usually are before watching a film.
For the majority of it, Pulp Fiction does exactly what I've been led to believe it does: confuses you and thrills you, as well as making you chuckle, albeit a little guiltily, at several points. The story itself - not told in a linear style - can at times be frustratingly annoying in its light-pretentious way of saying, "Ooh, look at me, I'm non-linear, I'm going to muck about with your heads". It is also full of coincidences, especially the story which revolves around Bruce Willis's character. This particular strand goes off into extremely weird territory. I suppose parts of it could happen, but you'd have to be very, very unlucky for it to actually be the case.
The cast are pretty much impeccable. Despite the very good performance of John Travolta, the film's early scenes really belong to Samuel L Jackson, whose rehearsed Biblical scripture sounds at first rather absurd before becoming incredibly chilling. There are nice turns from Uma Thurman and Ving Rhames before the film is once again saved by Jackson. Harvey Keitel is also bwa-ha-ha funny, thankfully good enough to overshadow the rather poor performance of Tarantino himself.
One thing that does rock in this film is the soundtrack, from the opening familiar theme which suddenly changes halfway through into a completely different piece of music, to the final end guitar strains. The stand-out piece must be the Chuck Barry song which Travolta and Thurman dance the twist rather badly to. This is a moment so surreal that you're not sure whether to laugh or just scratch your head and ponder the meaning of life.
On the whole, Pulp Fiction deserves most of the plaudits it has gained, and it is (or was) original enough to justify winning the Palme D'Or at Cannes 1995. But it is not a really great film. I have a feeling that we're still waiting for Tarantino to make one of those. Unless he already has, and I just haven't watched it yet.
7/10
The next review will be of Paul Verhoven's latest film, Black Book.
Laters.
Given the opportunity to get this on a cheap DVD, I decided to seize the day as it were and find out what all the fuss was about. Having only seen one Tarantino film - Kill Bill: Part One, which I suppose actually means I'd only seen half a Taraniton film - and having enjoyed it a lot, plus having read and heard all the hype surrounding Pulp Fiction, my expectations were higher than I would say they usually are before watching a film.
For the majority of it, Pulp Fiction does exactly what I've been led to believe it does: confuses you and thrills you, as well as making you chuckle, albeit a little guiltily, at several points. The story itself - not told in a linear style - can at times be frustratingly annoying in its light-pretentious way of saying, "Ooh, look at me, I'm non-linear, I'm going to muck about with your heads". It is also full of coincidences, especially the story which revolves around Bruce Willis's character. This particular strand goes off into extremely weird territory. I suppose parts of it could happen, but you'd have to be very, very unlucky for it to actually be the case.
The cast are pretty much impeccable. Despite the very good performance of John Travolta, the film's early scenes really belong to Samuel L Jackson, whose rehearsed Biblical scripture sounds at first rather absurd before becoming incredibly chilling. There are nice turns from Uma Thurman and Ving Rhames before the film is once again saved by Jackson. Harvey Keitel is also bwa-ha-ha funny, thankfully good enough to overshadow the rather poor performance of Tarantino himself.
One thing that does rock in this film is the soundtrack, from the opening familiar theme which suddenly changes halfway through into a completely different piece of music, to the final end guitar strains. The stand-out piece must be the Chuck Barry song which Travolta and Thurman dance the twist rather badly to. This is a moment so surreal that you're not sure whether to laugh or just scratch your head and ponder the meaning of life.
On the whole, Pulp Fiction deserves most of the plaudits it has gained, and it is (or was) original enough to justify winning the Palme D'Or at Cannes 1995. But it is not a really great film. I have a feeling that we're still waiting for Tarantino to make one of those. Unless he already has, and I just haven't watched it yet.
7/10
The next review will be of Paul Verhoven's latest film, Black Book.
Laters.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
A Rather Dodgy Train Ride
Last Wednesday, with the television occupied by my housemates wanting to see where Winchester came in The Best Place/Worst Place To Live programme (we came second in the former!) I decided to catch up on my film viewing. The latest DVD I had rented was a British flick called London To Brighton.
This was at times a tough film to watch. It isn't for people who don't like a lot of swearing or gritty realism. It certainly won't be the kind of film I would watch with my grandparents, that's for sure. If you can stand that, though, and the often dark, gloomy plot of a prostitute and a twelve-year old girl running away to Brighton from something they've done in the capital city (hence the title) you're in for a treat.
The cast are excellent, most notably perhaps newcomer Georgia Groome as Joanne the young runaway. Really everyone is very good, but Georgia stands out particularly. Her role is demanding and not what you'd expect a twelve year old to be doing. The whole film is very well shot too, capturing a seedy side of England which we often ignore in the golden lands of cinema, and leave it to either newcomers or seasoned pros like Ken Loach to shoot.
There were a few problems with it, perhaps most importantly for me the length. I appreciate it was a low-budget film, but it was still too short. I was really enjoying it when it finished, so much so that I didn't want it to stop. I wanted to know more about the characters we meet in Brighton too - I don't think they were very well developed.
Apart from these problems, I found London To Brighton very enjoyable, and recommend it to anyone who likes gritty British cinema.
7/10
Laters.
This was at times a tough film to watch. It isn't for people who don't like a lot of swearing or gritty realism. It certainly won't be the kind of film I would watch with my grandparents, that's for sure. If you can stand that, though, and the often dark, gloomy plot of a prostitute and a twelve-year old girl running away to Brighton from something they've done in the capital city (hence the title) you're in for a treat.
The cast are excellent, most notably perhaps newcomer Georgia Groome as Joanne the young runaway. Really everyone is very good, but Georgia stands out particularly. Her role is demanding and not what you'd expect a twelve year old to be doing. The whole film is very well shot too, capturing a seedy side of England which we often ignore in the golden lands of cinema, and leave it to either newcomers or seasoned pros like Ken Loach to shoot.
There were a few problems with it, perhaps most importantly for me the length. I appreciate it was a low-budget film, but it was still too short. I was really enjoying it when it finished, so much so that I didn't want it to stop. I wanted to know more about the characters we meet in Brighton too - I don't think they were very well developed.
Apart from these problems, I found London To Brighton very enjoyable, and recommend it to anyone who likes gritty British cinema.
7/10
Laters.
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
Phantastic Coincidence
So here I am, sitting in the library, trying to decide what to write about in today's blog, listening to Sunday's Elaine Paige show on Radio 2 which celebrates everything Musical related (how manly am I?) when she starts the show by letting me know that today (Tuesday) is the 21st birthday of The Phantom Of the Opera on the West End stage. Perfect, I thought, I shall wax lyrical about it.
Phantom was just one of the shows that began the re-birth of musical theatre. Without it I doubt there would ever be shows such as Wicked or Spamalot today; the spectacle, the rip roaring music, a pretty decent performance from Michael Crawford which really set the tone for big television/movie stars to try their luck on the West End. And yes, I am also a pretty big fan of Joel Schumacher's movie version - again, how masculine does that make me feel?
But the one thing that seems to be lacking these days is the movie musical - it doesn't seem to exist a lot these days. It was obviously huge in the 40s, 50s and 60s. In the 70s it started to die out as an art form, and, though it has made brief comebacks, we are now lucky if we get one movie musical a year.
But at least when we do get one it's a huge event. Last year's was Dreamgirls, and this year we have the long-awaited movie version of Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd, directed by Tim Burton, my absolute favourite director of all time, and starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. The first sneaky peak trailer is out there on the Internet - click on this here link to see it!
Johnny Depp - singing! If that's not a reason to feel excited, I don't know what is - okay, I need to go and drink some beer, look at FHM and lift some weights: manly stuff, grr.
Laters.
Phantom was just one of the shows that began the re-birth of musical theatre. Without it I doubt there would ever be shows such as Wicked or Spamalot today; the spectacle, the rip roaring music, a pretty decent performance from Michael Crawford which really set the tone for big television/movie stars to try their luck on the West End. And yes, I am also a pretty big fan of Joel Schumacher's movie version - again, how masculine does that make me feel?
But the one thing that seems to be lacking these days is the movie musical - it doesn't seem to exist a lot these days. It was obviously huge in the 40s, 50s and 60s. In the 70s it started to die out as an art form, and, though it has made brief comebacks, we are now lucky if we get one movie musical a year.
But at least when we do get one it's a huge event. Last year's was Dreamgirls, and this year we have the long-awaited movie version of Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd, directed by Tim Burton, my absolute favourite director of all time, and starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter. The first sneaky peak trailer is out there on the Internet - click on this here link to see it!
Johnny Depp - singing! If that's not a reason to feel excited, I don't know what is - okay, I need to go and drink some beer, look at FHM and lift some weights: manly stuff, grr.
Laters.
Tuesday, 25 September 2007
FYP Fallout
It was perhaps rather ironic that the film the CU chose to watch for our Movie Night towards the end of last week's Fresher Week was Reign Over Me. This is very much a post-9/11 film, and one I shall no doubt be writing a little about in my Final Year Project on 9/11 and its effects on culture.
Adam Sandler plays Charlie, a guy whose wife and daughters were on one of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers in New York. Don Cheadle plays a dentist who was Charlie's college roommate - happily married but with obviously something missing in his life. It is a story of how they rescue each other from their misery.
Get it? Got it? Good.
In all fairness it was a pretty good movie; I actually really enjoyed it. Sure, it was a bit depressing in some places, (in fact in some places it was a lot depressing), but some great acting from Sandler, who surprised me, (having not seen Punch Drunk Love yet), and Cheadle, who I've seen enough of to know is a pretty decent actor.
The one sort of niggling feeling I have though is this, and here's where my FYP really begins to infiltrate my everyday life: does 9/11 really have a place in this film? Is it necessary for it to be a plot device? Surely Charlie's family could have been killed in any accident, and it would still work really well, becoming much more of a study about post-traumatic depression. In fact, 9/11 here is arguably treated rather like this kind of accident: a tragic event that unfortunately happens on a daily basis.
9/11 was NOT a car crash. I've already seen and read enough about it to know that it changed our world forever. And although Reign Over Me is a good film, I enjoyed it and I recommend it to you all, the 9/11 element is not necessary.
Laters.
Adam Sandler plays Charlie, a guy whose wife and daughters were on one of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers in New York. Don Cheadle plays a dentist who was Charlie's college roommate - happily married but with obviously something missing in his life. It is a story of how they rescue each other from their misery.
Get it? Got it? Good.
In all fairness it was a pretty good movie; I actually really enjoyed it. Sure, it was a bit depressing in some places, (in fact in some places it was a lot depressing), but some great acting from Sandler, who surprised me, (having not seen Punch Drunk Love yet), and Cheadle, who I've seen enough of to know is a pretty decent actor.
The one sort of niggling feeling I have though is this, and here's where my FYP really begins to infiltrate my everyday life: does 9/11 really have a place in this film? Is it necessary for it to be a plot device? Surely Charlie's family could have been killed in any accident, and it would still work really well, becoming much more of a study about post-traumatic depression. In fact, 9/11 here is arguably treated rather like this kind of accident: a tragic event that unfortunately happens on a daily basis.
9/11 was NOT a car crash. I've already seen and read enough about it to know that it changed our world forever. And although Reign Over Me is a good film, I enjoyed it and I recommend it to you all, the 9/11 element is not necessary.
Laters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
