Post by: Najemikon on January 28, 2009, 12:35:13 AM
Post by: Najemikon on January 28, 2009, 12:54:26 AM
5 out of 5
Documentary about two mountaineers, Joe and Simon, descending from the summit of Siula Grande in Peru, a feat in itself. But Joe breaks his leg, normally a death sentence. They persevere, Simon lowering Joe on 300 feet of rope which works time and time again. Until Joe goes over an edge and is hanging in space with no way out. He's staring down into nothing. Simon has no idea what has happened and after a long while of just sitting, holding the taut rope, waiting for a sign there's more than dead weight on the end, he comes to a decision and cuts the rope... Joe plummets into the void yet makes it back to camp four days later. This is the story of how.
This is an incredible documentary and a testament to the strength of human spirit. Well, testament to Joe's spirit, because I doubt there are many could pull of what he did. Much easier to just lie down and die. Broken leg, 20000 feet up, plummets at least a hundred feet, almost gives in, but manages to crawl out anyway. Takes him four days, via near insanity, to make it back, hopping much of the way across rocks and falling Every Single Time and feeling like he was breaking his leg over and over again. It's a sobering film because both climbers relate their story with abject honesty. On their return, Simon was criticised for cutting the rope, even though he was in an impossible situation. Joe wrote the book on which the documentary is based in an effort to make sure we all knew what Simon achieved. A broken leg could have been a death sentence for both of them and to get as far as they did together is incredible enough.
The DVD has a feature about the making of the film, involving the climbers going back to Peru. Joe's reaction is fascinating and the whole thing is highly recommended. A healthy dose of reality! Mind you, you'll never find me going up a bloody mountain... ???
Post by: Najemikon on January 28, 2009, 01:11:22 AM
3 out of 5
First shown live on television, this remake of the 1964 film is a serious spin on Dr. Strangelove. American bombers heading for Russia with a nuclear payload have just passed the "fail safe" point and can't be recalled as they are trained to ignore all radio communication in case the enemy are trying to fool them. A malfunction means they have orders to bomb Moscow. The President and his generals work desperately to rectify the mistake, going so far as to help the Russians shoot them down. Should all else fail, the President has a terrible price to pay to prove it was a mistake and avert war.
This is an oddity. I haven't seen the original, but of course I am very familiar with Kubrick's wonderfully black comedy. The story is just about strong enough to take serious in a genuine "What if?" scenario, except I really hope our leaders have better contingency plans than this. I found the ending a little too contrived and noble to take seriously, but up until that point, it was a well played exercise in how paranoia will undo us all. Overall Kubrick highlighting the absurdity makes a stronger impression, but this is still worth seeing.
Being shown live means it can't escape being stagey and frequently dull, but the cast is fantastic and mostly from film and TV so their unusual one-take chance gives the whole thing an edge. So it both succeeds and fails by the same decision to go live. All the actors do well, especially Harvey Keitel, Sam Shepard, Brian Dennehy, Noah Wyle and Hank Azaria, but I think George Clooney as the bomber pilot and in particular Richard Dreyfuss as the President excel in arguably harder roles.
It's short at 85 minutes so if you enjoy Strangelove, give it a chance.
That's "enjoy Strangelove", by the way, as in "Dr.". Not "enjoy strange love" as in... something else... :-X
Post by: Najemikon on January 28, 2009, 01:24:01 AM
3 out of 5
Peyton (Liam Neeson) is a scientist working on synthetic skin that only lasts 99 minutes in the light. His girlfriend (Frances McDormand) is uncovering corruption and so hired thug Durant (Larry Drake) blows up him and his lab. Horribly disfigured, without feeling and in a rage, Peyton plots his revenge.
A pure comic book movie from Sam Raimi and an obvious dry run for Spider-Man, but bears a huge resemblance to both Robocop and Batman (especially Danny Elfman's lazy overbearing score that never... shuts... up! :surrender:)
It's an unusual cast really for this sort of thing which along with Raimi's trademark abstract direction makes for a surreal experience. So it should be much better than it is, but for poor dialogue and a story that plays safe by borrowing far too much. Apparently Raimi's creation, he obviously didn't trust himself. It gets much better in the end, after finally abandoning Robocop (hero dead and buried, except he's rebuilt and looking for his old life while picking off the gang) and Batman (duh), but it's so clearly what would become Spider-Man that even it's best bits are too familiar now. Hero swinging through city, albeit attached to a helicopter, leading to kidnapped girlfriend about to drop many hundreds of feet before he swings in and catches her... Raimi obviously has a bit of a fetish about swings... :shrug:
Post by: Najemikon on January 29, 2009, 12:44:57 AM
3 out of 5
In 1928, an ancient Egyptian artefact covered in strange symbols is excavated at the foot of the Great Pyramids. Decades later the American Government recruits the help of Egyptologist Dr Daniel Jackson (James Spader) to decode the secret of these symbols. He reveals the key to a "stargate", an intergalactic portal to the far side of the known universe. Jackson is joined by a crack military unit led by Colonel O'Neill (Kurt Russel) on a voyage of discovery.
A typical Devlin/Emmerich movie, all waffle and no substance, but also lacks the epic scale and sheer awesome audacity of their later Independence Day or Day After Tomorrow. Everything is bombastic and overdone. It could have been vastly improved by cutting out most of the cliched crap involving the natives and letting Kurt Russell be Kurt Russell instead of hamstringing his character with baggage. James Spader's good though, Mili Avital is gorgeous*, and the Ra God-squad are impressive. The whole thing bats along being inoffensively fun. It just wouldn't hurt to skip a couple of middle chapters.
This is the "Director's Cut". Not a whole lot of difference and the quality of the additional footage is frequently terrible. A half-arsed release of a half-arsed film. Shame because the story is a cracker and sets-up a great TV series. Haven't seen many myself but they seemed to learn from the mistakes. That said the canon becomes very confusing across several mediums, all of which Devlin seems to ignore, going so far as to announce a sequel in 2006 that would pick up at the end of this film and ignore everything else. Russell and Spader were to return in a planned trilogy.
Devlin, your film's shit. Leave it alone and let the telly boys have their fun because they know what they're doing and actually understand things called "plot" and "character".
*-Along with Natalie Portman, proving that Israel is thus far a seemingly untapped world of totty possibilities! :devil:
Post by: Najemikon on January 30, 2009, 01:13:21 AM
3 out of 5
In a parody of classic 50s sci-fi, Tim Burton directs a stellar cast in a cartoony story of invaders from Mars.
Somewhere in the middle of this eccentric, wonderful mess from the back-to-front imagination of Tim Burton, there is Jack Nicholson giving a performance I think better than his Joker. No-one ever says so of course because it doesn't matter how brilliant someone is if it's lost in noise. And this film is noisy, incoherent, and yet, strangely flat. Still it holds together well enough to give us some outstanding moments and the storyline is as wacky as you could hope it to be. I love his martians!
The cast is huge and maybe that's one of the problems. Too many recognisable faces. I can't think of anyone letting the side down, but none of them have enough time to make a real mark. Alongside Nicholson, Rod Steiger, Annette Bening and Glenn Close are fantastic, while the kids (Lukas Haas and Natalie Portman) do fine with the most normal characters (and therefore the weakest).
Holds up just as well as Independence Day which came out the same year, simply because it knows how daft it is from the outset. The resolution actually makes more sense than Emmerich's all too serious version.
Post by: Jimmy on January 30, 2009, 02:02:01 AM
No stars in it, but much better in my oppinion than Mars Attack
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307109/)
The sequel will be release sometimes this year and I really wait for it (see I watch new movie too :laugh:)
edit : I'll watch it tonight, stay tuned for my review later (done (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,695.msg85488.html#msg85488) ;D)
Post by: Najemikon on January 31, 2009, 07:35:19 PM
edit : I'll watch it tonight, stay tuned for my review later (done (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,695.msg85488.html#msg85488) ;D)
I read your review and it does look like a good laugh, but the best thing about the original movies was that they were taken seriously. That one is obviously making as much fun of about how they were made as anything in the story; for example, is it a story about a skeleton because that was the script, or because getting a skeleton model was cheaper? :laugh: Mars Attacks! takes itself seriously (in terms of the story) with a typical Tim Burton twist to it. Plus, as I said, it has a fantastic performance by Nicholson who has done his fair share of b-movies.
Post by: Najemikon on February 02, 2009, 01:31:58 AM
2 out of 5
Rachel and her son have survived their first encounter with Samara, but not without a price. She's trying to rebuild her life in a sleepy town when a local boy is found dead, in worryingly familiar circumstances. It soon becomes clear that Samara is now coming for the two of them, but why?
I always judge remakes -especially of foreign films- on how they stand up if the original didn't exist. Remakes are rarely better, but every now and then you drop across one that certainly did nothing wrong and was a watchable version. I thought the American Ring was like that. It was loud, brash and overdone, but the intricate storyline was intact and still powerful. Unfortunately this sequel to the remake is a missed opportunity, especially when directed by Hideo Nakata, director of the first Ringu.
Japanese horror films seem to generate a lot of impact by being made as simple dramas; no unnecessary editing or music and the actors play it straight. Howard Hawks once said, "no action without danger" and it makes a lot of sense. I get the impression Hideo is trying that here, but the score and cast are still being played like there is a ghost around every damn corner. Nothing can be accepted for what it is, it's overflowing with unresolved innuendo and furtive glances. It doesn't help that most of the cast are wooden or half-developed characters.
Naomi Watts is gorgeous as usual and does nothing particularly wrong and David Dorfman still impresses as Aidan coming across much older than his years, although I think he's being stretched in the last act. They're let down though by a murky, unfocused script and poor supporting characters. It tells you something when the most memorable is the ever reliable Gary Cole who is on screen for about 30 seconds. He gives the film a much needed slap in the face, but then goes away again.
Overall I quite liked the premise. Fitted in well with the mythology, as you'd expect. It just needed some... oomph! There's a scene toward the end in Samara's well that was great.
(click to show/hide)
All in all, this is a Asian-American fusion that has failed completely, taking the worst of both sides.
Note: there is an extra on the DVD, a short film acting as a sort of prelude to the first victim, that while being weak nevertheless makes me think it could have been a decent storyline for a sequel on its own. All the Rings start off with kids finding tapes and showing them to each other, scaring themselves shitless. Here they go one typical teen step further by forming a cult that records everything that happens after viewing the tape and seeing how close they can get to the 7 day deadline before showing it to the next person, a pre-appointed "tail". I liked the idea of them trying to play Samara at her own game for thrills.
Post by: Najemikon on February 02, 2009, 09:51:28 PM
3 out of 5
Lawrence (Michael Caine) is a sophisticated and successful conman, with a long established and lucrative spot on the Riviera, preying on rich single women. Freddy (Steve Martin) muscles in and Lawrence tries to get rid of him, thinking he's small fry, but Freddy has substantial skills and reluctantly Lawrence is forced to help him so he can be sure he's rid of him. Not all goes to plan and they resort to a bet: Janet (Glenne Headly).
This is a classy 80s comedy with just about the right amount of all ingredients to work very well without offending anyone. It isn't full of bellylaughs, but it's fun, working like an old Hollywood farce with a modern twist. Michael Caine is wonderful as Lawrence and the partnership with Steve Martin works beautifully. If you aren't keen on Martin's madder characters, be assured this isn't one of his full on lunatic roles, but he does have a couple of gems, like Ruprecht the Monkey Boy ("why does his fork have a cork?")! :hysterical: Even in this moments, Caine's mere presence keeps it all in check.
Post by: Najemikon on February 03, 2009, 02:01:39 AM
5 out of 5
Bill Murray is Phil, a cynical weatherman forced to report on Groundhog Day with his cheery producer (Andie McDowell). They're unable to return home because of a blizzard, but the next morning, Phil has bigger problems. He's not only trapped in the town, he's trapped in the same day.
February 2nd? What the hell, I thought! This is a fantastic film that is strong enough to be counted alongside It's A Wonderful Life. It's sold as a romantic comedy, but delivers so much more. But importantly, it works as well as any modern rom-com, with Bill Murray possibly at his best; he delivers all the one-liners and convinces in the many emotions Phil encounters on his years in the town. Probably years anyway. It's never explained or detailed, an important trait shared with Capra's fantasy. The reason and the conclusion are the important things, not the how. Certainly the character seems tailor made for him while Andie MacDowell is effortless in the role, which is amazing as she's done very little else.
It's a brilliant premise that allows all sorts of interpretations, from comic to romantic, via depression and suicide! And Bill is right there in every one, pitch perfect. Apparently the original script started in the middle, with Phil already underway in his nightmare, but here Hollywood convention and starting at the... well, start, is the far better idea. Gorgeous film.
Post by: addicted2dvd on February 03, 2009, 09:56:37 AM
Post by: richierich on February 03, 2009, 10:18:37 AM
Groundhog Day
5 out of 5
This is a fantastic film that is strong enough to be counted alongside It's A Wonderful Life.
I'm really surprised by your comments, I just can't warm to Bill Murray in many films, he seems so unconvincing. :shrug: In fact I lost interest in Bill Murray after Stripes, and that was some years ago! And as for Andie MacDowell, typical depthless performance and an assumption that everyone falls for a good old hometown girl - Pah!
Post by: Najemikon on February 03, 2009, 03:16:09 PM
Groundhog Day
5 out of 5
This is a fantastic film that is strong enough to be counted alongside It's A Wonderful Life.
I'm really surprised by your comments, I just can't warm to Bill Murray in many films, he seems so unconvincing. :shrug: In fact I lost interest in Bill Murray after Stripes, and that was some years ago! And as for Andie MacDowell, typical depthless performance and an assumption that everyone falls for a good old hometown girl - Pah!
Bill Murray is solid gold in my eyes, from everything like Stripes to Broken Flowers, via Royal Tenenbaums. And I find him particularly good in this. Andie MacDowell I thought was good too here. Her timing and delivery were spot on and there was real chemistry with Murray, especially when you consider he's trying to woo her over probably 10 years. I often felt like there were few others at the time could have found the cute/sparky balance. In comparison, the only other role I can think of hers where she was acceptable was Four Weddings, and actually, she was awful! Mind you, the script didn't treat her well, but Groundhog Day was just right.
She's a writer's or director's actress; obviously does exactly what she's told and sadly she hasn't been with the right crew very often.
Post by: Najemikon on March 05, 2009, 11:43:19 PM
4 out of 5
This is about a guy in a dead-end job/life, who is persuaded by a tough sexy woman to meet an enigmatic leader of a group of people with very special abilities, working outside of society. He has the same gifts and may hold the key for all their futures...
So far, so The Matrix. It's a shame the plot is so close because it detracts from what is essentially great fun and a shot of pure adrenalin right through your TV. It's bloody great, especially several action set-pieces that will have you on the edge of your seat.
In fact, taking the comparison with The Matrix a step further, it's more fun and better written, especially dialogue, with a stronger backstory that should be able to support the inevitable sequels. It's a bit hectic and overdone in places, which is where the smoother and darker Matrix will always win out (at least the first film), but damn, it's still fantastic!
Post by: Achim on March 06, 2009, 05:08:18 AM
WantedWhy, there were others...? :P
fact, taking the comparison with The Matrix a step further, it's more fun and better written, especially dialogue, with a stronger backstory that should be able to support the inevitable sequels. It's a bit hectic and overdone in places, which is where the smoother and darker Matrix will always win out (at least the first film), but damn, it's still fantastic!
Anyway, I enjoyed Wanted a lot (in the cinema) and have the Blu-ray at home waiting to be watched. While some stuff was flat out ridiculous (the way they received their orders who to kill next :headscratch:), despite maybe being based on the comic, the action set pieces were amazing. Looking forward to see yet more from Timor Busdhwsdwedwe (:-[).
Post by: Najemikon on March 08, 2009, 04:05:45 PM
4 out of 5
A lot of you have already reviewed this and I've little to add. I'm going to though! :laugh: I thought it was great, we film-lovers were spoiled last year by high-class superhero efforts with this and The Dark Knight. Although, has Goodguy reviewed this yet? :P
There are basically two types of comic story; a deep, contemplative study of the human condition, or blowing shit up and looking cool while doing it! Characters like Judge Dredd can do both, Batman tends to lean to the first and that's why The Dark Knight was a perfect realisation of the character. The great thing about Iron Man is that it also feels like a perfect realisation of the "blowing shit up/looking cool" story.
It's a thin, predictable plot, broadly told, but that just makes it easier to have indulgent fun with fantastic set-pieces and a great cast. RDJ is wonderful as is his snappy dialogue with everyone, including his robots. Paltrow doesn't have a lot to do, but she looks great while doing it. And Jeff Bridges must have relished a playing Stane. He's an obvious character, but very different to a lot of Bridges' previous.
The only real problem with the film is the plot. Like many origin films, the origin takes too much of the running time (though it's always fun) and the resolution of the first mission has to be tacked on, meaning when you think about it, there's very little of substance. Comics have the advantage of being able to concentrate on Issue 1, while only having to set-up an element for Issue 2 to pick up on. And of course, they can stretch out the character arc used here for months. I still think the best origin was Burton's take on Batman because he was able to tell it in ambiguous flashback and not cripple his main plot. That said, I do think Iron Man runs a good second, certainly better handled than Spider-Man or even Nolan's first Batman film.
I'm looking forward to the sequel because hopefully they'll get into something a bit deeper (The Shiny Knight?) before getting caught up in this multi-film arc that Marvel are attempting. I'm in two minds about that. Again it's a comic staple (not literally the little metal ones), but will it translate to films?
I'm also disappointed that Trevor Howard won't be back, with Rhodes to be played by Don Cheadle. I already think his role smacks of the producers thinking they got the wrong guy. Most of his stuff is in the deleted scenes and I think a couple of them would have been great, especially one which would make it clear how long Stark was in the cave, except the running time is already over two hours. I liked him though and I'm sorry he can't expand on it himself.
And remember the conversation Pete had in another thread regarding this film: keep watching till after the credits!
Post by: addicted2dvd on March 08, 2009, 04:12:47 PM
Post by: DJ Doena on March 08, 2009, 04:44:20 PM
Iron ManHuh, interesting.
Post by: goodguy on March 08, 2009, 06:46:26 PM
... we film-lovers were spoiled last year by high-class superhero efforts with this and The Dark Knight. Although, has Goodguy reviewed this yet? :P
No, he has neither seen nor reviewed it yet. But he has a soft spot for Robert Downey Jr., so he might be more forgiving. On a side note, he did like Ang Lee's Hulk and doesn't feel very compelled to watch the new one.
Post by: Najemikon on April 30, 2009, 09:42:04 PM
2 out of 5
Brennan (Will Ferrell) and Dale (John C. Reilly) are two middle-aged loafers who are forced to live together when their parents get married. When the reluctant step-siblings' immature antics over TV privileges and personal property take their toll on the marriage, the devious duo hatch a hysterical scheme to reunite the couple.
Oh dear. It seems Anchorman was a fluke. This isn't as bad as Talledega Nights, but it's nowhere near the lunacy of Adam McKay's first hit. He needs to do Anchorman 2 now.
As far as man-child films go, Big set the bar. I'd hoped that this would be Big, with knob and fart jokes. Nope, it's a sketch show. Admittedly with one very funny fart joke. Some sketches are good (bunk beds!), some are bad (anything with little brother in), but like all sketch shows, it really falls apart when they try to build meaning in and join up the sketches with a plot that stretches the thin premise way past breaking point. It fails miserably when they finally grow-up, moving from one extreme to another.
Everything is in place for it to work. Will Ferrell does this sort of thing very well and John C. Reilly continues to prove a worthy match. Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins are very good at making the parents believable. Jenkins is very funny when he swears at the same time as telling the "boys" off and his "Don't lose your dinosaur" speech worked well. But the far more successful younger brother (Adam Scott) was terrible. I think, to be honest, he was a piss-take of a Tom Cruise style ultra control freak, and if Cruise could have done it (which I'm sure he would have considered), it would have worked. Here, surely, it would have been better for him to simply be very normal? :shrug: Ferrell is so much of a cartoon character, it needed a foil. The affair between Dale and Alice was funny ("oooh, it's all slippery!" :devil:). The bullies were impossible to believe though and the shit-licking too far.*
But what really annoyed me is that my favourite, I-Have-To-See-This-Movie moment in the trailer, wasn't in the f***ing film. ARGH! I hate it when they do that. And this was the extended edition, too. :suicide:
*= Mind you I was shocked to see white dog shit. What causes it to be white? We had loads years ago, but it dissappeared in the 80s. The UK is all out of white dog poo! :laugh:
Post by: Jimmy on April 30, 2009, 10:09:04 PM
But what really annoyed me is that my favourite, I-Have-To-See-This-Movie moment in the trailer, wasn't in the f***ing film. ARGH! I hate it when they do that. And this was the extended edition, too. :suicide:If it is the case never watch an Harry Novak productions, since it always happen... But I don't think the risk are high that you will watch one :laugh:
Post by: Achim on May 02, 2009, 12:36:18 PM
Step BrothersI guess I would have to give it a 2 out of 5 as well. I haven's seen the whole film so rating it a 1 would be an uneducated decision; saw it in the airplane and turned it off after 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. (
2 out of 5
)
Post by: Najemikon on May 02, 2009, 01:46:12 PM
Step BrothersI guess I would have to give it a 2 out of 5 as well. I haven's seen the whole film so rating it a 1 would be an uneducated decision; saw it in the airplane and turned it off after 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. (
2 out of 5
You know I think it would have been genuinely hilarious if the exact same plot was done with actual teenagers, or twenty-somethings at least. It would have almost been ground-breaking because it would have been nothing like American Pie or current flavour of the month, Superbad. I know that wasn't the point, but the old-men as kids in a world that never questions the root of their behaviour ("Hello? You're 40! Stop being twats!") is one of those things that must have seemed a great idea, but quickly becomes an awkward crutch.
Post by: Achim on May 03, 2009, 04:48:59 PM
You know I think it would have been genuinely hilarious if the exact same plot was done with actual teenagers, or twenty-somethings at least.That's exactly what the (Cool) Shite on the Tube (http://www.coolshite.net/) guys said...
I agree that the whole setup was a rather bad idea.
Post by: Najemikon on May 11, 2009, 02:18:53 AM
3 out of 5
A Vietnam war film is fast becoming a liability. In a last ditch attempt at realism, the director (Steve Coogan) takes his principal cast of five into the jungle and leaves them. Unfortunately a local drug lord sees them as real soldiers while they think it's all part of the production.
This for the most part is good fun, especially if you enjoy the classic Vietnam movies like Platoon and Apocalypse Now, because when it frequently rips off those movies and the conventions of so many more, it does so in the best way possible: always with respect. The story is overall badly plotted. An old idea (Three Amigos, Galaxy Quest), yet it simply isn't focused enough. The first 30 minutes or so is fantastic though with several very funny gags all firing at the same time in a sequence that sees the idiot director napalm the jungle without the cameras rolling. The image of Jack Black dangling from a helicopter while this goes on (or off?) will stick with me for a long time! :laugh:
The film only falls apart completely in the middle section, just after a particularly high point when Coogan leaves his cast to fend for themselves. Ironically this is where many of the war films it takes as inspiration also collapse. Those bits between the battles, when it's soldiers just wandering through talky scenes. It doesn't help that a couple of plot points are really overplayed while it forgets the basic appeal of actors not realising it's real; I couldn't tell if any aside from Stiller were deluded or when they realised they weren't. One problem is frustratingly Black's drug addict actor. An obvious joke that he can't seem to find anything funny to latch onto, so we end up with a strangely neutered Jack Black until he can get back to more physical stuff (which he is very good at). Another issue is Stiller's Simple Jack character that caused some offence on the films release. While unfounded, it becomes really over-used and a major plot point when Stiller is captured by the drug-lord. Who, by the way, is about 12. Very annoying, and... why? Why not a normal middle aged drug lord? :shrug: Although the henchman in drag and the stabby toddler are great!
However, all this prevaricating does lead to a jump start for the final act and it finishes as it began. Funny gags and massive explosions! :clap:
What really enriches the film are the performances. Aside from poor plotting, the cast are really on form. Nick Nolte and Danny McBride form a bit a double-act that's simple, but works, while Stiller came in for criticism for doing the same endearingly stupid characters he always does, except, this is what he's good at and the story suits it. Black, when given the room, is always worth watching. Jay Baruchel is a good straight man for almost the whole squad and Brandon T Jackson as the only real black actor has some great dialogue with Robert Downey Jr., who's pretending. But then, everyone has great dialogue with him, because his performance is incredible. Very funny, all of the time, because his whole persona is so absurd and so much deeper than "Black face". That was another point that invited controversy by people who really missed the point. RDJ is not caught slacking on this performance for a single second and he brought almost everyone up a notch.
I say almost everyone because he didn't do any scenes with Matthew McConaughey and I thought he did a great job in a small role. He really needs to move away from rom-coms. He has so much more to offer. That he held is own in scenes with Tom Cruise is not too shabby, because if anyone could steal this movie from RDJ, it's Cruise. His extended cameo is wonderful!
It's obvious that Stiller had a gem of an idea that inspired the cast to work very well together in an environment so gorgeous it could photograph itself, so why was I left with the feeling it could have been much better? Just the plot let it down. Everything else was in place.
Post by: Achim on May 11, 2009, 06:37:21 AM
A friend of mone also complained that they didn't use real Chinese actors and the ones they used spoke terrible Chinese...
Post by: Najemikon on May 11, 2009, 11:18:30 AM
While I really liked the film and it makes me laugh a lot I agree with most your negative points, such as Jack Black's characters drug addiction being overused or the Simple Jack bit being too long. Although the latter inspired the great "You never go full retard!"
A friend of mone also complained that they didn't use real Chinese actors and the ones they used spoke terrible Chinese...
And they needed an excuse for Stiller to go deep for Brando in Apocalypse Now, I suppose. The dialogue when RDJ tries to talk him down is great! "I'm the dude playing the dude, playing another dude. You the dude don't know what dude he is!" :hysterical:
It frustrates me because I want to be more enthusiastic about the movie without spoiling it so all that's left to talk about are the weak bits.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on June 01, 2009, 09:49:40 PM
3 out of 5
Ok, I know a lot didn't like Ang Lee's The Hulk, but I thought it was one of the bravest and best comic adaptations so far. It just needed more mindless action. Well, we get that here in spades. Especially the mindless part.
It was a shame they seemed to quietly disregard the first film, as it was an excellent basis to start from. While the action with The Hulk is suitably relentless and rage-filled, the action with Bruce Banner on the run is too over the top, both thanks to Transporter director Letterier. For instance, the first act was a nice plot with Banner trying to keep his cool while falling for the local girl and fighting the local thugs. It made perfect sense for that to be reason enough to Hulk-out and cause a depressed Banner to go back on the run, after demolishing the town, but no; We have to have the stupid drop-of-blood coincidence bullshit, leading to all out fucking war. Nice cameo from Stan Lee, otherwise, too noisy and muddled. Good idea, screwed up.
In the cast, they had great actors capable of pulling off the balance between drama and action, but instead they drowned them in noise. Norton was especially good at showing Banner as scared by his own memories.
The effects were very good (again, nothing wrong with the "don't make me Ang Lee" version) and the middle action sequence particularly Incredible (nice documentary style camera work) and the final battle are great fun, with cute Hulk-isms (police car boxing gloves! Thunderclap! It speaks!), but this story deserves better. It is at heart, such a sad character and is capable of Frankenstein style empathy, but a brief musical interlude and funny cameo from Lou Ferrigno is the closest I think we will ever get to the charm of the TV series, or comic for that matter. Bruce Banner may soon be lost to a complicated multi-film arc and the chance to make a really good stand-alone version has passed.
It needed bigger, greener balls, but The Hulk was a far better film.
Post by: Jimmy on June 02, 2009, 12:05:22 AM
Post by: Najemikon on June 02, 2009, 12:25:15 AM
Thing is, I want to have a mini-marathon of those movies and give them the time they deserve. This is fun, Saturday night fodder. I will get to them soon. While I'm enjoying every second of the Hitchcock marathon, I am starting to miss other genres, like Western and Horror. My enthusiasm for another review I just posted shows I need a bit more blood and guts in my diet! :devil:
Post by: Jimmy on June 02, 2009, 03:35:56 AM
This is what I have
Mario Bava
5 Dolls for an August Moon
Baron Blood
Bay of Blood
Black Sabbath
Black Sunday
Four Times That Night
The Girl Who Knew too Much
Kidnapped
Kill, Baby...Kill!
Knives of the Avenger
Lisa and the Devil
The House of Exorcism
Planet of the Vampires
Roy Colt & Winchester Jack
Shock
Dario Argento
Deep Red
Inferno
Mother of Tears
Phenomena
Suspiria
Tenebre
The Card Player
The Stendhal Syndrome
Trauma
Post by: Achim on June 02, 2009, 06:16:14 AM
It made perfect sense for that to be reason enough to Hulk-out and cause a depressed Banner to go back on the run, after demolishing the town, but no; We have to have the stupid drop-of-blood coincidence bullshit, leading to all out fucking war. Nice cameo from Stan Lee, otherwise, too noisy and muddled. Good idea, screwed up.I am not a Hulk fanboy but I agree that the drop of blood thing was a ridiculous thing to do. I am also with you in that I also didn't think Ang Lee's Hulk was entirely bad; yes, the dogs were kind of stupid and Nick Nolte was chewing scenery left and right, but it had good intentions and I liked the comic book panel design. I am also apparently one of the few people who prefer the Hulk's look of the previous film; thjat's how I remembered him, kind of square-looking, not that tall skinny kind of look he has in the Incredible Hulk.
I don't know if Achim had ordered the two Bava's boxset in the Amazon sales, but if he had it would be great to do a Mario Bava and Dario Argento marathon.That's how I wanted to defend Jon, that he's waiting for me :devil: But yes, I did order the two sets; I usually post in the What Ya Got thread when I receive the stuff... I also wanted to order Aregnto's Phenomenon but that would have messed up the BOGOF sale for me; I will possibly order i8t during the DeepDiscount sale which is hopefully coming soon. I am definitely looking forward to watch these films parallel with you guys.
Post by: Jimmy on June 02, 2009, 07:58:09 AM
By the way, if The Stendhal Syndrome is available at Deep Discount when their sale will happen take a chance on it. This is the best film that Argento had directed since Phenomena, not an horror film at all but a real confusing artistic experience (I think that Blue Underground had released it on Blue Ray) starring his daughter.
Post by: goodguy on June 02, 2009, 06:57:57 PM
... "don't make me Ang Lee" version ...
:hysterical: :hysterical: That is a so f-ing obvious pun, yet it never occured to me.
Post by: Najemikon on June 02, 2009, 07:17:51 PM
... "don't make me Ang Lee" version ...
:hysterical: :hysterical: That is a so f-ing obvious pun, yet it never occured to me.
:laugh: Sadly, I can't claim it. I heard it somewhere and it always amused me!
Post by: Achim on June 02, 2009, 07:51:53 PM
I'll be waiting for you than and Jon won't have any excuse for not watching them :tease:I'll try to remember to look out for it. My shopping cart is basically rather full already, so it might not make the cut.
By the way, if The Stendhal Syndrome is available at Deep Discount when their sale will happen take a chance on it. This is the best film that Argento had directed since Phenomena, not an horror film at all but a real confusing artistic experience (I think that Blue Underground had released it on Blue Ray) starring his daughter.
Post by: Najemikon on June 15, 2009, 11:03:58 PM
4 out of 5
They don't make 'em like this anymore! A decent solid thriller, adult themed bone-crunching action. They try to make John Rambo a deep character, but it really boils down to a modern day Western where the line between good and bad is distinct. Therefore the only kill is accidental. But that doesn't stop it appearing brutal. Damn, I miss the days when action movies were for kids to try and watch secretly, not waltz in the cinema to see a 12a version. I know I'm sliding off-topic, but Rambo, Terminator, Commando, Robocop, Aliens, were all of a certain, gung-ho flavour. Now coming to a theatre near you in glorious PG crap.
Stallone is great as Rambo, before he let the cartoon action seep into the sequels. This Stallone, and the one in Rocky and Nighthawks, is far more interesting than the one he came to be. You forget he can be a decent writer and actor; check out the scene he calls in interviews an "emotional death". Powerful stuff considering this is a pretty basic setup. From the rest of the cast, Brian Dennehey stands out. He was once the go-to-guy for this sort of movie and frankly I miss him. He last turned up in 30 Rock and Stallone could have done worse than find him a slot in The Expendables.
It surprised me how pretty the film is. Gorgeous locations in the mountains really benefit from Blu-Ray. Some bits are grainy, but check out the cave sequence and the waterfalls. The explosion, courtesy of some "weekend warriors" works well too.
It's odd, but if you have a certain image of Rambo from the sequels, it's worth looking this up because you'll probably be surprised. It's an assured action flick which straddles the gritty 70s and the excessive 80s (pretty much all the Colonel's dialogue: "200? If you're sending that many, make sure you've got plenty of body bags!").
Post by: Jimmy on June 15, 2009, 11:34:16 PM
Stallone is great as Rambo, before he let the cartoon action seep into the sequels. This Stallone, and the one in Rocky and Nighthawks, is far more interesting than the one he came to be.I don't know if you have seen F.I.S.T (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077531/) but he is good in this one too. Keep in mind that it isn't an action movie, but an unofficial retelling of the career of Jimmy Hoffa with the Teamster syndicate.
Post by: Najemikon on July 12, 2009, 05:51:08 PM
3 out of 5
This is a fairly decent sequel, though it does lose much of the power and point of the first. On one hand it's a thin excuse for Rambo to go a bit more killing machine than in the first part, but at the same time, the screenplay (co-written by action maestro James Cameron) does balance very well. The story needs a silly contrivance to get Rambo out of the prison term he's been serving, and Trautman is still talking bollocks, but the heart of the story (American POWs left behind in Vietnam) is a good progression of the first and another indictment of how the US handled their part of that war.
The action itself is fantastic, if dumb, iconic stuff. Rambo without a leash, happily killing faceless enemy soldiers, is great to watch and the cathartic last act (helicopters, and dealing with the suits!) is just a perfect ending.
According to the interview on the disc, Stallone seems to be trying to distance himself from both this and part 3, which is typical of him. He's got a point about the next one, but this is the best sort of sequel, especially for the time it was released.
Post by: Najemikon on July 12, 2009, 06:07:04 PM
2 out of 5
What an unfortunate title. After the sheer, wonderful brilliance of Tremors, the sequel could only be a disappointment, but it was still good fun. This, though, is about as far from "Perfection" as you can get.
Tremors used it's budget to great effect with some brilliant use of gory effects and the next film continued that, but introduced CGi to handle the more ambitious second-stage creatures. Here, it's almost exclusively CGi and it's bloody awful. The film quality deteriorates every time CGi is about to be used! And frankly, the new "ass blaster" form is pathetic. Flying versions of the Shriekers powered by farts? Good grief.
The best parts of the film are those with the original style worm, called El Blanco, a sterile albino worm seemingly very fond of Burt (Michael Gross) and the sequence where he gets eaten was very Men In Black and hilarious! The Shriekers would have been acceptable too, but we never actually see them (apart from a prologue sequence which is just terrible).
It was nice to see several of the original actors returning, especially the kids (including Ariana Richards, who did Jurassic Park between these), but the Burt character was never ideal for lead, especially without Reba McEntire at his side.
Post by: Najemikon on July 12, 2009, 06:24:38 PM
2 out of 5
Big improvement on number 3, probably down to going back to the second films director, S.S. Wilson (he's a better director than his writing partner Maddock who did part 3), but unfortunately falls flat. It's set in the old West where Burt's great-grandfather owns a silver mine close to the town that would become Perfection in the original film and Michael Gross plays this version of Burt too, called Hiram. He's a very different character who can't use guns, though he learns and it is cute to see the burgeoning obsession beginning. He handles the lead better than he did as Burt in the previous film, but that just underlines how different the film is in style.
The mine has been attacked by "Dirt Dragons" and luckily we're back to basics at least. No silly ass blasters here, just your basic common variety of Graboid. And the writers (who have been the same throughout the series and also did Short Circuit!) obviously have a lot of affection for their creations and have managed to make a rather faithful little period version.
Unfortunately they forgot to make it funny. It's quite serious, surprisingly, so although the characters, effects and plot, all hinge together nicely, it's a bit boring. They don't even try to use the Western angle properly, settling for a sombre tale of a town struggling to make ends meet; I'd have liked to have seen a couple of bona-fide cowboys get eaten, horses and all, for instance. There was one gun-fighter, and he didn't call the worm "Varmint" once!
It's a pleasant film to watch without any effort and for absolute Tremor fanatics, some nice links to the earlier characters, but the whooping b-movie crowd the original seemed made for, will find nothing to get excited about here.
Post by: Najemikon on July 20, 2009, 08:59:06 PM
4 out of 5
This film is pure filth! And absolutely brilliant for it. Why does Kevin Smith always seem to be on the sidelines while Apatow has the Midas touch? Smith has been doing it longer and better. The only thing I can think of is that films like Knocked Up play it relatively safe. Much as I enjoy them (although Superbad was a misfire for me) they always feel quite generic by the end. While this also is also predictable (unavoidable in this genre, though Smith did well with Chasing Amy), but it maintains a high standard throughout.
Critics of Kevin Smith films often accuse him of naivety. While I can sometimes see their point, I just think he's a very honest writer. He goes as dirty as he possibly can and matches it at the other end in sentimentality. It's no more sentimental than identikit crap like Sandra Bullock phones in every couple of years and at least this has some bite.
The adorable Elizabeth Banks rounds out a typical View Askew potty-mouthed cast. Her relationship with Seth Rogen feels genuine and while he's playing a similar part to Knocked Up, this feels more natural.
Overall it's a similar format to Clerks, in fact it borders on autobiographical for Kevin Smith who made his first film in the shop where he worked, blanking out the windows, foregoing sleep and getting his mates to help. I bet when he had the idea for Clerks, he considered a porno!
Post by: Achim on July 21, 2009, 06:17:01 AM
I quite enjoyed Superbad (maybe because I like Freaks & Geeks as well as Undeclared?) and Knocked Up will be in my upcoming DeepDiscount order. However, I agree that the Apatow film almost come across as fluff compared to Kevin Smith.
I own the Blu-ray, but I think the special features are almost the same as the DVD and give great insight of the making of this film.
Post by: Najemikon on July 21, 2009, 01:31:03 PM
While some people found it to be one of the funniest scenes, I must the the "chocolate mousse" scene was the only one that somewhat bothered me.
I thought that I should be bothered by it, but I wasn't! :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on July 23, 2009, 11:03:39 PM
2 out of 5
As a straightforward action movie, they don't come much more fun that Rambo 3. The octane level is definitely set to high and his ruthless despatching of Rushkies is thrilling stuff. But it's all bollocks.
First Blood had a point, something to say. The sequel had more fun, was largely unnecessary, but held onto some dignity. Here, he is a full blown cartoon character. He's still beating up Russians, continuing from the previous outing, so at least there's half an idea continuing the thread and providing a link into someone else's war. It's all tenuous though and then goes completely OTT where he seemingly faces off against an entire battalion.
Good job the Taliban are there to help him. :devil:
Yes, it's also a bit dated due to current events. It hardly matters actually, but when the movie is already not very good, it's fun to be picky! I can recommend this as a double-bill with Charlie Wilson's War... :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on July 24, 2009, 10:39:02 PM
3 out of 5
I tend to be cynical about Stallone. Once again he is crapping on earlier movies, insinuating in interviews that Rambo 3 (or even 2) is not what he intended in retrospect. Well, he wrote them, they made the character an icon, and he was always capable of more realism should he have chosen to do so. Strange he manages to do that now when his career was all but over. (see also, Rocky Balboa). He could never have made this, 20 years on, if the sequels hadn't been as dumb fun as they were.
But this is being picky, because right now, we have a pretty good movie in Rambo, that feels more like the first in terms of character, and brings him full circle. It also opens up the debate on screen violence. He was going for realism, but bloody hell this is violent! Rambo for the Hostel generation?
Maybe, but it is only the same realism we've seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. What is making critics uncomfortable, leading them to call this "offensive", is that Rambo is first and foremost entertainment. Personally, the only problem I have with it is that it may alienate an audience who would otherwise enjoy this outing, but to call it offensive is a serious case of double-standards. Stallone never treats life as a cheap commodity here. He's dialled the character back to the self-loathing monk of First Blood and it emphasises the massive body count as a tragic consequence, not a score-sheet, unlike other action films.
Also, it's easy to be critical, but in choosing Burma he is lifting the lid slightly on an horrendous situation that is relatively unknown. So if the average guy watches this, cheering on the hero has he treats endless enemy soldiers like giant water balloons filled with gore, then makes a connection while watching the news reports about Karen rebels or Aung San Suu Kyi, then that's a worthwhile first step, surely.
Back on the pure entertainment front, I haven't bothered to go on about the plot, because you already know if you have half-a-chance of liking it! Suffice to say, I have nothing against a part 5. Stallone still looks convincing even at 60+! There was an abandoned idea for this outing that could still work, just so long as he doesn't get too successful in the meantime. The successful Sly Stallone can't write for shit.
Post by: goodguy on July 24, 2009, 11:01:53 PM
Also, it's easy to be critical, but in choosing Burma he is lifting the lid slightly on an horrendous situation that is relatively unknown. So if the average guy watches this, cheering on the hero has he treats endless enemy soldiers like giant water balloons filled with gore, then makes a connection while watching the news reports about Karen rebels or Aung San Suu Kyi, then that's a worthwhile first step, surely.
Frankly, I don't get this argument. To me, the most offensive thing about this movie is the prominently used archive footage. This is pure exploitation, and it really is the worst kind.
Post by: Najemikon on July 25, 2009, 03:02:50 AM
Also, it's easy to be critical, but in choosing Burma he is lifting the lid slightly on an horrendous situation that is relatively unknown. So if the average guy watches this, cheering on the hero has he treats endless enemy soldiers like giant water balloons filled with gore, then makes a connection while watching the news reports about Karen rebels or Aung San Suu Kyi, then that's a worthwhile first step, surely.
Frankly, I don't get this argument. To me, the most offensive thing about this movie is the prominently used archive footage. This is pure exploitation, and it really is the worst kind.
I don't disagree with that, Matthias. The film opens with it and I thought, this is just cheap laziness of the worst kind. Just shows Stallone's naivety. The rest of the film felt more like the throwaway action junk I was expecting and the fact it was set in Burma was enough. Apparently if you are caught watching Rambo in Burma, you get 10 years inside!
Post by: Najemikon on July 25, 2009, 03:17:32 AM
1 out of 5
I was lucky enough to catch this on TV tonight. You see, I was trying to think of something really painful and futile to do, and had just decided to stick pins in my eyes and hit myself in the balls with a mallet, when this came on. Within minutes, the masochist in me realised this was far more excruciating! Joy!
It is unbelievably awful. Busta Rhymes? Busta bloody Rhymes versus Michael Myers? The shame! The whole thing is a terrible joke. Like all truly bad films, at the heart there is something intriguing, otherwise it would just be boring. This had this slightly-not-terrible idea of having a bunch of teenagers explore the original house while feeding footage back to the Internet. Cool! Nostalgia and all that. Unfortunately, no-one at any stage from inception to execution had any idea how to actually capitalise on it.
So you have the same scene repeated endlessly. Michael looking really dumb, being really predictable and barely moving, while he half-heartedly sticks his knife into the next squeaky acting class reject. Then they'd get away... by running back into the house. Yeah, that works. Whatever. Where's my mallet?
Post by: addicted2dvd on July 25, 2009, 03:37:19 AM
Of course right about now (24 days horror free) I could almost watch The Sorority again! :o :surrender:
Post by: Jimmy on July 25, 2009, 03:52:14 AM
I could almost watch The Sorority again! :o :surrender:Does it means that you will start your marathon with it? :whistle:
I was lucky enough to catch this on TV tonight.Reading only the title my reaction was "he really scratch the bottom of the barrel here and why he own this dvd", but you were fast to correct my idea :laugh:
Post by: addicted2dvd on July 25, 2009, 03:58:59 AM
I could almost watch The Sorority again! :o :surrender:Does it means that you will start your marathon with it? :whistle:
Absolutely not! Once I am able to watch my horror again I will be watching all my favorites as well as a bunch of new ones I never seen before. I so can't wait! Unfortunately I have a LONG wait ahead of me. :stars:
Post by: Achim on July 25, 2009, 06:19:45 AM
Reading only the title my reaction was "he really scratch the bottom of the barrel here and why he own this dvd", but you were fast to correct my idea :laugh:Sadly I found it really cheap at DeepDiscount once and bought it, thinking I wanted to have all of the Halloweens with Jame in them. Apparently Jamie was sick and tired of them herself
(click to show/hide)
Post by: addicted2dvd on July 25, 2009, 12:53:42 PM
Post by: Najemikon on July 31, 2009, 01:26:10 PM
5 out of 5
After recovering from the utter bollocks that was Halloween: Resurrection, I thought I'd have another look at the original. Peerless. One of the very best slasher movies ever made before anyone really knew what a slasher movie was.
The atmosphere is consistently foreboding, thanks to Carpenter's wide open shots and the classic theme. I love how the screen-title comes up, after the audacious start and Michael's escape from the hospital, "Haddonfield, October 31", then as it changes to the word "Halloween" the music kicks in and completely alters your peception of the quiet little town.
Scream-Queen Jamie Lee Curtis has rarely been better and Donald Pleasance has great fun hamming it up as the Dcotor who is the only one who understands the threat to the town. Much of the films atmosphere is generated before Michael is on-screen, but he has a fantastic presence once he is. The whole concept of the character is brilliantly engineered and he is the best movie serial killer of them all when compared against the almost cartoon like Freddy and Jason's. Of course, I'm not including the sequels! No need. The power of this original film has never been compromised by the unnecessary franchise.
Even part 2 was only written by Carpenter to protect the rights, but he could hardly see the point. Ok, there's the supernatural twist that shows Michael is unstoppable, but that didn't mean they had to follow it up. It just left Michael as a legend, the Boogie Man who may not have even existed.
By the way, if you get a chance to see the TV version, it's worth a look. While making part 2, Carpenter came on set and directed a couple of scenes to insert into the original as they had had to cut it for violence, but keep up the length!
Post by: Najemikon on August 08, 2009, 02:01:39 AM
3 out of 5
Joe is a mysterious loner, forced to join the army or face a prison sentence for a recent violent past. Before then, he has no idea having suffered amnesia. But what he does know, and what everyone else is about to find out, is that he has skills to match the fabled Ninja assassins of Japan.
American Ninja is a perfect example of the cheesy action movies that defined the 80s. Lets get one thing straight; this movie is not good. It's poorly written, badly acted and has some woeful directing. The rating of a generous 3 out of 5 is on pure entertainment. Some of the martial arts is fairly well done, Steve James (as Curtis "Powerhouse" Jackson) is head and shoulders above everyone else and the script is good enough to recognise it, Dudikoff has something that could pass for screen charisma (or maybe it's trapped wind, it's hard to tell) and when all that fails, it's so bad, it's funny!
The story is basic, but does the job. Joe and Curtis uncover a plot to smuggle guns and the smuggler, posing as a respected business man with spies in the army and police, has a Ninja master as a bodyguard, leading a Ninja army for security. It's absurd, of course, but it bats along with several scraps (although it often falls into the trap of all cheap kung fu movies where bad guys wait patiently to be dispatched with the lightest of contact!) and a hefty dose of silliness provided by comedy sidekick Charlie, gung-ho Captain Hickock, but most of all Steve James. He gets some great lines and delivers them with relish and by the end he's a one man killing machine. Great fun! Duddikoff does enough to carry the film, but you'll watch it for James.
But the best thing about this movie? Ninja's are fucking cool. Nuff said.
Post by: Najemikon on August 08, 2009, 03:26:45 PM
2 out of 5
Joe and Curtis are assigned to an island where the local Marines are being kidnapped and there had been a rumour of Ninja involvement.
The first movie had a cool idea and got by on enthusiasm, if not talent. This is so bad it's hilarious. Steve James is really struggling now to look like he belongs in this rubbish and still gets the best lines. Michael Dudikoff is doing his thing and looks the part. The choreography was never fantastic, but aside from one or two moments, feels laboured. The enemy Ninjas are now little more than sparring partners in funny pajamas. I think the notion of what a Ninja actually is has been forgotten. Still, Dudikoff has some skills and the fights are always fun.
In a franchise (snigger) like this, you expect things to get repeated. So it's still a high class business man as the villain, trying to persuade others to buy into his diabolical scheme (genetically modified Ninja this time. Why? How do I know? It's just a great idea, so why not use it! :whistle:), while using a tamed Ninja master and his army for security. The last act is verbatim from the first film: Joe goes in alone, while Curtis gets tooled up, shouts his catchphrase ("Let's kick some ass!") and him and the marines ride in. James is always worth watching with his kiss-off lines to all the Ninjas.
But what makes this film very funny is the amount of little things that get repeated, even beyond the plot; they have a comedy sidekick called Charlie, who's different to the first Charlie! And their captain is nicknamed "Wild Bill", while in the first film he was Hickock! Brilliant. The only difference here is the guy who plays the Captain is the worst actor I have ever seen. Still has a by-the-book sergeant helping or hindering him, just like the first film.
It's just lazier overall, but funnier for it. For instance, you can see Dudikoff's stunt double as much as you can see Dudikoff! He's even used in an office scene! :hysterical: I've tried to find it on YouTube, but no dice so far.
Post by: Najemikon on August 15, 2009, 01:26:01 PM
5 out of 5
A while ago in another thread, I suggested that Titanic was the right film to win the Best Picture award over L.A. Confidential because it was old- fashioned romantic fantasy that Hollywood was built on. That's rubbish. Since I last saw both films I've seen a lot more Film Noir and while it was always an under-valued genre, it's even more clear to me now just how superb this modern entry is. In fact, it is a gem to judge older Film Noir by and can stand alongside classics like A Touch of Evil or Double Indemnity. Titanic is excellent, but still bloated and predictable (and no, not because the boat sinks!) and while melodrama was one of the foundations of Hollywood in the 50s, no-one remembers them. This, is a proper film for proper film fans. The stories deep-rooted ties with L.A. at the height of Hollywood glamour is the icing on the cake.
It's easy to have rose-tinted spectacles and assume that modern versions of a long-forgotten staple of cinema simply can't be as good, but like Unforgiven before it, L.A. Confidential is a defining example of its genre. Much of this is thanks to the hard-bitten novel it's based on by James Ellroy, whose wonderful story is perfect Noir, especially in the Femme Fatale of never-better Kim Basinger; she is dangerous to the men around her, but vulnerable as well. It entwines beautifully with Hollywood legend (even notorious Johnny Stompanato is featured, along with Lana Turner in a very funny scene!).
Basinger is a high-class escort, who looks like Veronica Lake, and the key for the L.A.P.D. to uncover David Strathairn's sleazy business and his corrupted political friends. It comes down to three men to go above and beyond, played to perfection by Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce and Kevin Spacey, and it's a joy to watch these three because none were the superstar actors they are now, so the roles are not compromised in the slightest. They're supported by James Cromwell as Captain Dudley Smith and Danny DeVito as sleazy Sid Hudgens. The cast is simply note-perfect throughout.
They're helped by the wonderful dialogue in Brian Helgeland's and Curtis Hanson's screenplay. What is it with Helgeland? He's either churning out gold like this and Payback, or guff like Sin Eater. But even harder to understand is Hanson, who also directed. Apart from the fantastic Wonder Boys, he's done nothing else of note. The earlier River Wild was fun, but Die Hard on-a-river is something anyone can do.
The film is gorgeous to look at, with the production never looking fake, and there are moments that can take the breath away, especially the climax (cinematographer Dante Spinotti coming into his own) or Bud White losing his temper and destroying an office! Like everyone else involved, Jerry Goldsmith finds his best form and produces a score to match the pacing, ever-present, but never over-powering.
L.A. Confidential is very special indeed and much of it is down to Hanson, somehow making a film that you think Scorcese could easily have done, yet I'd suggest doing it better, so utterly convincing is his picture of the sleaze and corruption behind the red carpet culture. His Goodfella's style opening doesn't feel as indulgent as that oft-overrated film and the pacing is sharper where it needs to be. I'm not saying Hanson could pull off something of Taxi Driver standards, but he proves here he can mix it with the best of them. So where is he? Apparently this was the film he dreamed of making, so perhaps he is content. And perhaps he should be, because this film is so brilliant, yet everyone involved makes it look easy. It has a style and rhythm other films can only dream of. The Academy should be deeply ashamed.
Post by: Najemikon on August 16, 2009, 12:42:54 PM
3 out of 5
I must have seen this film a dozen times since I was a kid. It's fundamentally a bit rubbish, but at least it's simple; Tom Hanks and Shelley Long buy a mansion on the cheap, thinking they have a good deal, but it disintegrates around them and they need an army of builders to put it back together. But the plot has bigger holes than the house!
I love it though, because it's consistently hilarious and contains a couple of the funniest things I've ever seen in a film (the stairs! The bath! :hysterical:) and it's so optimistic. It's feel-good slap-stick and should be taken for what it is.
Critics seemed to agree that this was beneath Tom Hanks, but he makes the film (I suppose that was kind of their point). He is so good at this sort of stuff, I wish he'd do more even now. The afore-mentioned bath scene is fantastic simply because how he reacts.
Ok, it's just a bunch of farcical sketches joined together by a poor attempt at a plot, but your sides will feel like they're going to burst!
Post by: Dragonfire on August 17, 2009, 08:34:50 AM
I remember when I first saw the trailer I wasn't sure what was supposed to be going on, but I was sure I didn't want to see it. I even stuck by that for a while, but I started to change my mind...I'm still not sure why. I did end up seeing it after Titanic. At the time, I thought Titanic was better. Now, I know L.A. Confidential is the better movie and it definitely should have won best picture. It's just a better movie all around.
I saw Titanic 2 times in the theater...and I haven't watched it again since. I have probably seen L.A. Confidential at least 15 times. I had it on VHS and now I have 2 DVD versions.
Post by: Achim on August 17, 2009, 10:45:31 AM
Post by: Najemikon on August 29, 2009, 04:55:49 PM
3 out of 5
Taken is a solid, unambitious thriller with plenty of bone-crunching action. If you love action movies, then this is for you. It's pacy and violent, with none of that pesky plot stuff to get in its way and if it did, Liam Neeson would just cut its balls off. That's the kind of straight-forward film this is.
Ok, if you want to get picky, then the script is lazy, convenient and predictable, almost insultingly so in the last act where it resembles a typical cathartic game plot, with a daft escape from certain death and a string of bad guys leading up to the "boss". It's got the style of The Bourne Identity, but filtered through black and white 80s brutality. Typically for that era, it's also reassuringly xenophobic. This is doing for France what Hostel did for Amsterdam and Slovakia; American kids are fair game, apparently!
I don't give a damn though. It steams through the plot holes with glorious, vicious momentum. It's great, nasty fun and if Parisian producer Luc Besson is happy to reduce his home town to a tourist hell-hole, then we shouldn't mind watching. The pedigree of the modern Euro-thriller can easily be traced back to Besson's Leon, but recently he seems content producing old-fashioned stuff like this and Transporter. Taken owes a lot more to Bourne than anything else, with good solid car chases and fist fights. It takes itself very seriously, with no trace of irony and it works because of Liam Neeson. He is fantastic as a cold-hearted arse-kicker. In fact, get him in Bourne 4! He could take that wuss Matt Damon, no trouble! ;)
Post by: goodguy on August 30, 2009, 07:43:35 AM
Taken ***
...
It steams through the plot holes with glorious, vicious momentum.
As I said in my comments, I found the first half hour (of 90min total) tiresome. I felt like Willow at Graduation Day (Ascend already). I understand that the writers wanted to setup the character in some way, but it really doesn't work at all.
Post by: Najemikon on August 30, 2009, 12:18:01 PM
Taken ***
...
It steams through the plot holes with glorious, vicious momentum.
As I said in my comments, I found the first half hour (of 90min total) tiresome. I felt like Willow at Graduation Day (Ascend already). I understand that the writers wanted to setup the character in some way, but it really doesn't work at all.
I thought it did though perhaps not as they intended. The clumsiness suited the out dated plot. On a related point I saw a review where a lady felt seriously offended by the flippant treatment of sex trafficking. She's right, but that's these films all over... I enjoyed it for the bad-film nostalgia as much anything else!
Post by: Najemikon on August 30, 2009, 02:41:52 PM
Post by: Najemikon on August 30, 2009, 03:05:48 PM
3 out of 5
Andy Samberg is Rod Kimble, a deluded stunt-man. Deluded, because he is crap! All he really wants is respect from his step-father Frank (Ian McShane) by beating him in a fight, but then Frank falls ill and without a heart transplant, will die. Rod can't stand the thought of not having the chance to beat him fair and square so with help from his gang and Isla Fisher, sets out to raise $50000 by staging a huge stunt.
Hot Rod is very silly, but very funny too. Produced by Will Ferrell, his touch is all over it. In another film, say Step Brothers, Ferrell himself would have unwisely taken the lead role. In fact, this is the film Step Brothers should have been. While Rod is a complete prat, Samberg manages to get you rooting for him. It has a lot more heart than many similar comedies.
That includes Anchorman, to which this seems to get unfairly compared. That film is considerably funnier than Hot Rod (and most others, to be fair!), but crucially, it can generate a lot of its humour from not being in any way realistic. Hot Rod, although clumsy, is easier to identify with. I knew kids like Rod Kimble, and who hasn't had scraps with their dad that border on domestic abuse? Especially with Sissy Spacek as Rod's mum, completely ignoring the violence! :)
The humour is very slapstick, with the funniest scenes usually ending with Rod in a crumpled heap. The soundtrack is great, all 80s power ballads, and there's one inspired moment where they rip-off Kevin Bacon's "punch-dancing" from Footloose. Despite being childish and criminally underusing the wonderful Isla Fisher, it's great fun and very watchable.
Post by: Najemikon on August 30, 2009, 03:31:59 PM
3 out of 5
Peter (Jason Segel) is dumped by his girlfriend of five years, TV star Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell) and goes to Hawaii to forget. Unfortunately Sarah is at the same resort with her new boyfriend, a British pop-star (Russell Brand)
Forgetting Sarah Marshall is the closest yet that the Apatow run of comedies (40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up) have come to the Kevin Smith brand of heartwarming romantic comedy via outrageous gags, and while it's more the quality of Mallrats than Chasing Amy, it's a very well written and faithful script by star Jason Segel. Part of me wishes it was funnier, but maybe that would compromise the characters.
They are all very believable. Each person has their good and bad sides; nobody is perfect and everybody is in for criticism. That's important because they feel real whereas normally in a rom-com, lead characters go on "journeys" while the supporting cast don't change at all and it's vomit inducing. Here they are all well rounded. Segel in particular is nakedly honest (literally so in a couple of unfortunate scenes!) and his Dracula The Musical moments (apparently a genuine project Segel wrote years ago) work as both poignant and possibly the funniest thing in the film. Kristen Bell perhaps has the hardest job, because she's the villain of the piece, so putting across her point of view is an uphill struggle. Far better is her new boyfriend. Russell Brand plays himself really, but is far more than a mere cameo and he is excellent at portraying several layers. If anything, he is the most grounded. I know Brand in real life is Marmite to many people, but even if you detest him, don't let him put you off because not liking his character can reap rewards. Mila Kunis is adorable (oh, the irony of her voicing Meg in Family Guy!), while Jack McBrayer almost steals the show with his attempts to consummate his recent marriage. "God put our mouths on our head's for a reason!" :laugh:
The middle section is very messy and seems to waste time, but it comes good in the end by continuing to surprise, even when resorting to predictable convention. Even then, I thought they'd written themselves into a corner, but it resolves gracefully. Overall I think Segel has a better ear for dialogue than the other Apatow films have showed, as they occasionally lapse into moments of being too clever for their own good. Still, they are much funnier.
Note: like any Apatow DVD, this is stuffed with extras, but personally I'd avoid them. I ruined Knocked Up for myself by watching the hours of deleted scenes, gag reels, abandoned ad-libbing, etc. The Line-O-Rama feature is a case in point; take one scene and show the 20 or so alternative lines in quick succession. Argh!
Post by: Najemikon on August 30, 2009, 03:59:34 PM
4 out of 5
Juno (Ellen Page) is 16 years old and pregnant. She can't bring herself to have an abortion, so she decides to continue the pregnancy for a childless couple (Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman).
This isn't the sort of film I'd normally go for, but I've heard so much about Diablo Cody's script that I wanted to see it. I really enjoyed it for that reason. It's humble, but very sharp, unpredictable, smart and frequently funny. I don't know any 16 year-olds, let alone pregnant ones, but I think the average teenager should be pleased by this adult representation. It doesn't feel as accurate as a John Hughe's Breakfast Club, but if all teens were this well grounded, even while experimenting against better judgment, the world would be a happier place. Perhaps it's a bit of a fantasy in that respect, but a fun one at least.
Ellen Page is particularly good. She's a smart-arse and every other line is quote worthy, but while any decent actress can deliver a zinger or ten, Page also puts across the emotion and the story has a poignancy because of that. Juno, both character and film, never get too clever for their own good. The rest of the cast are all solid too, well served by characters that refuse to be conventional. And it's reassuringly positive; J.K. Simmons is great as Juno's dad anyway, but the moment he finds out about the pregnancy is fantastic. Michael Cera is great too. The overview calls him "charmingly unassuming" and I can't think of a better way to put it.
In keeping with the overall tone, the ending is realistic. It isn't a neat, happy ever after fantasy, but dependable optimism. It is a wonderful example of a very good script being brought to life by brilliant, honest acting throughout.
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 30, 2009, 04:30:35 PM
Post by: goodguy on August 30, 2009, 06:22:58 PM
Juno ****
...
This isn't the sort of film I'd normally go for
...
Ellen Page is particularly good.
You should definitely give Hard Candy a try, which was the first movie that got a her a somewhat wider attention. It probably also is more up to your alley. And if you are feeling really adventurous: The Tracey Fragments, which I reviewed here some time ago.
Post by: Najemikon on August 30, 2009, 08:08:27 PM
Juno ****
...
This isn't the sort of film I'd normally go for
...
Ellen Page is particularly good.
You should definitely give Hard Candy a try, which was the first movie that got a her a somewhat wider attention. It probably also is more up to your alley. And if you are feeling really adventurous: The Tracey Fragments, which I reviewed here some time ago.
I've been meaning to. Catch Hard Candy for some time, but I'll certainly look out for the other one too, thanks, Matthias.
I've a feeling you'd like Juno, Pete. Jennifer Garner is in it too and she's very good. Tough role actually and it develops nicely.
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 30, 2009, 08:14:21 PM
I will definitely have to remember to pick it up some time soon.
Post by: Najemikon on September 13, 2009, 09:05:53 PM
4 out of 5
This is one of the best buddy cop thrillers, with Mel Gibson and Danny Glover forming a great odd couple, obviously relishing Shane Black's great dialogue. Along with Richard Donner's sparky direction and the jazzy, Christmas-y soundtrack, it makes for very solid entertainment. Gibson is central to it with an incredible performance; more Mad Max than anything, but he makes it poignant too.
It's these elements that help it hold up over the years, but what doesn't is the dreadful ending. The plot seems to completely lose it's way once it reverts to a predictable thread of putting Murtaugh's family in danger, and it lazily ignores any form of logic to end up in a silly fight on a front lawn, after they destroy the front of Murtaugh's house when there really wasn't any need. And the way L.A.'s finest just gather to watch the scrap is slightly worrying.
Maybe that's what Black and Donner were after, considering the L.A.P.D.'s history, but still, it is at odds with the much slicker first half. Overall Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a finer film, but ironically, this has the bigger bangs by some considerable margin. The action never lets up and is rightly a classic of the genre for it. Giving the characters ex-military backgrounds meant they were never going for subtle!
Post by: addicted2dvd on September 14, 2009, 11:32:09 AM
Post by: DJ Doena on September 14, 2009, 11:34:51 AM
Post by: goodguy on September 15, 2009, 04:33:48 AM
Lethal Weapon ****
Gibson is central to it with an incredible performance;
I haven't seen it in a very long time, but I remember from the Making-of for Zeffirelli's Hamlet that it was Gibson's performance here that made Zeffirelli consider him for the role.
Overall Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is a finer film, but ironically, this has the bigger bangs by some considerable margin.
I would say KKBB is on an entirely different level than the other stuff he has written. Of his big bang movies, The Long Kiss Goodnight is probably my favorite. It might not necessarily be the best of them, but I prefer Geena Davis over male buddy movies any day.
Post by: Najemikon on September 29, 2009, 11:32:59 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/inglob.jpg)
Goosebumps. An all too rare indication that what you are watching, listening to or reading, is special, and although Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds is not perfect, it certainly was during the final sequence set poetically in a cinema. There’s one image in particular that could already be one of my favourite cinematic moments of all time.
(click to show/hide)
I won’t spoil it because I hope you’ll consider watching it yourselves, though to do so may require some effort. Tarantino is brilliant, but undisciplined, and despite several scenes standing out as some of his best work, as a whole, it could easily frustrate the unprepared. For a start, the trailer is borderline misleading, because the Basterd’s rampage Once Upon A Time In Nazi Occupied France is a small part of a much larger picture.
Undisciplined he may be, but indulgent, not so much. That’s a popular criticism, but largely unfounded. The key to understanding Basterds is to see it as a comic book fantasy where anything can happen. Tarantino would make a bloody brilliant comics writer! Episodic, bursts of excess, tempered by drama and poignancy. You only have to think how inherently ridiculous Batman, Spider-Man or Judge Dredd is, yet they can all find real heart. That is Inglorious Basterds and in fact, that comic book style can be traced right back to Reservoir Dogs. Not showing the actual heist and concentrating on dialogue between impossibly cool looking anti-heroes is just the sort of narrative decision the Frank Miller’s and John Wagner’s of this world make. Ah, if only he could still do a Bond...
To do this on film successfully is tough (Sin City almost did it). To do it and pull off a ludicrous plot that will have you punching the air and laughing at the audacity is astonishing. It is an amazing screenplay that ranges from subtle to outrageous, but it works largely thanks to a brilliant cast. Pitt is great as the leader of The Basterd’s. Brutal, and very funny, he’s the perfect poster boy for the film, but he’s matched throughout, especially by Melanie Laurent as the stories real heroine Shosanna and one of the best villains of recent years, Christoph Waltz as Lando. The action is led by these characters, not the other way around. So it is that the simply wonderful opening that takes its cues from Once Upon A Time In The West, builds into tense wordplay that respects the actors and challenges the viewer. It’s a perfect demonstration of film writing.
There are several scenes like this, peppered with brutal violence (the basement scene is classic Tarantino), and here is my only real criticism, because by always deferring to the drama, it makes it perhaps a bit too unpredictable. It feels like it loses its way with all the strands until they all snap back for the finale, despite those strands being perfect on their own. I have a feeling a second viewing will work much better.
But what cannot fail to work from the moment you set your eyes on this is how gorgeous it looks, and so detailed, with lots of little touches that show Tarantino was working at the top of anyone’s game, not just his own. There’s a particular moment with cream of all things in a restaurant that I’d bet a lot of directors would never think of. Then there’s the film within a film (“Nation’s Pride”) that you only catch glimpses of during the last chapter. It couldn’t look more different to the film proper or more authentic, yet “indulgent” Tarantino wisely refuses to show it to us properly. For the most part he understands how to work an audience as well as anyone.
It would only delay that incredible moment in the cinema. He’s used Hitchcock technique before to less success (Death Proof) and here uses another one; the irony of a scene playing out with an audience, except with a twist and then some! And in the middle of all the carnage, there’s the goosebumps. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, thank goodness for a director like Quentin Tarantino. This isn't his best work, but it's better than a lot currently out there. He’ll never be boring, that’s for sure.
Post by: Najemikon on November 01, 2009, 06:49:50 PM
4 out of 5
Meryl Streep is Gail, a mother who organises a white water rafting trip to celebrate her son's birthday and salvage her shaky marriage. A former river guide, Gail's no longer the risk-taker she was in her youth, but her skills and courage are soon put to the ultimate test when an encounter with three mysterious strangers threaten to turn a family vacation into a living hell.
Very good action movie, in the vein of Cliffhanger. That was released only the year before, so it may be this is slightly derivative as the plot follows a very similar path (except this is a family unit taken hostage), but despite more explosions, I think this is the better film. Plus it may just have been the ticket director Curtis Hanson needed to make L.A. Confidential, so I'm eternally grateful for that.
As with many action films of this sort, the plot is simple, the dialogue broad and lumpy, but it's exciting stuff. What really helps is the outstanding cast. Kevin Bacon is always good value and is a brilliant, unpredictable villain. This was just the sort of film he'd go for back then, and reliable John C. Reilly has since become one of the best comic character actors around, but starring Meryl Streep as the heroine in a very physical role? It just goes to show her versatility, but it definitely means it's punching above its weight. Then you have David Strathairn as the resourceful husband, Tom. Hanson was a blessed man.
An all round excellent action-thriller, perfect for when you're not in the mood for the weighty Deliverance, but you still want nature playing a part in the action!
Oh yeah, next time you play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, consider that Streep's young son is played by Joseph Mazzello of Jurassic Park and his sister in that film was played by Ariana Richards, who was in Tremors with Kev! Damn, he gets around... :D
Post by: Najemikon on November 29, 2009, 08:15:04 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/lake.jpg)
A young couple (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) have just moved into their California dream home when they become the target of their next-door neighbour, who disapproves of their interracial relationship. A stern, single father, this tightly wound LAPD officer (Samuel L. Jackson) has appointed himself the watchdog of the neighbourhood. His nightly foot patrols and overly watchful eyes bring comfort to some, but he becomes increasingly harassing to the newly-weds.
Samuel L. Jackson shares the lead with at least Patrick Wilson, but his powerful performance anchors the film. When I say this is his best role for years, don't be concerned if you think this will be full-on Pulp Fiction Jules. Instead he shows how brilliant he truly is by commanding the screen without taking it over. All three are complicated roles and this isn't the sort of story they can get through with show-boating and shouting.
On paper it seems a new play on the theme used in Pacific Heights (Modine v. Keaton!) or Unlawful Entry (Russell v. Liotta!), but the characters and situations are more exploitive in both of those and descend into predictable action beats. Not that there is anything wrong with that! It's just that Lakeview Terrace is first and foremost a drama that you may be able to identify with more readily, and it seems reluctant to cut loose until the very last moment.
Up until then, director Neil La Bute creates a simmering tension, possibly undermined by your own assumptions. If you go into it expecting Jackson to be an obvious villain, you do his performance a disservice, because throughout he deserves some sympathy. None of the three characters are perfect and it's their flaws that drive the story. Jackson's Turner is a manipulative racist, but he is also a single dad and staring forced retirement in the face. Meanwhile Wilson as Chris is paranoid that everyone is like Turner, judging his interracial relationship. His wife Lisa, played by Washington, doesn't always give Chris enough respect for that position and she also makes a particularly poor judgement that threatens their marriage.
Still, they are a close couple and Wilson and the lovely Kerry Washington have good chemistry, so you want them to work it out and that means dealing with Turner. It's a clever plot development that escalates the situation without turning him into a cartoon villain, even for the ending which is otherwise predictable. I also like the backdrop with California wild-fires that are getting closer throughout the film because that increases the immediacy of a plot that could have become tediously contrived, especially the ending. Like Gone Baby Gone, it is a satisfying conclusion, but not one that suggests a happy ever after. Life isn't like that and to suggest otherwise is insulting.
Occasionally the black versus white sensibilities border on heavy handed, but actually I still found it easier to empathise with than Crash and it bears more similarity with Gran Torino in some ways. It's a well written, cracking little thriller, that doesn't spoon-feed the viewer. Highly recommended. La Bute may have done himself a disservice by making the ill-advised remake of The Wicker Man, because here he shows a far more interesting grasp of difficult material.
Post by: Najemikon on December 14, 2009, 11:17:04 PM
2 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/street.jpg)
Gripping performances by Keanu Reeves, ACADEMY AWARD® Winner Forest Whitaker* and an all-star supporting cast power this action-packed crime thriller, in which a veteran cop finds himself ensnared in a deadly web of conspiracy and betrayal. Reeves stars as Tom Ludlow, a hard-nosed detective with a talent for delivering brutal street justice. When evidence implicates him in the murder of a fellow officer, the violence around Ludlow explodes as he realizes his own life is in danger and he can trust no one.
This gritty detective thriller bears most resemblance to Training Day, but while that film had serious flaws, not least the awful contrivance that the plot turns on, it is still much superior to this. Not that it isn't enjoyable in it's own way, but it's numbingly predictable and derivative of several other films, including L.A. Confidential, bizarrely. It's almost painful to watch as the transparent characters shuffle to their inevitable conclusions via all the usual clichés. Truly great actors like Forrest Whitaker (as the Vice Team captain, referred to as the King) deliver storming performances like they're trying not to sink, while you have to feel sorry for Chris Evans (ambitious young detective, determined to do things right) who is very good, but perhaps more doomed than anyone. I guarantee you'll shake your head sadly as soon as he appears! Maybe he is less doomed though than the cartoon characters who make up Keanu Reeve's untrustworthy team and were probably written in the first draft with crayon as 'Goon 1', 'Goon 2', etc.
Still, it's violent, with solid action throughout, so thoroughly entertaining and there's half a chance it could all be redeemed by the end. Unfortunately that ending is so infuriatingly empty that it loses all credibility. The story just plays out in a cycle of grimy nastiness without a hint of irony or redemption and by doing so squanders the ace in Detective Tom Ludlow, whose claustrophobic story (he's hardly off-screen, if at all) could have been compared to a circle of hell, similar to Taxi Driver's Travis Bickle.
Keanu Reeves as Ludlow is a revelation. This is his best dramatic role and if the cynics amongst you think that's a back-handed compliment, well let me tell you I was left unable to consider anyone else in the part. Reeves invests everything in the character; his hollow-eyed, podgy face holds a lifetime of drunken self-loathing, but with an undercurrent of ruthless, violent efficiency that makes all the scenes, be they action or drama, utterly convincing. The flat delivery works and he really holds his own against heavyweights like Whitaker and Laurie; if anything, he's working harder and more memorably. It's like we've caught up with Johnny Utah and found him broken. That the story doesn't reward him is unforgivable.
Really the film can be summed up by Hugh Laurie's role; it's a brilliant, punchy performance, he chews the dialogue nicely and growls his way through every scene. But he's the twin of House. So we've seen it all before, even though he's fun to watch. :shrug:
Despite my negative review, give it a shot, if only to see the commendable actor Keanu Reeves has become.
Post by: Najemikon on December 19, 2009, 09:48:51 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/fast.jpg)
Vin Diesel and Paul Walker re-team for the ultimate chapter of the franchise built on speed--Fast & Furious. Heading back to the streets where it all began, they rejoin Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster to blast muscle, tuner and exotic cars across Los Angeles and floor through the Mexican desert in the new high-octane action-thriller. When a crime brings them back to L.A., fugitive ex-con Dom Toretto (Diesel) re-ignites his feud with agent Brian O’Conner (Walker). But as they are forced to confront a shared enemy, Dom and Brian must give in to an uncertain new trust if they hope to out-manoeuvre him. From convoy heists to precision tunnel crawls across international lines, two men will find the best way to get revenge: push the limits of what’s possible behind the wheel.
It isn’t easy to review a film like this, because it’s, quite frankly, junk. It’s predictable nonsense from the first moment to the last, with awful dialogue and flat acting, but who gives a damn because it’s great! This might not be film as art, but it has girls and cars, so it all balances!
The original was a laugh and this is the first of the sequels that makes any kind of sense as such. It’s cool to see the old gang back together, even though one member gets little more than a cameo, despite earning poster duties. I always quite liked Paul Walker (so shoot me). He’s kind of like the guy you get when Keanu Reeves isn’t answering the phone, but he’s good at these sort of roles and is a lot better than his first two outings as Brian O’Conner. Vin Diesel must be pissed that he’s had to resort to a full-time role rather than getting by with a wink in Tokyo Drift, but he has natural charisma and elevates the film just by turning up. Though Dominic turning spy doesn’t quite work and that isn’t the only contrivance to bring on a groan.
The story is similar to 2 Fast 2 Furious (infiltrating crime boss operation), only with the much better direction of Tokyo Drift (Justin lin). I don’t think this counts as a “best of both worlds” win-win situation, but it’s close enough! The action is a lot of bone crunching fun. On the making of feature, they mention something about the cars matching the characters. What rubbish! But if that’s how Lin needs to think to pull off action sequences like the brilliant truck robbery or the big chase finale, then all power to him.
Bring on The Fast and The 4rious... :D
Post by: Najemikon on January 02, 2010, 08:56:58 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/slap.jpg)
A cult classic, acclaimed as "one of the top ten sports movies ever" (Sports Illusdtrated, ESPN.com, The Sporting News), this irreverent and outrageously funny look onto the world of professional ice hockey has Paul Newman as the coach of the Chiefs, a third-rate minor league hockey team. To build up attendance at their games, management signs up three odd looking players whose job it is to literally attack and pulverise the opposition, to the delight and cheers of a steady increasing throng of fans. SLAPSHOT'S hockey sequences, reminiscent of the football games in M.A.S.H., THE LONGEST YARD and the gruesome ROLLERBALL, offer a freewheeling mixture of slapstick and grisly physical violence.
Anyone who likes Kevin Smith movies should look up Slap Shot. Considering the balance between filth and poignancy, plus the fact it's about hockey, it had to have been an influence. Otherwise, it feels like it belongs somewhere between Animal House and The Cannonball Run, though comedy is more subjective than any genre and it might actually be better, with a great script by Nancy Dowd, peppered with quotable lines and based on her brothers experience in minor league hockey where violence was becoming the main attraction.
It's a typical sports movie plot with a collection of odd-balls making up the Chiefs, but what sets it apart is the slapstick violence and the underlying cynicism (the Chiefs only find success and popularity comes once the three brothers turn matches into bloodbaths), with one of the funniest moments being the match where everyone gets beaten up before it has even started! Paul Newman is fantastic, as you'd expect, and his foul-mouthed rant at the team owner is jaw-dropping. Still, it isn't all punch-ups and violence. It has a heart too, in particular with the sub-plot about Lily, the wife of the star player, who is quickly turning to drink. It's a very funny performance by Lindsay Crouse who was once married to David Mamet and who you may recognise from season four of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
This feels like Newman cutting loose a little and I suspect a bit of a stitch-up considering this was his third collaboration with director George Roy Hill. They previously did Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, then The Sting. You can't get much further away than Slap Shot!
Post by: Antares on January 02, 2010, 11:57:44 PM
Post by: Jimmy on January 03, 2010, 12:11:41 AM
The violence can seem over the top for a non hockey fan, but it was like that in the seventies and the eighties. The junior league here was even tougher than that... Too bad it's now a thing of the past since our sport had become a girly game. The thing is the players were respecting each others in the past, no high stick and no volontary injury attempt to bring the good player out... The fighting was a perfect way to decrease the pression.
By the way, the French Canadian dubbing is awesome too bad only three of us can listen it :P
Maybe I'll watch it again tonight ;D
Post by: Najemikon on January 03, 2010, 01:02:35 AM
I'm glad to see you liked this film. I find that a lot of people today feel that it is quite dated or not funny because it has no punch in the groin shots. To me, it's one of the great sports films of all time. I saw it in its original theatrical release back in 1977, and laughed my ass off.
I've just been laughing my ass off again at the clips you posted! :laugh: I've seen it a couple of times before, courtesy of hockey fans. I used to work with a guy who actively supported and promoted The Nottingham Panthers, and he lent it me. Now I work with another bloke who is a regular fan of the team and he had a spare copy of the DVD so sold it me, along with Slap Shot 2. Now that, I haven't seen and it looks weak, but hey, I'll give it a shot sooner or later.
I've heard people comment before about how good it is as a sports movie, but I shy away from commenting as sport generally ain't my thing, but it really is a great film all round. Hope a few more people look it up now you two have joined the chorus! :thumbup:
One of the best film about our national sport :thumbup:
The violence can seem over the top for a non hockey fan, but it was like that in the seventies and the eighties. The junior league here was even tougher than that... Too bad it's now a thing of the past since our sport had become a girly game. The thing is the players were respecting each others in the past, no high stick and no volontary injury attempt to bring the good player out... The fighting was a perfect way to decrease the pression.
Well, heck, they're well padded. Might as well get stuck in! :devil:
Post by: Kathy on January 03, 2010, 02:06:56 AM
Post by: Najemikon on January 03, 2010, 02:11:58 AM
Jon, when are you going to review Slap Shot 2? :devil:
:hmmmm:
You've seen it, haven't you? You know what's in store. Well, you can behave yourself, missus! I'll get to it... one day. :bag: :laugh:
Post by: Jimmy on January 03, 2010, 03:00:54 AM
(http://img39.imagefra.me/img/img39/2/1/2/aesp_pres/f_gods8onr6klm_eb78495.jpg)
Jon don't wait to watch the second one and try to get the third one
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on January 03, 2010, 03:12:12 AM
Oh yeah, I clicked the button... thought so.:redcard:
Post by: snowcat on January 03, 2010, 11:08:03 AM
Ive never heard of this film, but Im a big Kevin Smith fan so I may have to check it out.
Post by: Najemikon on January 03, 2010, 01:14:54 PM
Post by: snowcat on January 03, 2010, 01:16:58 PM
Ive had a look around and found a cheap copy of Slap Shot, its on my wish list but im trying not to buy anything in Jan so I can watch some of the stuff ive already got :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on January 03, 2010, 01:20:28 PM
Well im not a big fan of Animal House :p something was just off about it, I was surprised because I usually love John Belushi films.
Ive had a look around and found a cheap copy of Slap Shot, its on my wish list but im trying not to buy anything in Jan so I can watch some of the stuff ive already got :laugh:
Yeah, good luck with that. :hysterical:
Post by: snowcat on January 03, 2010, 01:22:01 PM
Well im not a big fan of Animal House :p something was just off about it, I was surprised because I usually love John Belushi films.
Ive had a look around and found a cheap copy of Slap Shot, its on my wish list but im trying not to buy anything in Jan so I can watch some of the stuff ive already got :laugh:
Yeah, good luck with that. :hysterical:
...I spent £2.75 on DVDs yesterday so im not doing very well ::)
Post by: Kathy on January 03, 2010, 04:15:49 PM
Post by: Najemikon on January 06, 2010, 09:14:46 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/shop.jpg)
The original movie of this classic black comedy/horror about a rather dim-witted young man, Seymour (Jonathan Haze), working for $10 a week in Mushnick's flower shop on skid row who develops an intelligent, bloodthirsty plant. He names the plant ' Audrey Junior' and, as it grows, it demands human meat for sustenance and Seymour is forced to kill in order to feed it.
The Little Shop of Horrors is a little gem of a film the making of which has muddied by legend, but the story goes Roger Corman filmed it in just two days after developing the script in less than a week. He couldn't have filmed it any cheaper and to say it was a rush-job to make use of a set about to be pulled down, it's excellent. It's creaky, but holds up well and you don't feel like you have to make excuses for it. It really is a great story and very witty. It's so irreverent, it borders on a spoof.
It could have been a Hammer horror in another time and place, but it's set in an L.A. Skid Row florists, populated by a collection of characters who all have their own quirks beyond what the plot needs to the point it runs like a sketch show. Like Seymour's mother, who is such a hypochondriac she serves cod liver oil as soup! Or Corman regular Dick Miller who eats flowers, and of course, a young Jack Nicholson in a cameo as a masochistic dental patient. Obviously Corman thrived on pressure and wrote like there was a gun to his head! It's not just the writing though. The timing between the cast is really well done, especially when Jewish florist owner Krushnik (Mel Welles) is at the centre of the scene. Everyone just seems to bounce off him.
It's a huge amount of fun and very short, so well worth you digging it out, especially as the DVD only costs pennies.
Post by: Najemikon on January 06, 2010, 09:52:07 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/time.jpg)
John Grisham's best seller A Time to Kill hits the screen with incendiary force, directed by Joel Schumacher (The Client). Sandra Bullock, Samuel L. Jackson, Matthew McConaughey and Kevin Spacey play the principals in a murder trial that brings a small Mississippi town's racial tensions to the fiashpoint. Amid activist marches, Klan terror, media clamor and brutal riots, an unseasoned but idealistic attorney mounts a stirring courtroom battle for justice. The superb ensemble also includes Brenda Fricker, Oliver Platt, Charles S. Dutton, Ashley Judd, Patrick McGoohan, Chris Cooper and both Donald and Kiefer Sutherland. These and other talents make for "one of the year's most powerful films" (Jeffrey Lyons, Sneak Previews/ABC World News Now).
This gets your right-wing juices flowing! I love courtroom thrillers and thought this one of the best Grisham adaptations. Well, it could be, but the more I see it, the clearer it is that the story is shamefully manipulative and unambitious. Everything is painted so very broad and some scenes are almost farcical and childish. There is nothing original in the plot and in fact, some of it, like McConaughey and Judd's marriage heading for the rocks, is very lazily handled. I don't think there is even a structure to speak of. You expect certain things to happen, in a certain order, and they do. Just a shame there's no subtlety.
I expect if they were to film it again today, it would be more powerful, with a well-played irony. Maybe something like Crash or Changeling. One thing you can be sure of, no way would it be so entertaining! These sort of films always pull great casts and this is one of, if not the best. Some like Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock have never been better (Bullock has probably never been cuter), others already so good, they wrap their tonsils around the killer lines with ease (Kevin Spacey, Donald Sutherland, Brenda Fricker, Patrick McGoohan). There wasn't a weak point in the cast, except maybe whatever-happened-to-Ashley Judd, but whatever-happened-to-Oliver Platt makes it balance just by turning up. This is back in the days when Samuel L. Jackson was a better actor too, keeping his shouty quotable lines to minimum. "Yes, they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell!" is a classic to rival Jack Nicholson barking "You can't handle the truth!" at little Tommy Cruise.
That line sums up exactly how director Joel Schumacher wants you the viewer to feel and you probably will despite yourself because it is such a great cast and the plot is so exaggerated. We don't just get racists, we get a specially formed brand new charter of the Klan, no less! You'll boil at the injustice! Punch the air when McConaughey sneakily punches the would be bomber! And cheer when it turns out the dog survived! Well of course he was going to survive, but that's what I mean. You can't help yourself. And what's wrong with a bit of eye-for-an-eye vigilantism?
It's absolute bollocks, but bollocks of the highest quality and a monument to the outrageous style Schumacher had before he disappeared up his own arse and found Batman and Robin. He finally produced the excellent Tigerland, but this is more memorable for all the very wrong and grimy reasons.
Post by: Antares on January 06, 2010, 10:23:11 PM
The Little Shop of Horrors
Once again, excellent review. And once again I state, if it weren't for your mis-guided affection for QT, we could be twin sons of different mothers.
It's sad that the majority of movie lovers out there only know the musical with Rick Moranis. This is far superior.
Post by: addicted2dvd on January 06, 2010, 10:35:31 PM
Post by: Najemikon on January 07, 2010, 12:35:49 AM
The original Little Shop of Horrors is in my unwatched pile. I may have to watch that one some time this weekend.
It's only 70 little minutes, Pete! I'm sure you can slot it in... ;)
Once again, excellent review. And once again I state, if it weren't for your mis-guided affection for QT, we could be twin sons of different mothers.
It's sad that the majority of movie lovers out there only know the musical with Rick Moranis. This is far superior.
Thank you, Antares, you are a gentleman, and perhaps one day I shall convince you of QT's genius... :P
Regards the musical version, I'm biased. I just don't like musicals. I know they're brilliant in certain cases for certain people, but why sing a song when one line of well written dialogue can suffice?
Post by: goodguy on January 07, 2010, 02:57:41 AM
The Little Shop of Horrors
4 out of 5
Fore a moment I was surprised when seeing that in the topic list. But of course you wouldn't review the musical. :laugh:
I imagine Antares sadly shaking his head when I say this, but I've only seen some clips from the original (on the musical DVD I think) and those didn't really work for me.
Post by: Critter on January 07, 2010, 03:12:45 AM
Quote
Thank you, Antares, you are a gentleman, and perhaps one day I shall convince you of QT's genius...
:laugh:
Post by: Achim on January 07, 2010, 04:52:29 AM
Maybe I'll add the DVD to a future order. The film is in the public domain, if I remember correctly, so technically even downloading it is legal. Amazon has several versions, ranging from $5 to $18. :headscratch:
EDIT: now also checked amazon.co.uk. Heck, they literally have used ones for a penny! :slaphead:
Post by: Jimmy on January 07, 2010, 06:47:22 AM
The film is in the public domain, if I remember correctly, so technically even downloading it is legal.And this is the problem, since it's public domain any down the basement label release crappy VHS transfert or even TV taping recording of this film. I wouldn't even spent 1 cent for that...
The Corman library get the special treatment this year (for those who don't know it starts in april with Piranah :yu:) so maybe there an hope to see a real remastered theatrical print of it...
Post by: Achim on January 07, 2010, 09:50:53 AM
The Corman library get the special treatment this year (for those who don't know it starts in april with Piranah :yu:) so maybe there an hope to see a real remastered theatrical print of it...I know and I agree. For that reason I had actually considered the $15 dollar version (colorized :yucky: and original) which allegedly used a new cleaned up print.
Post by: Jimmy on January 07, 2010, 06:23:38 PM
Post by: Najemikon on January 07, 2010, 11:22:01 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/akira.jpg)
In 1988, the landmark Anime film AKIRA, by director Katsuhiro Otomo, defined the cutting edge of Anime around the world. By today's standards, AKIRA remains a landmark achievement in cell animation and retains the explosive impact of its highly detailed animation and its intensely violent saga of power and corruption. Pioneer Entertainment proudly presents this classic film, completely restored and digitally re-mastered. Childhood friends Tetsuo and Kaneda's motorcycle gang encounters a military operation to retrieve an escaped experimental subject. The military captures Tetsuo and conducts experiments on him that unleash his latent psychic ability, but when these new powers rage out of control, Tetsuo lashes out at the world that has oppressed him!
Akira is the film that introduced me, along with thousands of other naive Westerners, to Anime. It's been the favoured poster boy of Manga ever since and still stands today as one of the finest examples of animation, Japanese or otherwise. The opening scene of warring motorcycle gangs colliding with a revolutionary plot and wrinkly psychic kids is still a top favourite movie moment for me. I remember when I first saw it; after being brought up on nice, safe Disney, I think it blew my mind and I've never quite recovered! Thank goodness. ;)
That scene sets the balance for the rest of the film which is a dizzying clash of plots. You have the cool, irreverent, often violent action provided by Kaneda's bike gang as they look for their friend Tetsuo, who has been taken by the military after an accident. The military in turn are dealing with politicians and revolutionaries alike in a powerful sub-plot, while a girl from the revolution is tolerating Kaneda, as they have a mutual interest in finding Tetsuo. He is the heart of the story, struggling to come to terms with strange powers that are quickly getting out of hand. The wrinkly kids are also very powerful and are trying to keep him in check for his own sake, especially as he is learning about Akira. Who or what Akira was is left ambiguous throughout, but whatever is left of "him" is buried deep under the city and Tetsuo is determined to get at it. The last act of the film is all the various factions converging on one point for an epic, breathtaking finale.
The various plots are wound together with an assured attention to detail, never at the cost of pace and all the elements balance each other perfectly. For instance, the kids attacking Tetsuo disguised as huge toys that bleed milk would be unbearably disturbing but for the next scene of cathartic, wanton destruction or a wisecrack from Kaneda. The sci-fi plot is deep and philosophical, concerning human evolution. If there is a complaint, it's possible only the surface of potential was scratched. Certainly the original manga, also by director Katsuhiro Otomo, is much larger. This is really picky though and newbies won't notice because they will be too busy trying not to fall off the edge of their seat!
The quality of animation is astonishingly detailed, fluid and cinematic (some Anime has a tendency to be stilted), and the sound design and bonkers score match it throughout. This DVD release is getting on for 10 years old, but it's a fantastic transfer. Also the 5.1 is only available in English dubbed, but it's unusually good. I did have the dubbed VHS first, then VideoCD and remember the latter subtitled version being a big improvement, but this dubbing is excellent.
It is a very modern and dynamic piece of film-making and a benchmark for the sci-fi genre, a benchmark Hollywood has consistently failed to match. It treats the viewer with intelligence and doesn't compromise the story at all. If you enjoy the genre, but are wary of watching "kids cartoons", I urge you to try this. You owe it to yourself. There's healthy support on these forums for Anime, so why not dive in and find out why.
Post by: Najemikon on January 08, 2010, 12:33:41 AM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/ghost1.jpg)
The year is 2029, the world is made borderless by the net; augmented humans who live in virtual environments. Watched over by law enforcement agents that are able to download themselves into super-powered, crime busting mecha. The ultimate secret agent of the future is not human, has no physical body and can travel freely through the information highways of the world. Hacking and manipulating whatever, whomever and whenever required...
In my recent review for Akira, I claimed that it set a sci-fi benchmark that Hollywood has failed to match. It wasn't a one-off though and it is a point anime has continued to prove, especially with Ghost In The Shell to the point of a specific example. Released in 1995, the theme of the story bears some resemblance to 1999's The Matrix. And so this film has always been my favourite stick to beat the overrated Wachowski's with! If you like pure action, there are few films better than The Matrix, but a lot of people held it up as brilliant sci-fi to rival Bladerunner, especially as the producers weren't shy about Ghost being an influence. Actually, in comparison to the challenging and sublime Ghost, The Matrix is nothing more than a clumsy gimmick.
It's a political story, with perhaps very vague echoes of Robocop. The main character, Major Kusanagi is a cyborg and a brilliantly effective agent, but she contemplates the possibility of having a soul, or a "ghost" and worries how much of her is natural or just a result of AI programming. She works for Section Nine who are investigating The Puppet Master. Although they argue about how it's possible, it is likely he is just a ghost with no physical form himself, hacking into various shells and networks as a form of cyber terrorism.
While it isn't as epic as the ambitious Akira, nor animated quite so brilliantly (it does have its moments though), it does share that earlier films skill for balancing gorgeous, wide open cinematic action with an incisive sci-fi plot. In fact, this focused, tightly plotted story is arguably better. It has a nostalgic poignancy that gives the film a soul, smartly mirroring the story of cyborgs wrestling with a conscience. The haunting theme adds another layer. And I was being picky about the animation only to demonstrate the difference with Akira, but actually the attention to detail is incredible, something only recently matched by people like Pixar. On the DVD there is a feature about how they made sure even the bullets sparked correctly!
It can't match Akira's confident pacing. A couple of scenes are a bit talky and suffer from the static anime style Akira avoided, but there are several moments that are achingly beautiful. Especially when the Major goes diving and drifts weightlessly to the surface, embodying the emotional struggle she has with being whatever it is she is. Another example is the frequent nudity, from the Major or even the damaged cyborg "shell" they find. It sounds strange to point it out, but it's done with a tasteful obvious quality that live action could never pull off and it suits the story without being in any way gratuitous (the Major's partner, also almost all cyborg, claims he doesn't understand why she wishes to do things like diving, but then ironically catches himself staring at her body, revealing his own very human qualities).
There is a sequel, but I haven't seen it yet. However even the cover reveals something about this first film I hadn't noticed before: a beagle dog! He pops up several times in an enigmatic sequence. It's just one more subtle detail that obviously means... something. I have no idea what, but this is a story that refuses to obey convention or hold the viewers hand. As such it is a wonderful experience that I doubt will ever date.
It is very difficult to describe the atmosphere of this brilliant film and give it justice. It amused me when I watched this again that there is a quote from James Cameron on the sleeve, rightly praising Ghost for its "literary excellence" and another from the original Empire review, saying that this is "the kind of film Cameron would make if Disney let him" (indeed he has often mentioned another manga, Battle Angel Alita, on his wishlist). Ironic that now, some years later, Cameron's Avatar is The Matrix of its day with most people agreeing the story is derivative. Sounds exactly like the film Disney would have made! I wonder if Avatar's Japanese poster has got quotes from Mamoru Oshii on it? ;)
Post by: Najemikon on January 08, 2010, 12:42:39 AM
Also spolierific, but this trailer captures the gorgeous theme and style...
Post by: snowcat on January 08, 2010, 08:54:56 AM
Post by: Najemikon on January 09, 2010, 08:49:14 AM
When I watched Ghost In The Shell, I remember liking it but now I don't remember why, I think ill have to go back and watch it again. As for Akira, I was confused the first time but understood it more the second time.... have you heard they are making a live action verson? It will be two parts (atleast) and will star Leonardo DeCaprio as Kaneda and Joseph Gordon Levitt as Tetsuo, set for a 2011 release ;P
If you do fancy another look at Ghost, you should seek out the 2.0 version, or "Redux". They redid a lot of the CGi and it looks fantastic (that's where the second trailer comes from that I posted above). Looks like another Blu upgrade for me! :-[
The Akira live action has been coming and going for years. I hadn't heard DeCaprio was attached though. Interesting choice! Whether you know Akira or not, Leo as a biker gang leader, a la Brando? Not sure, but definitely worth considering...
Post by: snowcat on January 09, 2010, 10:45:03 AM
as for Akira im not sure, but there seems to have been alot of news recently about Leo being in it, Ill check it out but I have no idea what to think about it.
Post by: Najemikon on January 24, 2010, 08:21:26 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/state.jpg)
Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck) is the rising star of his political party - until his research assistant/mistress is murdered, and buried secrets come tumbling out. Investigative journalist, Cal McCaffrey (Russell Crowe) has the dubious fortune of both an old friendship with Collins and a ruthless editor, Cameron (Helen Mirren), who assigns him to the story. As Cal and his partner Della (Rachel McAdams) step into a cover-up that threatens to shake the nation’s power structures, they discover one truth - when billions of dollars are at stake, no-one's integrity, love or life is ever safe.
Director Kevin MacDonald follows his well-written, but flawed Last King of Scotland with the well-written, but flawed State Of Play. There’s a detail and intimacy in his direction that gives it an air of authenticity, but despite the witty dialogue and excellent plot, it seems to lose credibility in the final act, which is a real shame.
Still, this is a welcome thriller in more ways than one and provides anti-programming of substance to all the popcorn rubbish. There is the thorny issue of it being a remake of a superb British mini-series, but actually it relocates to Washington very well. It draws comparisons with All The Presidents Men too, with which it pales, but there hasn’t been anything like this for quite some time, apart from Grisham adaptations which have become almost self-parodies. In fact, I said in a recent review of A Time To Kill that it could make for a darker more ironic film if made today, but it probably wouldn’t be as entertaining. Well, State Of Play is that sort of film, but it is very entertaining.
Maybe I’m biased, but I’ve always enjoyed pot-boilers like this. They always follow a similar track; a seemingly innocuous if vulgar crime soon leads to the political high ranks and much intrigue follows, with very little action but for the obligatory black ops assassin. Really the plots rely on who is doing the plotting and this cast are excellent.
Russell Crowe is one of those actors I always think I don’t like until I watch him in something! He inhabits all his roles so well and this is a pretty straight-forward one for him (scruffy journalist) so he is the films reliable anchor and is barely off-screen. Rachel McAdams does well in an under-written, but long overdue dramatic part. It’s surprising how well she fits in, given that her character is so utterly pointless, except for a cliché of a subplot about bringing Crowes caveman of a journalist up-to-date (she does the online gossip column for the paper). It works because ironically, she keeps getting ignored in the story, so that’s mirrored by the plot! I was glad to see Ben Affleck climbing another rung on the comeback ladder. He gets far more flak than he deserves and has several scenes with Crowe in which he more than holds his own so I found him convincing and affecting as the senator getting embroiled in the scandal. Robin Wright-Penn as Affleck’s scorned wife is also very good, though I wasn’t convinced of the relationship between the two. Perhaps that was the point, given his infidelity and her past with Crowe’s character.
If Crowe is the films anchor, then Helen Mirren is its mothership. She never leaves the office and it’s like the film returns to her every time in needs a kick up the arse, which she duly delivers time and time again. She is quietly magnificent.
Well worth getting lost in. It avoids the black and white world of Grisham for the most part and you may feel by the end it sells-out, but MacDonald’s solid direction and equally solid cast make for an engrossing story.
Post by: Najemikon on January 24, 2010, 09:20:58 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/wonderful.jpg)
Light up your Christmas this year, with this timeless classic starring the unforgettable James Stewart as George Bailey and featuring a superb ensemble cast including Donna Reed and Lionel Barrymore.
Whenever the perennial subject of The Greatest Film Ever Made rears its head, I always turn into a smart-arse and confidently explain that such a thing is not possible to find. How can you possibly begin to compare Citizen Kane with The Godfather, or Jaws? It’s absurd!
So why is it, every time I see It’s A Wonderful Life I am absolutely convinced that it is The Greatest Film Ever Made? :shrug:
Maybe it’s because it is truly a film everyone can love and no-one has to think of it as a guilty pleasure. The modern equivalent seems to be The Shawshank Redemption, but even that has a violence enough to shock your granny. It’s A Wonderful Life should be cloyingly sentimental, but it was always Capra’s skill to offset his films with enough irony and honesty so it was easier to sell and identify with. Indeed, in this case everyone talks about Clarence the befuddled angel, rescuing George from a suicide attempt which does sound twee, but actually, that is the last act. The story is about how he gets to that point, so if you have it in your head that it is a fairy-story for fairies, well it’s not. It’s a good hearted drama. The frequent scenes with Lionel Barrymore are testament to that, especially where Thomas Mitchell as Uncle Billy makes his terrible error. I always thought how brilliant it is that mistake should be left unresolved too and the plot doesn’t contrive some neat resolution, but continues to subscribe to the idea that when pushed into a corner, people will ultimately just deal with it and do the right thing.
It is possibly the perfect Capra film and I do think it is his best work. He and the cast, working from as sharp and witty screenplay as they come, play their roles with such deft subtlety, that the pacing is utterly perfect. There isn’t a note out of place. As an example, I always think of the scene where George returns home on Christmas Eve, at the end of his tether and hiding his shame by lashing out at his family. It is a sublime scene of pacing, acting and... ‘mise en scene’. It isn’t often I use that term, but this is a most apt moment to which it should be applied. (It’s in the clip below, about 40 seconds in). Perhaps the kids will jar with their pleas to "Daddy", but if you think that then you're a cold hearted git... ;)
James Stewart was never better than here as George Bailey. Possibly Vertigo or another Capra, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but again, in a film so easily dismissed, there are layers to George you may not expect to find. Mitchell and Barrymore are both excellent too, but even the bit-parts like Ward Bond have their moments and all make a mark. Donna Reed may be the most inspired casting though. She is wonderful. Who wouldn’t consider spending their whole lives in the same place if she was there too? :laugh: And finally there is Clarence of course, played by Henry Travers. A relatively small part, but ubiquitous to the story.
I watched this on the recently released Blu-Ray, which includes a colourised version. Such an idea is sacrilege! How dare they colour this fantastic film? Except... actually, it’s very good. :bag: I know I should hate it, but I don’t. It has a rather waxy effect, but that’s only like original colour film from the time anyway. It is vibrant and watchable (though I predictably did stick with mono!) and the detail can be astonishing, especially on ties, I tended to notice! It’s an incredible piece of work so I hope it doesn’t cause the floodgates to open and they start scribbling with their felt-tips on everything. There is a case here to say Capra would probably have used colour if it were available, so I’ll let them off this once. Hey, it’s one less excuse for newbies to ignore it.
In any form, it isn’t the greatest film, of course. Such a notion is absurd. But it is at least in the top one.
Probably. ;)
Post by: Antares on January 24, 2010, 10:14:05 PM
Hate the colorized clip :redcard: :giljotiini: :axed: :hang: :tease: :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on January 25, 2010, 12:08:56 AM
Post by: Antares on January 25, 2010, 12:10:12 AM
Post by: Kathy on January 25, 2010, 12:37:37 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on January 25, 2010, 01:55:54 AM
Post by: snowcat on January 25, 2010, 11:54:45 AM
Post by: Achim on January 25, 2010, 12:57:58 PM
Post by: Najemikon on January 25, 2010, 07:47:28 PM
And this is what I should have said before. The colours are a novelty, aided by Blu-Ray, but the black and white version is given the HD treatment too and it is gorgeous, even if it's only a transfer and not a rescan. Such a deep, rich quality. It's the oldest film I have on Blu and I can see my upgrade bill being pricey if they continue down this route... :bag:
Here's an example, spoilerified only to protect the thread, because this image is almost life-size! ;)
(click to show/hide)
Post by: snowcat on January 25, 2010, 07:49:26 PM
I'm terribly sorry, but there's a point I should have made in the review. I do think the colourisation is brilliant, but much of its power is because it's Blu-Ray as well. It has the BR wow factor that can draw in a new audience and they've done it with respect. The outdoor daytime scenes especially. But Emma, if you've seen the original I'm sure you will find some of the magic is lost in the colours.
And this is what I should have said before. The colours are a novelty, aided by Blu-Ray, but the black and white version is given the HD treatment too and it is gorgeous, even if it's only a transfer and not a rescan. Such a deep, rich quality. It's the oldest film I have on Blu and I can see my upgrade bill being pricey if they continue down this route... :bag:
Here's an example, spoilerified only to protect the thread, because this image is almost life-size! ;)(click to show/hide)
Maybe.... ill have to take alook
..Jon, your spoiler does not work for me :(
Post by: Najemikon on January 25, 2010, 08:04:36 PM
Well, the URL was http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDReviews47/its_a_wonderful_life_blu-ray/large_bw_/large_its_a_wonderful_life_bw_blu-ray3bw.jpg
Post by: Achim on January 26, 2010, 05:21:28 AM
Here is their review page (http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/wonderfullife.htm); it iseems impressive in direct comparison anyway.
Post by: Najemikon on January 26, 2010, 12:52:33 PM
Post by: Najemikon on March 06, 2010, 10:42:52 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/wings.jpg)
Set on a world not unlike Earth, Shiro is a young man who wanted to join his country's air force, but directionless, instead finds himself in the ridiculed Royal Space Force. The bumbling Shiro is changed after meeting Riquinni, a caring girl who helps him find his spiritual centre. As we witness slacker Shiro and the hapless space force crew find new purpose, the corruption of the government conspires against the success of the launch, as the space race becomes fuel for war.
Ok, so my third reviewed Anime film is another 5 by 5! Along with Akira and Ghost In The Shell, it was one of the fundamentals of my early Anime obsession, plus I'm fascinated by aircraft, so it's all good for me. It is a beautiful film in both imagery and sentiment, and very eccentric, but balanced by meticulous detail in every frame. It is astonishing how the smallest things have been accounted for. The story is set in a parallel Earth, so it looks the same, but they have arrived at doing things differently and that attention to detail makes sure every one of those differences is convincing.
We know instinctively it is a parallel version of our own world, but a time is less obvious. 1950s, I’d guess, in line with our space race. Where it is set hardly matters, but it is possibly a play on Korea and the conflict between North and South. It is a well constructed background that supports all sorts of angles. Broadly speaking, the Royal Space Force is considered an expensive joke by almost everyone and is funded through corruption. When they do get to the point of having a rocket ready to send someone into space, the Government hijack it to incite their neighbours to war and end a stalemate, never for a moment thinking the rag-tag bunch might be able to pull it off.
That goes for the young members of the Force too, who just mess around, disillusioned and expecting to be looking for a job any day. We follow one of these, Shiro as he meets Riquinni, a quiet young woman trying to preach to people about God. Although he is not a religious person, she captures his imagination and convinces him he should devote himself to his job because she insists it is important and wonderful. Fired up, when the General asks for a volunteer to be the first astronaut, he does so, shocking his friends. And the General actually, who despairs!
Although it sounds like a lot is going on, by concentrating on Shiro’s point of view, it is a small, simple, heartfelt notion; that he has found something he at least thinks is worthwhile and enthusiasm generates around him. It is a story told with gentle humour throughout and some action, especially at the end and in a sub-plot with the most fascinating hitman you’re likely to see!
Typically of Anime, it changes mood with confidence, so the backdrop of corruption and war, and the hard reality of Shiro and Riquinni’s awkward relationship feels very real, even when the overall tone is comedy. The supporting characters really sell it though, like the chief engineer who names all the engines like he would sons (leading to one of the funniest and saddest moments, demonstrating the easy shifts in tone), or an almost mute child in Riquinni’s care, whose sour expression made me laugh out loud! There is, however, one shift I was unsure of.
(click to show/hide)
It is a marvellous film, with an optimism you should find infectious, selling an idea that could have been easily misjudged, but is open to all sorts of interpretation and rewards multiple viewings. The opening scene where Shiro’s voiceover talks of his dreams, and the final sublime sequence, is amongst the most effective I have seen.
(click to show/hide)
The DVD is nicely presented with a reversible cover, lots of artwork and a substantial booklet going into extraordinary detail on how it was made. I was disappointed in the dubbing though. Shiro’s English voice hit just the right tone at the start, but I quickly switched to the original Japanese and subs when everyone else started!
I really can’t think of another film to compare it with, apart from, bizarrely, Contact, but that’s in a broad sense (derided space mission and religious faith). I’m so glad I found it again. I loved it when I first saw it and I love it even more now. I couldn't really find a clip, but this is how it starts...
Post by: dfmorgan on March 07, 2010, 12:32:57 AM
Jon thank you for an excellent review.
Not too sure if you are aware but your 1st spoiler is the section that was cut from the UK Manga Video VHS release.
Dave
Post by: Najemikon on March 07, 2010, 12:57:09 AM
Post by: Critter on March 07, 2010, 01:03:48 AM
Post by: Najemikon on March 07, 2010, 02:42:49 AM
Post by: Critter on March 07, 2010, 08:15:19 AM
Post by: Najemikon on May 18, 2010, 09:55:44 PM
3 out of 5
When Kym (Anne Hathaway) returns to the Buchman family home for the wedding of her sister Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt), she brings a long history of personal crisis, family conflict and tragedy along with her. The wedding couple's abundant party of friends and relations have gathered for a joyful weekend of feasting, music and love, but Kym – with her biting one-liners and flair for bombshell drama – is a catalyst for long-simmering tensions in the family dynamic. Filled with the rich and eclectic characters that remain a hallmark of Jonathan Demme's films, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED paints a heartfelt, perceptive and sometimes hilarious family portrait.
I've found Rachel Getting Married pretty tough to give a fair rating to. While it's quality is beyond reproach and it can ultimately be seen as a very adult film with a purpose and superb craftmanship, I disliked it immensely!
I largely agree with Matthias' review (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,3213.msg90098.html#msg90098) and while I can't go as far as saying it could have been the film of 2008, it's certainly in the upper tier, with first and foremost a very good cast delivering a well judged script, although I will say it is predictable and oft convenient. Jonathan Demme's documentary experience though gives the handheld style sharp relevance and realism. It's easy to dismiss it as "shaky cam", but this is no gimmick. It's organic and Cinema Verite at it's finest for some time and the atmosphere is tangible. As a whole, there are no gimmicks and everything is absolutely convincing and honestly told. Which may be part of the problem.
My problem with the film is I simply did not like anyone in it! I cannot stomach that family who are so far up their own collective arse, the only noise they can make is incessant whining. If I was at that wedding, I would scream in frustration. I mean, they chant the bride and grooms names as they enter the ceremony; they have dishwasher filling races; they sing to each other. It's all very bloody bohemian, I'm sure, but I was struck with the feeling that this is the sort of class in a classless society that can afford to be bohemian (they wear Saris, yet none of them are actually Indian, so far as I could tell). They can also afford therapy, another refuge of the well-off.
That's unfair of me though. I don't fully understand what seems to be an accepted and encouraged practice in America. Kymmie (Hathaway) is clearly a deserving case, but it's pushed so front and centre to be taken for granted by her and her family. The fact the Best Man happens to go as well, plus the sodding hairdresser even, just shows how much so! In the UK we probably have too much of a "just get on with it and stop whinging" attitude, but still, I know one person who went to a psychiatrist, and I was only told in absolute confidence. One. Kymmie talks about it openly, meets two fellow sufferers by accident and her sister is in training, it's so prevalent. Different world. :shrug: I should point out, the script does note the ironies and addresses them very cleverly (the hairdresser mentions briefly not being able to get the level of help Kym had, which is a sobering thought). It should be funny how touchy-feely everyone is, yet they get nowhere until its almost too late. If I was enjoying the film more, I would have appreciated it better.
But, on a lighter note, I'm alienated further by the way they speak. The script is well written, but the characters practice lazy sarcasm. A sentence doesn't seem complete without a raised eye here and a "what-ev-errr" there. It's said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Only by people who can't use it properly, I say!
I did find the story predictable, but then we have this sort of stuff on TV every night in soap operas, which while they err on the side of short lived sensationalism, are also very well produced, written and acted. I don't like Eastenders, but I can identify with the people in it far easier than this lot.
Anne Hathaway gives a brilliant performance of the best character and she frequently kept me watching and not pressing fast-forward. Kym just needs a bloody good slap though, which would be duly delivered if the story was set in the UK! Empire's review first got me interested in the film as it led me to imagine a less realistic dialogue that lent itself to pithy one-liners as Kym acts as a cat amongst the pigeons of her family, but the truth is, it's too realistic to be any fun. That's clearly the aim and in the end, it's my fault, but this is not a film for everyone.
Post by: Antares on May 18, 2010, 11:43:26 PM
Post by: Najemikon on May 19, 2010, 12:03:39 AM
It's the curse of the drama. You have to be able to identify with someone in it. As soon as something is tweaked to make it more likable, snap, it's a comedy, fantasy or parody; contrive a set-piece, boom, it's a thriller. This stark realism needs an anchor. I much prefer Todd Field's work on In The Bedroom or Little Children, but even those eventually give over a little to genre convention. I like the contrast though, like you earn a little relief. Here I could guess how it was going to end; all reflective, while still being miserable. :shrug:
Post by: addicted2dvd on May 20, 2010, 01:14:33 PM
Post by: Najemikon on May 20, 2010, 08:43:08 PM
Post by: goodguy on June 15, 2010, 10:47:43 AM
Having rewatched it now, the answer is a resounding "No! Hell, no!" and I feel a bit sad for Jon, Antares and Tom that they couldn't see the movie I have seen.
I love the characters. I may not like them, but I love them. They are authentic and raw. Except for Debra Winger as Abby, who is controlled and almost icy, but authentic nonetheless.
I don't see the lazy sarcasm, not even in Kym. She is a bit snarky at times, mostly in the beginning, but that makes perfect sense. She doesn't really know how to communicate with her family, so she overdoes the fast-talk with her father and stepmother on the drive from the clinic and on the first encounter with her sister.
I don't see the incessant whining either. There is a real tragedy and the resulting neurotic behaviors again seem very believable to me. Such stories can also be soap operas or melodramas, this movie isn't.
I immensely enjoyed all the wedding scenes. These days are meant to be a celebration, and Kym's rehab and the entire family tragedy aren't supposed to take center stage. From Kym's awkward speech at the rehearsal dinner to her lonely dancing at the actual wedding party, they drift slowly to the background during the three wedding set pieces. But especially the third one has some blink-and-you-will-miss-it moments that make you gasp (the wedding cake, for example).
Jon said the film is too realistic to be any fun. I disagree. There is joy and sadness in this movie, and at least to me, the first doesn't mean much without the latter.
Post by: Antares on June 15, 2010, 05:07:35 PM
Glad I read this... was considering this one this weekend for my On-Demand marathon. But it sounds pretty painful to watch.
It's not a painful film to watch, but rather laborious, without any real payoff at the end. It's a slice of a dysfunctional family's life, that lays it all out for the viewer. What made it ring hollow for me was the fact that no one in this family has any depth. They are all selfish and self-serving. Sure it's a raw, real life treatment, but who gives a shit? If I knew these people, I wouldn't give them the time of day. I've known people like this in my life, trying desperately to appear unique and better than others around them.
Jon's right, this is not a film that I think you will like.
Post by: goodguy on June 15, 2010, 05:20:03 PM
...but who gives a shit?
I believe I made clear that I do?
Jon's right, this is not a film that I think you will like.
I agree, Pete would probably not like it - if only because there also is a lot of music.
Post by: addicted2dvd on June 15, 2010, 05:23:16 PM
And people trying to get me to watch The Rocky Horror Picture show?... yeah right! :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on June 15, 2010, 09:52:26 PM
I have no issue with the presentation or the plot, such as it is in this sort of film. Switch the characters from these over-privileged pretentious bores and I'd be right there with them.
Matthias, they had a race to fill the dishwasher! :shrug: And in all seriousness, picking one key moment...
The scene where Rachel is doing the seating arrangements and wishes to block Kym away to the side. And then politely asks her disagreeing father to join her so she can talk to whine about Kym. I detest that sort of 'smiling while being angry' attitude. It's dishonest and spiteful. She was a spoilt cow who needed taking down a peg or two.
I suppose I'm struggling as well because I was privileged to be at my cousins wedding a few years ago. Emotions were raw because of a fairly recent tragedy. I don't want to go into details, because there is no need, but it was a fascinating and wonderful day that ran the gamut of sadness and joy. So I couldn't help but find Rachel cheap and thin as a character, who wouldn't know tragedy if it hit her full in the face!
But I repeat, the best thing I can say about RGM is that it was brilliantly put together and I hope it becomes an influence for more like it. Hopefully about people I like this time! :laugh:
Post by: samuelrichardscott on June 20, 2010, 07:59:49 PM
Post by: Najemikon on June 24, 2010, 12:04:56 AM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/button.jpg)
“I was born under unusual circumstances.” And so begins The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, adapted from the 1920s story by F. Scott Fitzgerald about a man who is born in his eighties and ages backward. From his birth in New Orleans in 1918, across the high seas, through the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and back home again - Benjamin's journey is as extraordinary yet as common as any man's life can be. Directed by David Fincher (Zodiac, Fight Club) and starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett as the time-crossed soul mates Benjamin and Daisy, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a time-traveler's epic adventure into the joys of life, the sadness of death and a love that endures beyond time.
David Fincher directing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button? Forrest Gump with the visual punch of Fight Club? Sounds like a treat!
Unfortunately, not only is Button a bloated, unbalanced disappointment, it underlines the childish naivety in Fincher’s direction. All his work lacks subtlety and while Button is a handsome film, it’s a classic case of style over substance and although his overall approach is superb, Fincher often directs as if in awe of the story, so it’s often boring, and so full of itself, borderline smug. The premise of a man born very old and getting younger looks like great fun on paper, but in practice, as he is the main character, the story is awkward and lacks relevance. The similarities to Forrest Gump are numerous and so crushingly obvious that it’s insulting.
Let’s focus on the [very] good stuff. It really does look gorgeous and the effects to reverse the main character through extremes of age are masterful and utterly convincing. Easy to dismiss is Cate Blanchett, who ages in the correct direction and is superb, especially as she gets older. New Orleans and the main house in particular are beautifully realised. In fact, it improves on Ficnher’s Zodiac in that respect for making the location part of the fabric of the story. And it is so much like Forrest Gump, the ultimate Marmite film, that maybe, if you like Gump, you will find much to enjoy in this. Well, I do like that film and I badly wanted to like this more. I should have, because in one key sense it is very different. It is about the relentless cruel nature of ageing and time. I did particularly like the story of the blind clockmaker and his backwards clock, the gentle suggestion it is linked somehow to the fantastic nature of Benjamin's birth and the heartbreaking poignancy it represents of the loss of life in the Great War.
Half an hour into the film, I was loving it. I had no idea how thin it would be stretched over the next two plus hours!
People who don’t like Forrest Gump will focus on the preachy aspect of the story, but at least Zemeckis and Hanks both brought considerable charm and a sense of identity. Button shares the flashback framework and preachy nature, but replaces the charm with pretention and neither Fincher nor the cast have enough will-power to subvert it. Pitt does very well as Benjamin, but like all the cast apart from Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton, seemingly doesn’t dare bring any vitality to the role and it badly needed it. Like Forrest, Benjamin is oblivious to responsibility yet is imbued with some sort of divine influence on people, but at least Mr. Gump could excuse his ignorance with his innocent stupidity.
With Forrest Gump, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (bloody hell, even the title is up its own arse!) also shares an insufferable woman we are supposed to believe is the central characters lifelong love. Problem is, like Jenny, Daisy (a wasted Cate Blanchett, who is frankly awesome in the role) is a complete cow. One scene perfectly sums up the problems with her and the film as a whole. Daisy gets walloped by a car in Paris, ignores Benjamin who rushes across many miles to her side, and is temporarily crippled long enough to do for her dancing career. When she returns to New Orleans, she graciously finally gives in to the inevitable romance... now she can’t bloody dance and provide for herself. The love affair with Tilda Swinton was far more rewarding and poignant.
Anyway, I digress; in the run up to the accident, we get a pretentious and laborious sequence showing how all sorts of little things contrived to make one big thing, via some guff about a person missing a taxi for the sake of answering a phone call and a dog farts near a butterfly that makes it fly left instead of right, and then... ARGH! Ok, the dog isn’t there (shame), but regardless, it’s just painful; and worse, disables the viewers’ requirement to think while the pompous tripe is rammed down our throats. To be fair, I know a lot of people loved that sequence. Very European, I suppose, but I do prefer a more straightforward plot.
Biographical films are often hamstrung by unwieldy plots that defy a neat narrative, but writer Eric Roth has adapted this from a short story! He’s done it like this on purpose! When you start digging into both his screenplays of Forrest Gump and this, you realise Roth must have some insecurities to continue to make us wallow like this. Essentially we’re watching him masturbate. Urgh. Clearly that’s why The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a load of old wank! Sorry, cheap shot. :bag:
To be absolutely fair, at its best it is beautiful, honest and heartfelt, but lacks consistency and the arcs of some characters are just so lazy and frustrating. Maybe Fincher was onto something though so if he makes a Director's Cut that actually does "cut", it could be fantastic.
Post by: Najemikon on June 24, 2010, 12:31:11 AM
Post by: Antares on June 24, 2010, 12:48:19 AM
Post by: Najemikon on June 24, 2010, 01:26:14 AM
Post by: Antares on June 24, 2010, 01:31:37 AM
Post by: Najemikon on June 24, 2010, 01:45:01 AM
Post by: addicted2dvd on June 24, 2010, 01:56:25 AM
Post by: Antares on June 24, 2010, 02:00:07 AM
His rants are superb; the last one was Sex And The City2.
Do you have a clip of that one, I'd really like to see it. My wife loved that show, and I always gave her shit for it.
Post by: Dragonfire on June 24, 2010, 02:43:17 AM
I'm tired of hearing how women are going to flock to this one. Some women actually like action movies...or dramas...or whatever. I read some stupid story that called Iron Man 2 a chick flick because it did well with women viewers. And the story claimed it was just because of a few specific things - the character issue stuff - and totally ignored that women can and do like comic books and the characters.
Post by: Jimmy on June 24, 2010, 03:27:28 AM
:tease:
Of course this isn't my opinion
Post by: Dragonfire on June 24, 2010, 03:44:12 AM
Well evidently you've forgotten some of what I've reviewed and liked. Like A-Team..Kick-Ass. Stuff like that.
Post by: Jimmy on June 24, 2010, 03:57:47 AM
WOW I'm shocked, really if he haven't :laugh:
Of course I think nothing of this, but it's fun to play this role
Post by: Dragonfire on June 24, 2010, 04:13:42 AM
Post by: Achim on June 24, 2010, 06:38:15 AM
Do you have a clip of that one, I'd really like to see it. My wife loved that show, and I always gave her shit for it.
Post by: samuelrichardscott on June 24, 2010, 07:39:19 AM
Post by: Achim on June 24, 2010, 08:12:58 AM
Kermode is a god. Check out his "It's Only a Movie" book which is a good read. He talks about being hit by Helen Mirren and her handbag at the BAFTAs and getting thrown out of Cannes for heckling ;DI bought it with my last order from amzon.co.uk :)
I saw it's available as unabridged audiobook as well, supposedly read by himself. I am considering if I should go that route. Otherwise I'll probabyl read it on my next trip to Germany (August).
Post by: Dragonfire on June 24, 2010, 08:29:11 AM
Post by: Najemikon on June 24, 2010, 07:10:38 PM
In it he references a piece by Linda West, but he couldn't quote it because it's so rude. Well, I just had to find it then! :laugh: It is very good...
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/burkas-and-birkins/Content?oid=4132715
Post by: Antares on June 24, 2010, 10:00:36 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on June 25, 2010, 04:47:14 AM
Post by: Najemikon on February 04, 2011, 11:07:59 PM
Post by: Najemikon on February 04, 2011, 11:09:53 PM
2 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/brooksmall.jpg)
Brooklyn’s Finest? Not really. Oh, why do they use film titles that lend themselves to cheap puns? But in all seriousness, this isn’t very good.
Antoine Fuqua has had an odd career, with a couple of gems, like albeit flawed Training Day or unashamed actioner Shooter, but in-between he produces absolute rubbish, such as Tears of the Sun and especially King Arthur. Both of those films suffer from ambitious over-reaching and despite Brooklyn’s Finest seemingly cut from the same cloth as Training Day, it’s definitely the same problem.
Instead of giving us one, focused and gritty tale of a cop, he tries to give us three. Focus goes out the window and the result is awkward and desperate. We have loner Richard Gere as a regular cop a week away from retirement, forced to train new recruits. He’s jaded, cynical, alcoholic and emotionally dead, except for being in love with a prostitute, the silly sod. Then there’s Don Cheadle as an undercover officer who desperately wants out before he loses his mind. And finally Ethan Hawke plays a narcotics officer who has almost completely gone over the line, willing to do anything for cash so he can get his family into a better home.
They all inter-cut together, supposedly culminating on the same night, so you might be forgiven for thinking that the three separate plots might converge at some point, in some clever and insightful manner. Well, Pulp Fiction this is not. There are one or two minor overlaps and one more important scene that might just make you groan and that feels so desperate it ruins Cheadle’s segment, which had been the best of the three (strangely, that was the problem with Training Day). Gere’s plot ends up being the most satisfying, though it’s so ploddingly predictable, it hurts! And Hawke’s story line is a miserable experience from start through to its nasty, pointless ending.
All three leads do their best to put the fine in Finest and they might keep you watching. I did enjoy watching Cheadle and Gere, and Hawke did nothing wrong, but his story was so awful it detracted from his efforts. Wesley Snipes is great too. He pops up as a friend of Cheadle’s that he is forced to consider entrapping by Ellen Barkin, who has an dreadful character to play. A rabid Rottweiler would have been more subtle and would definitely have had better dialogue. A curiosity to see Snipes in a rare sombre role is as good a reason as any to see this film though.
All three plots are too weak, but two could have been bulked up into fairly decent movies on their own. They would have always been predictable, so joining them together seems like an attempt to hide them and make you feel like you’re watching something important and worthy. But it was done in such a cack-handed manner, it’s just pretentious and the almost complete absence of any tangible link is insulting. I could excuse it if there was some gratuitous action to balance it out, but there’s nothing.
In one scene, Gere visits his hooker friend and walks in on her and another client. Later she tells him, “I’m sorry you had to see that”. I know what she means, still, like Star Trek odd numbered movies, I’m now looking forward to Fuqua’s next project because it should be a cracker!
Post by: KinkyCyborg on February 05, 2011, 03:17:58 AM
Post by: Najemikon on February 05, 2011, 01:10:06 PM
Post by: Najemikon on February 12, 2011, 03:18:30 AM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/single.jpg)
I hadn't wanted to see A Single Man; it wasn't on my radar and the trailer hadn't struck me as anything particularly outstanding. Add to this occasional reviews of Tom Ford's film that suggested his fashion background had influenced his direction a little too much, and I wasn't convinced this would be a must see.
Then, on one of the podcasts from Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode, I heard a clip of Colin Firth's opening monologue. It was so simple and poignant that I suddenly had to see it. Firth plays George, a man still grieving for his partner Jim (Matthew Goode), killed in a car accident months before. Since then he has been trapped in melancholy and the film follows what is, as he says, "kind of a serious day for me". He'll reminisce with his closest friend, neurotic Charly (Julianne Moore) and be intrigued by a young student (Nicholas Hoult).
Now I'm not cynical enough to believe in the idea that some films are structured specifically to win awards, but it is true that studios are cynical enough to release certain types of films to attract the right attention. This year it seems a sure bet that Colin Firth will win many awards for his performance in The King's Speech and from all accounts, they will be richly deserved. I haven't seen the film yet, but from the trailer, regardless of how brilliant he is, it seems to be the sort of role that Oscar loves. What I can say with confidence is that his moving and superlative performance in A Single Man should have received as much if not more attention. What he delivers is incredibly moving, with an affecting simplicity that is gently stripped away to reveal a complex character in quiet turmoil. If you have any experience of grief, you won't fail to identify with the elegant opening scene especially; his voice draws you in following a dream sequence and never lets you go from then on. Nor would you want to be let go! It is all the more impressive that he is never off-screen, but for the most brief moments, yet the film never feels claustrophobic and almost seems effortless.
Julianne Moore also proves her substantial skill and at least Firth was nominated last year. That she wasn't recognised is criminal. It is a brief role, but again, a complex character and she bundles up a lifetime into her portrayal of Charly. Utterly superb and on a par with Boogie Nights, a film I find overrated except for her. We only see the versatile Matthew Goode (Watchmen, Cemetary Junction) in flashback as Jim and he too works wonders with less screen-time and the relationship between the two men feels absolutely genuine. Nicholas Hoult is also excellent as an unpredictable enigma that George can't dismiss. While his might be the thinnest role of the main characters to play, Hoult still finds depth and works it with the merest expression. Strange how we have Brits playing Brits, Brits playing Americans and Americans playing Brits! Regardless, it is a perfect cast.
Perhaps we should consider that the lean and focused screenplay, so beautifully written, is the common factor for all of them. From the very start to the final moment, it is meticulous and focused. While it never loses it's sombre tone, it has an undercurrent of optimism throughout. The sparse dialogue, entirely free of exposition, is cleverly bolstered by various sub-texts that reflect the story. For instance, it is set in 1962 Los Angeles and America is suffering from Cuban crisis paranoia that gently highlights George's unique perspective. And what of his sexuality? Clearly it is his relationship with men that defines him, yet thank goodness that it isn't an issue the film feels a responsibility to. It is simply who he is and nothing more.
Tom Ford, who also wrote the film (along with David Scearce) adapting Christopher Isherwood's novel, directs his debut with an assured style that contradicts his inexperience, aside from some loose editing. Unless, that is, you want to say it is too good and suggests little personality or interpretation, but that's cynical considering his clear understanding of such sensitive characters. Future projects might reveal more, but Ford's direction here perfectly supports this screenplay this time and he employs some beautiful motifs, such as boosting the colour whenever the sombre George finds something worth paying attention to. As whatever thing it was drifts from the scene, the colour drains a little with it. You might find it obvious, but there is no denying it works and the tone is faultless throughout. Actually a Spanish prostitute demonstrates it perfectly; Ford films him like a model and he seems just a touch overdone, but the ever consistent pace and especially Firth's dialogue in fluent and seamless Spanish puts the substance back in. The balance is never lost here or anywhere else.
I usually somehow forget to mention scores, but no danger here. The final element of this spellbinding film is the haunting theme from Abel Korzeniowski and it is quite wonderful. I've left the DVD menu on while I write this so it keeps playing! Even in a short loop, it's very effective.
I would urge anyone who likes a well told story to invest their time in A Single Man. It is an easy watch, but its substance will take a hold and for viewers of a certain perspective it might haunt you in a most convincing manner.
Post by: Antares on February 12, 2011, 04:37:29 AM
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on February 12, 2011, 10:21:30 AM
Just added "A Single Man" to my wishlist.
Post by: Najemikon on February 12, 2011, 12:22:59 PM
Post by: Najemikon on April 09, 2011, 11:05:51 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/73/7321900656214.4f.jpg) | Singin' in the Rain ***
|
Silent movies are giving way to Talking Pictures - and a hoofer-turned-matinee idol (Gene Kelly) is caught in that bumpy transition, as well as his buddy (Donald O'Connor), prospective ladylove (Debbie Reynolds) and shrewish co-star (Jean Hagen).
Due to an interesting thread on another forum, I had the... erm, "opportunity"... to watch this supposedly glorious film. I’ve never been a fan of musicals, but any such generalised opinion can lead you to blinker yourself. All genres have different styles within so you should always be open to trying them. I’d never seen Singin’ In The Rain, so maybe this one was different. After all it tops the AFI 100 Years of Musicals list and is regularly seen to be a definitive example, so maybe it wasn’t ridiculously cheesy and entirely false.
Of course it was; it was a bloody musical, what did you expect? ;) Topping the AFI list just proves they have low standards in this category because Singin’ In The Rain is so typical of what I have come to dislike. I say “category” rather than “genre”, as I really don’t see what artistic rules it can possibly have when the films so often use the songs as a crutch or padding. They’ve always been made this way. At least The Sound of Music had a story worth following and one that largely allowed for spontaneous bouts of singing at the drop of a hat. You see, that’s the thing that has always infuriated me. The way one actor starts singing and dancing while his or her co-stars just grin at them, politely waiting for them to finish. It’s ridiculous!
The first big number in Singin’ In The Rain avoided this. Debbie Reynold’s Kathy (easily the least annoying character) leads a troupe of dancing girls at a party, so the set-up makes sense and I hoped it would stay that way. The story was ok too at first and setting it within Hollywood during the awkward transition to sound promised to be fun. In that respect, Jean Hagen is very funny as her squeaky voice threatens her future. By comparison, O’Connor and Pinnochio –sorry, Gene Kelly- are nowhere near as interesting and very over the top. No worse than an average comedy cast from the era, understandable as the genres were once bedfellows, but it just isn’t funny or ironic enough to break the feeling this thing has been produced to within an inch of its life. It’s all part of the myth though. Musicals have to hit a certain predictable comfort zone for the audience, or they just don’t work.
For a film about Hollywood, it has no bite at all, not even a knowing wink here or there. It’s full-on Hollywood fantasy and instead of a narrative, it’s merely a series of sketches. Neither it nor even the characters have any personality. By the time Cosmo (Donald O’Connor) sang “Make ‘Em Laugh”, I’d given up hope. Cosmo and Don were supposed to be a double-act, yet Cosmo doesn’t show the slightest problem with being shut out? I found that very odd, especially when they both dived in on a couple of numbers.
Part of the problem reviewing a film like this is that the performances are undeniably brilliant (although the “Make ‘Em Laugh” sequence is overdone), but they belong on a stage. Then you wouldn’t have the weird feeling they’re performing for us, the audience, but then ignoring us between the songs. I found the last big number about Broadway near the can’t-come-soon-enough-end about Broadway to easily be the best one visually, with a great sense of depth and loads of colour. Unfortunately it also felt like they threw in everything they had left, without a care about pacing. It’s very messy and just drags the film on even longer than it needed to be. I did like the ending. Well, the bit on stage before the vomit inducing love song...
I know I’m wrong and musical fans will probably think of this film like cat-nip! So sorry about this review, which is hardly a balanced opinion for a prospective viewer. Normally I can consider how good a film is despite my own dislike of it, but a musical is definitely my cinematic blind spot so I just can't put it in context. I know that essentially they are supposed to be light frothy fun and I might as well have kicked a puppy! Even the very famous sequence of Kelly performing the title song couldn’t win me over. Oh, he’s a good mover, don’t misunderstand me, but… you know, Morecambe and Wise edge it for me! ;D
Post by: Antares on April 09, 2011, 11:35:09 PM
Post by: Kathy on April 09, 2011, 11:42:54 PM
It might be all that you say Jon, but I love this movie - it makes me happy.
When I watch it with my youngest niece and 3 nephews it makes them sing and dance. There can't be a more positive review for a film than one that touches the soul of children.
Post by: Antares on April 09, 2011, 11:50:54 PM
There can't be a more positive review for a film than one that touches the soul of children.
Kathy, you could film someone farting and it would also touch the soul of most children. :tease: :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on April 09, 2011, 11:53:17 PM
That was the best review you've written so far. Every sentiment you expressed made me feel like the words were popping out of my own mouth. I hope you post it in its entirety, including the Morecambe & Wise sketch, at Filmspotters.
Nice of you to say, and yes, I have posted it in full. ;)
Sorry boys but you're both wrong. :tease:
It might be all that you say Jon, but I love this movie - it makes me happy.
When I watch it with my youngest niece and 3 nephews it makes them sing and dance. There can't be a more positive review for a film than one that touches the soul of children.
Kathy, I don't mean to be a cynic, but kids respond to Barney the purple dinosaur as well! Look, there are hundreds of films I'd recommend long before this. Top of the list, would actually be a musical! Mary Poppins. Next, Matilda. Number three, The Princess Bride. Number four, Hue and Cry. I could go on, but I would expect to reach Singin' In The Rain at about 342... :training:
:tease:
edit: I was about to post this before Antares' reply. I suppose we're coming from the same angle! Actually, Thunderpants would even make the list before this, somewhere around the 260 mark, probably. :hysterical:
Post by: Kathy on April 09, 2011, 11:55:15 PM
Post by: Antares on April 09, 2011, 11:58:09 PM
That was the best review you've written so far. Every sentiment you expressed made me feel like the words were popping out of my own mouth. I hope you post it in its entirety, including the Morecambe & Wise sketch, at Filmspotters.
Nice of you to say, and yes, I have posted it in full. ;)
By tomorrow morning you'll be properly lambasted over there. I can't wait to see it, and then staunchly defend your observations.
Post by: Najemikon on April 10, 2011, 12:04:17 AM
That was the best review you've written so far. Every sentiment you expressed made me feel like the words were popping out of my own mouth. I hope you post it in its entirety, including the Morecambe & Wise sketch, at Filmspotters.
Nice of you to say, and yes, I have posted it in full. ;)
By tomorrow morning you'll be properly lambasted over there. I can't wait to see it, and then staunchly defend your observations.
Oooh, hope so! The initial reply has been balanced: Loves musicals, but never liked this one...
Post by: m.cellophane on April 10, 2011, 01:29:52 AM
Due to an interesting thread on another forum, I had the... erm, "opportunity"... to watch this supposedly glorious film. I’ve never been a fan of musicals, but any such generalised opinion can lead you to blinker yourself. All genres have different styles within so you should always be open to trying them. I’d never seen Singin’ In The Rain, so maybe this one was different. After all it tops the AFI 100 Years of Musicals list and is regularly seen to be a definitive example, so maybe it wasn’t ridiculously cheesy and entirely false.Musicals are a blend of music and film. Music is not a crutch or padding in a good musical. It's part of the mixture just as comedy is part of a comedic film or thrills are part of a thriller. Musicals are false in terms of reality but within the context of the conventions of the genre, they are true. Truth in reality belongs to other genres. That doesn't mean that musicals are cheesy. One can experience high art in a musical just as one can experience high art in a drama, comedy or the latest film festival discovery.
Of course it was; it was a bloody musical, what did you expect? ;) Topping the AFI list just proves they have low standards in this category because Singin’ In The Rain is so typical of what I have come to dislike. I say “category” rather than “genre”, as I really don’t see what artistic rules it can possibly have when the films so often use the songs as a crutch or padding. They’ve always been made this way. At least The Sound of Music had a story worth following and one that largely allowed for spontaneous bouts of singing at the drop of a hat. You see, that’s the thing that has always infuriated me. The way one actor starts singing and dancing while his or her co-stars just grin at them, politely waiting for them to finish. It’s ridiculous!
Singin' in the Rain tops the AFI musicals list because it's tops in the genre and not because AFI has low standards for musicals. The 2002 Sight and Sound poll (http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/polls/topten/poll/critics.html) puts Singin' in the Rain as #10 of all films, for example. The 2002 Sight and Sound poll of film directors (http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/polls/topten/poll/directors-long.html) puts Singin' in the Rain at #19 overall.
I don't cite these statistics to prove anything about Singin' in the Rain, but it should make you (and Antares) wonder why you have such outlier opinions instead of agreeing with each other and dismissing Kathy with fart and Barney jokes.
Post by: Antares on April 10, 2011, 02:24:21 AM
I don't cite these statistics to prove anything about Singin' in the Rain, but it should make you (and Antares) wonder why you have such outlier opinions instead of agreeing with each other and dismissing Kathy with fart and Barney jokes.
I'm so sorry Kathy that I dismissed you so harshly, I hope you weren't overly-traumatized by my sophomoric stab at humor? :weep:
(click to show/hide)
Post by: goodguy on April 10, 2011, 07:54:04 AM
Anyway, I don't really feel compelled to argue with Jon because he simply seems so far out of reach here that I can only shrug and move on. Plus, James already addressed the most baffling argument re the "realism" of characters bursting into song.
Post by: Tom on April 10, 2011, 10:10:10 AM
In a good musical, the songs are important to move the plot along or address the character's emotion more deeply. As far as I remember, in "Singin' in the Rain" it is more like they tried to shoehorn in as many songs from previous musicals as possible. For this it is well-made.
I like it more in musicals, that when a character breaks into song, the other character's do not really notice. Either because it is a inner monologue or thoughts, or because to them it is like there a talking as usual. Also when passerbys join them in dancing, they are not really aware of this. It's hard for me to explain, so I hope you get what I am getting at.
Bollywood movies usually follow this. Except if there is a party scene and everyone joins in in the dancing.
"Singin' in the Rain", like many Hollywood musical's at the time, is set in the show business and they used this as an excuse for the characters to sing and dance.
Post by: Najemikon on April 10, 2011, 12:16:48 PM
I don't cite these statistics to prove anything about Singin' in the Rain, but it should make you (and Antares) wonder why you have such outlier opinions instead of agreeing with each other and dismissing Kathy with fart and Barney jokes.
I'm so sorry Kathy that I dismissed you so harshly, I hope you weren't overly-traumatized by my sophomoric stab at humor? :weep:(click to show/hide)
That was a good post, James, until the last line. I think you were more offended directly than worrying about Kathy? I'm sure I made it clear, I accept I'm in the minority and cannot review the film fairly because I can't get past the basics. In this case, our opinions are not even that way off. Singin' In The Rain does feel overproduced and thin, and that last Broadway number is very long, and the view of Hollywood is romanticised at best, bordering on propaganda at worst (there's some irony in how real life reflected the plot in a case of who-is-dubbing-who). I've sat through Sound Of Music enough times to recognise that has a much more honest intention, and the real exception to my musical problem is the oft mentioned Mary Poppins which is wonderful. I can at least recognise a good film and I'm sorry if I'm treading on a favourite of yours, but Singin' is average.
If I had to write a review of Singin’ In The Rain, it would be much more friendly and positive, but I would end up with roughly the same rating as Jon. The movie is funny, charming and joyful, and of the old Hollywood musicals I've seen, I probably like it the best.
Anyway, I don't really feel compelled to argue with Jon because he simply seems so far out of reach here that I can only shrug and move on. Plus, James already addressed the most baffling argument re the "realism" of characters bursting into song.
I just can't make sense of it! By realism, I simply mean this: Hollywood formula, as an author I am currently reading puts it, is "Closed Romantic Realism". It's a Closed universe that doesn't usually acknowledge we are watching them (the characters can't see through the fourth wall, so to speak); a Romantic one because the plot is contrived to create certain situations and ideals that regular people may fantasise about, but rarely if ever happen in real life; and Realism, because these are normal people we're watching, who follow the same rules we do.
By the way, that last point can still extend to a robot or an alien. It's more about the logic of what they do and why.
So, in a musical such as this one, you can have a typical scene such as when Cosmo is talking to Don and they are being Realistic in their Closed Romanticised world. We, the audience, do not exist. Suddenly, Cosmo bursts into song ("Make 'Em Laugh") and is expressing his emotion to Don through the lyrics and slapstick dancing. Ok... But then Cosmo is clearly dancing and singing for our benefit, as by now Don would surely have interacted in some way.
So the impression I'm left with, because the film set me up in this world, is that Cosmo is insane and talking to people who aren't there, or he knows it's just a show and Don is nuts for trying to ignore us!
Weirdly, that Morecambe and Wise sketch demonstrates perfectly what I mean, because we are shown Eric's reaction in normally editing fashion, taking our attention from Ernie (when he's under the drainpipe). He then tries to interrupt Ernie: "What are you doing? I'm all wet!". He then, typical of their setup, turns to us and complains, "I'm wet through, ladies and gentlemen!".
Basically, they're being honest. This is a sketch and they know we're there watching them. If you tell me this is a closed off world, I expect it to stay that way, regardless of what happens within.
Mary Poppins does very well to show characters performing to one another and them reacting properly. They recognise songs are being sung and no-one selfishly gets their own set-piece and then pretends it never happened. This seems to be what Tom describes...
As you know, I am a musical fan. And even though I enjoy "Singin' in the Rain", I don't count it as one of my favourites. For example I like "My Fair Lady" better.
In a good musical, the songs are important to move the plot along or address the character's emotion more deeply. As far as I remember, in "Singin' in the Rain" it is more like they tried to shoehorn in as many songs from previous musicals as possible. For this it is well-made.
I like it more in musicals, that when a character breaks into song, the other character's do not really notice. Either because it is a inner monologue or thoughts, or because to them it is like there a talking as usual. Also when passerbys join them in dancing, they are not really aware of this. It's hard for me to explain, so I hope you get what I am getting at.
Bollywood movies usually follow this. Except if there is a party scene and everyone joins in in the dancing.
"Singin' in the Rain", like many Hollywood musical's at the time, is set in the show business and they used this as an excuse for the characters to sing and dance.
Exactly. Stress that it's an inner monologue, or react to each other. Either is better than this weird dimension Don Lockwood inhabits! :laugh:
My next problem though, is that I simply prefer a solid piece of acting and well written precise dialogue to demonstrate what someone is feeling. But that at least is a bridge to be crossed on better films than this one.
Post by: Achim on April 10, 2011, 12:21:06 PM
As you know, I am a musical fan. And even though I enjoy "Singin' in the Rain", I don't count it as one of my favourites. For example I like "My Fair Lady" better.Somehow I mainly remember the first half of it. "Es grünt so grün wenn Spanien's Blüten blühen." (to this day I still don't know what the English original for this is...).
Post by: Tom on April 10, 2011, 12:52:52 PM
As you know, I am a musical fan. And even though I enjoy "Singin' in the Rain", I don't count it as one of my favourites. For example I like "My Fair Lady" better.Somehow I mainly remember the first half of it. "Es grünt so grün wenn Spanien's Blüten blühen." (to this day I still don't know what the English original for this is...).
"The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain".
Post by: hal9g on April 10, 2011, 03:25:08 PM
Somehow I mainly remember the first half of it. "Es grünt so grün wenn Spanien's Blüten blühen." (to this day I still don't know what the English original for this is...).
Literally it means:
"It's so green when Spain's flowers bloom"
I'd say they took considerable poetic license translating "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain" to "Es grünt so grün wenn Spanien's Blüten blühen."
Post by: m.cellophane on April 10, 2011, 07:53:28 PM
That was a good post, James, until the last line. I think you were more offended directly than worrying about Kathy?I was trying to compose my thoughts on the matter before Kathy posted. As I previewed my message, I could see that the conversation was taking a turn for what I considered the worst. I was a little frustrated by that but it seems that the thread is back on to a decent discussion. That's good.
Post by: Achim on April 11, 2011, 06:43:13 AM
I'd say they took considerable poetic license translating "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain" to "Es grünt so grün wenn Spanien's Blüten blühen."Well, yes. The key is the way she ends up pronouncing those words :laugh: Extemely funny; now I want to see the original to hear her say that (will go hunting on YouTube later).
Post by: lyonsden5 on April 13, 2011, 05:41:33 PM
I think I'll have to bump this one up in the what to watch next pile and see for myself. :tv:
Post by: Najemikon on April 13, 2011, 08:46:05 PM
...I respect Jon's opinion but he has completely missed the mark a few time IMO (like here (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6526.msg118817.html#msg118817)).
I was wondering what that would be! :laugh: The difference with that review is quite clear though: I was right. :tease: What I mean is, I was following the herd. It's recognised as a gem and contributed to a very fine year in American cinema. It's a very highly respected film. With this review, it's a genre I don't enjoy and you should know the film was watched somewhat under duress! :-[ I'm more than willing to accept I'm wrong on this occasion, but it's up to those who enjoy musicals more than I to explain why... ;)
Post by: Antares on April 13, 2011, 08:55:06 PM
I was wondering what that would be! :laugh: The difference with that review is quite clear though: I was right. :tease: What I mean is, I was following the herd. It's recognised as a gem and contributed to a very fine year in American cinema. It's a very highly respected film.
That is a film that needs to be seen more than once to appreciate its greatness. I too, thought it was slow the first time I watched it, but after my second and third viewings, I found it to be an amazing film.
Post by: Achim on April 14, 2011, 06:13:01 AM
That is a film that needs to be seen more than once to appreciate its greatness. I too, thought it was slow the first time I watched it, but after my second and third viewings, I found it to be an amazing film.There are films though, that grant a second viewing to find out what was going on, and then there are those that were so boring or terrible the first time, we have no desire to go back.
Post by: Najemikon on May 02, 2011, 11:36:38 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5035017010051.4f.jpg) | 8½ (Otto e mezzo) *****
|
A film director (Mastroianni) is struggling to find the creativity required to deliver his next movie and consequently is being hassled by industry figures as well as his wife and his mistress. In order to escape his tormentors, the director retreats into a world of memories, dreams and fantasies. The result is a dazzling array of themes and images which make 8 1/2 the quintessential Fellini movie. It also closely mirrors his own problems prior to getting the project off the ground.
Reviewing a film like 8½ is quite tough. Easy to recommend, hard to say why, and impossible to say whether you’ll like it, regardless of how much you appreciate it. Suffice to say it is an intensely personal film for the director, Federico Fellini, and it might just be one for you to. Its beauty is intoxicating whatever your conclusion, so dive in, embrace it and let it simmer on your mind.
It has such a varied and playful structure, that scenes can differ wildly, verging on a collection of set-pieces, yet they flow effortlessly together between Guido’s (Mastroianni) present, his fantasies, and his past. His memory of the exotic Saraghina is a stunning moment in particular. There would be a tendency these days to make the memories and dreams overly romantic and strange to emphasise their place in the story, but here the moments in Guido’s reality can be just as theatrical. There is no signposting between them either, challenging your own perception of the events. What I’m trying to say is that there appears to be no design, when of course there is. In fact, it is astonishingly clever as the self-referential dialogue relates to us the difficulty Fellini is having while making his eighth and a half film, within the film we are watching! Phew… I’m reminded of Charlie Kaufman’s Adaptation screenplay. He had been asked to adapt a novel and the film is about his attempt and failure to do so. While it bends your mind, it boils down to the writer having a block and working it out on screen. Fellini is doing a similar thing.
Mastroianni is marvellous as Guido and he has a great cast to support him, especially the women. The wonderful Anouk Aimée is his long suffering wife, and may be his and the films anchor, while he is teased in his own mind at least by Claudia Cardinale. Barbara Steele also pops up and her entrance is a real wow moment! I’ve often said I think Hitchcock gave Grace Kelly the best entrance of any actress in Rear Window. I’m tempted to put Barbara’s introduction a close second!
Here in these elements is where the film can easily divide an audience. Guido is exhausted, as much from his affairs as from a previous film, but because we are so focused on him and he is suffering from essentially being too successful, it is easy to see it as pretentious self-pity, which he is suffering at his own convenience, you might say. And the film is clearly so personal to Fellini that it may be auto-biographical, so you can’t help but wonder if he is coming to terms with his own addictions and shortfalls by making 8½. So at the end, he feels better and self-satisfied because he shared it with us? If the film wasn’t so bloody good, its self-serving nature and cheap treatment of women could be offensive.
It does have a light and cheeky sense of humour throughout from the first moment to the end and in truth, you are not forced into sympathising with anyone, things just move along as they would naturally. You see his dreams and fantasies, but it is not some sentimental inner voice relating them to us in retrospect, dictated by a narrative. Indeed it entirely avoids committing to having some sort of focused resolution. We see them as they happen and all his neuroses, faults and ambitions are laid bare. Guido is a hard character to dislike, regardless of your perspective (oddly the same problem his wife has!) and it is possibly the most honest and pure film ever made.
I have recently watched three Italian films from the early 60s that demonstrated how Neo-Realism had evolved. Il Posto, La Commare Secca and Mamma Roma (also 1962). That last one, an early film from Pier Paolo Pasolini, demonstrated how the director was seeking such realism in his work that he didn’t want the audience to entirely forget they were watching a film. As such, there is a brief moment where a young actor stumbles during a dance scene and, embarrassed, his eyes look straight at the camera. Passolini left this ‘mistake’ in as part of the experience. The barriers between the film-makers and their audience were being broken down, even while the film still had a poetic and important story to tell.
Fellini took this to a natural end-point in 8½. There is no story as such to tell as it is merely a snapshot within the film-making process. So it’s an enigma because while it could be the purest expression of realism, but there’s surely nowhere else for it to go. And does it even have a point? Well, it is at least a fascinating demonstration of what film can achieve and should be required viewing for everyone. So I suppose it makes its own point, which just sums up the whole, wonderful, infuriating genius of the thing!
Post by: Antares on May 03, 2011, 01:21:36 AM
Post by: Najemikon on May 03, 2011, 01:41:49 AM
Post by: Antares on May 03, 2011, 01:53:35 AM
Post by: Najemikon on May 15, 2011, 05:06:46 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5050629831030.4f.jpg) | Salt **
|
Angelina Jolie stars as Evelyn Salt,a trusted and loyal CIA operative who is forced to go on the run when a Russian defector convinces her superiors that she's a double agent sent to assassinate the President of the United States. As the intense manhunt heats up, Salt uses all of her skills as a covert operative to elude capture as she fights to uncover a secret so explosive it could change the course of world history.
Salt is rubbish. Let’s get that out of the way first. If all you’re looking for is a basic “should I watch this” review, then be assured, you should not. Don’t waste your time, money or sanity. And in the unlikely event there is a sequel, don’t start thinking you missed something.
It’s worth saying why it is such a disappointment, particularly considering the director is Phillip Noyce. The first hour of the film is actually ok, but Noyce never used to just be ‘ok’. We had watchable fun like Blind Fury, and Dead Calm had some real tension. Neither of them tried to punch above their weight, but he also directed Patriot Games and The Quiet American, both of which were solid, character driven political thrillers, with truly astonishing set-pieces. Salt is clearly a cross between Bourne and Bond with tits, so Noyce’s contribution following Paul Greengrass and Martin Campbell should have been much more interesting. I honestly think the ambush sequence in his second Jack Ryan film (Clear And Present Danger) was a big influence on the action genre and holds up today. Much of its success was probably down to the always reliable Harrison Ford, but that was the point. Noyce keeps his star character front and centre, no matter what the sequence was.
The star of this film, Angelina Jolie, is certainly worth seeing for that first half. Salt was supposed to be a Tom Cruise vehicle (he probably bailed when he saw the full script!), but switching to a female agent is no gimmick at least. Her escape early in the film is great and will pique your interest. Even here though, the action runs like a predictable computer game and then by the halfway point the story is getting too silly to be taken as seriously as the cast seem to. The high-point is a clever twist on an assassination attempt, but it nosedives so quickly! It becomes an absolute joke during the second escape sequence, when Jolie uses a Taser to control the driver of the police truck she’s in. No, really, I’m being serious. It’s almost “one jolt for forward, two for backward”! I defy you to keep a straight face. I know some action films are successfully built on such silliness, like Shoot 'Em Up, but the story here is taken so seriously. From then on the shameless audacity of the writing will keep you laughing so you don’t fall asleep from the dull, lumpy narrative with daft flashbacks.
Clearly writer Kurt Wimmer is the real villain here. His IMDB profile is a list of dull crap, the highlight being Law Abiding Citizen. He also did Street Kings, another film that had a grain of potential swallowed by awful plotting. He’s down for the Total Recall remake, so I’m raising the prediction of that films quality from “Probably Rubbish” to “Shoot Me Now”. Salt feels like a prequel to the game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, it’s that bad.
When I first saw the trailer, I was pretty convinced this was an update of the Kevin Costner thriller, No Way Out, but the premise is really just a device for a straightforward ‘accused and on the run to prove innocence’ plot. The twist being, you can’t be absolutely sure Salt is innocent. That just detracts, whereas films like The Fugitive and French thriller Tell No One have more tension because the viewer knows where they stand from the start.
By the end, where even the worst films can have a glimmer of redemption, all hope is lost. Jolie had been doing her best to keep the thing afloat, with genuinely good help from her two co-stars Liev Schreiber and Chiwetel Ejiofor, but all three of them are undone by an awful plot. It always had an uphill struggle. I thought the Russians were our friends now? Aren’t the Koreans supposed to be the ones we’re all paranoid about? It feels desperate and dated straight out of the box. The DVD/Blu-Ray just compounds how awful it is, with two alternative cuts, one of which has a different ending. I didn’t think it could be worse, but bloody hell it really can! The three cuts just show how messed up and unfocused the production was.
Too much Salt really is bad for you. And trust me, that awful gag was still better than the film! :-[
Post by: Rogmeister on May 15, 2011, 08:12:11 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on May 15, 2011, 09:40:32 PM
An alternate ending? Oh dear. That's probably bad...I didn't particularly like the ending they used for theatrical, but with the direction they took the story in, I don't know how they could make it better.
Post by: Najemikon on May 15, 2011, 10:14:38 PM
(click to show/hide)
The "Extended Cut" has the biggest departure. So big I think it is actually shorter than the other two! So what does "Extended" mean anyway? :laugh: :
(click to show/hide)
Actually, all things considered, the Extended Cut works best of the three. That end scene is actually very good and more in keeping with the tone of the story, plus the epilogue finale has a punch, visually.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Dragonfire on May 16, 2011, 12:26:28 AM
Post by: Achim on May 16, 2011, 06:05:50 AM
Salt was supposed to be a Tom Cruise vehicle (he probably bailed when he saw the full script!)Cruise bailed and made Knight and Day instead. So surely you're nort saying that the script quality was a factor for hijm, are you? :tease:
Fun review :thumbup:
Post by: goodguy on May 16, 2011, 07:31:54 AM
Plot and execution are of course completely ridiculous and the movie is all the better for it, especially as it actually has the guts to follow things through instead of presenting the hero with a medal and a patriotic speech at the end (yes, I'm referring to the bore fest Eagle Eye again).
Still, all of this wouldn't have worked without Angelina Jolie in a performance that reminded me more of McLane than Bond or Bourne. It's easy to think that female action heroes are a dime a dozen these days, but rarely are they done as right as in this case.
Btw, I only watched the Director's Cut and didn't bother with the other versions.
Post by: Najemikon on May 22, 2011, 07:43:23 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5060000700077.4f.jpg) | Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans *****
|
This new edition of Sunrise contains two versions of the film (both in 1080p HD): the previously released Movietone version, and an alternate silent version of the film, recently discovered in the Czech Republic, of a higher visual quality than any other known source.
The culmination of one of the greatest careers in film history, F. W. Murnau’s Sunrise blends a story of fable-like simplicity with unparalled visual imagination and technical ingenuity. Invited to Hollywood by William Fox and given total artistic freedom on any project he wished, Murnau’s tale of the idyllic marriage of a peasant couple (George O’Brien and Janet Gaynor) threatened by a vamp-like seductress from the city (Margaret Livingston) created a milestone of film expressionism.
Made in the twilight of the silent era, Sunrise became both a swan song for a vanishing medium and one of the few films to instantly achieve legendary status. Winner of three Oscars® for Best Actress (Gaynor), Cinematography, and a never-repeated award for “Unique and Artistic Picture”, its influence and stature has only grown with each passing year. The Masters of Cinema Series is proud to present the world première of Sunrise on Blu-ray.
There are a few members of this forum who love a good romance. I implore you to seek out this film, it's just wonderful.
It seems to me that whenever a new innovation is introduced, history shows that cinema suffers somewhat as artists scramble to use the new technology. We’re seeing it at the moment with 3D (again) and decades ago, the introduction of sound, the widescreen ratios and even colour. There is possibly no finer example than Sunrise, a silent film and a glorious demonstration of a director working at the height of his powers, yet it possibly lost some momentum being released just days before The Jazz Singer, which is criminal. In any case, F.W. Murnau perfectly balances a variety of visual techniques to tell a story in such a way that the lack of spoken dialogue is actually a benefit. It makes you wonder if it is even possible to tell this story today.
It is the story of a marriage being tested and reborn. A farmer is tempted to leave his wife and sell his farm for the promises of an immoral city girl (a brazen Margaret Livingston). She plants the idea of murder in his mind to get rid of his wife and he almost goes through with it. On a trip to the city, the young couple face up to that awful truth and rediscover what they mean to each other. It sounds simple, but it has an epic sweep that will catch you off guard.
George O’Brien is incredible as the farmer and I was amazed at the humanity and subtlety of his performance, considering that in the first act he is so tormented and largely shuffles around like a Golem under the woman’s control (the double-exposure trick that shows him unable to get her off of his mind was stunning). He blossoms later on and brings such humour to the character. His wife, Janet Gaynor (a more attractive version of Drew Barrymore in some shots!), will break your heart as she has to suffer her husbands near fatal decision and especially later in the café as he rather pathetically tries to make amends to her, a near broken woman at this point. How can a plate of cakes be that emotional? It’s just superb! A fantastic performance and I was convinced by her intentions, while I know some may feel her husband is unforgivable.
The whole journey of the boat (loved the shot of the dog, trying to keep them ashore), the farmers desperate race to land after realising his stupidity and their entry to the city on a tram could be one of my favourite and most memorable sequences of any film. There is much wrapped up in there. As the urban rat race comes into full view, with the tram racing through traffic and cityscapes, they are so caught up in their torment they are oblivious to it and I felt regret that they were missing it, if that doesn’t sound ridiculous! It’s such a thrilling journey, one she was clearly relishing and now it was ruined.
All of that and the café scene culminate in a wedding they stumble upon and they listen to the ceremony. It is as if they are getting married again. He becomes distraught at hearing the vows and it’s as if he makes them again himself. I don’t usually explain so much of the plot, but I felt it was important here, because in many reviews I’ve read, it seems that the following scenes that make up the middle act are considered too silly and so I wanted to stress the importance of that wedding. What follows is essentially a second honeymoon. They wrap themselves up in each other, embrace the city and experience a pure joy. You owe it to yourself to join them as Murnau clearly does. His montages and pans are exhilarating, particularly during the fair, while the comedy of the smaller moments is beautifully timed (drunken pig!). Nothing is wasted as it all adds to the relationship being rebuilt on stronger foundations than ever, right up to the moment the man literally throws his wife back on to the tram! This may be a masterpiece of Expressionism, but it is also a sublime example of Hollywood Romance and proof that it never pays to be too cynical.
I found the storm scene that followed fascinating. If one considers the emotional focus of a narrative, and that we had left the city behind with no individuals to be concerned about, to what end was Murnau thinking when he shows the storm hitting the city first? Why are we interested in what happens there now we are back in the boat? My take on it is that the couple had outran their own metaphorical storm (his frantic rowing to shore), but it had continued to chase them and was now catching up, still needing to be dealt with. The city that they knew was a fantasy. There was no reference to the woman that caused all this and only the briefest nod to their baby, left back at home (whom the man had not been shown with anyway). They were literally drifting back to reality.
The story is reassuringly predictable up until this point. But the storm has potential to wipe the slate clean and I thought that was brilliant. Perhaps we’re supposed to join in with the silliness of the middle act with the same abandon as the couple and not worry about the underlying story yet to be resolved. Murnau would reacquaint us when necessary and that time is now.
This is an incredible piece of work. Murnau proudly directs with a passionate and consummate grasp of his ability to stretch the storytelling right into the animated title-cards, montages, comedy asides and pure Expressionism. I loved every second of it. It’s been a long time since I watched a film and immediately watched it again. This fantastic Blu-Ray release gave me an excuse with the alternative version.
I started this review by implying that cinema suffers, at least temporarily, when new innovations derail artists still exploring the limits of their craft. I wonder how aware F.W. Murnau was of this, especially considering the title. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but maybe we shouldn’t look on Sunrise as a swansong of the silent era, but in fact as a beautiful and defiant promise of what is always possible in cinema, an art form able to reinvent itself with every film. Every generation of movie-goers deserves its Sunrise.
Post by: Antares on May 22, 2011, 10:08:00 PM
Post by: Najemikon on May 23, 2011, 12:03:58 AM
Post by: goodguy on May 23, 2011, 02:18:47 AM
Post by: Najemikon on May 23, 2011, 09:03:51 PM
Post by: Eric on June 04, 2011, 10:28:01 PM
State Of Play
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/state.jpg)
Director Kevin MacDonald follows his well-written, but flawed Last King of Scotland with the well-written, but flawed State Of Play. There’s a detail and intimacy in his direction that gives it an air of authenticity, but despite the witty dialogue and excellent plot, it seems to lose credibility in the final act, which is a real shame.
Jon, as I recall you and I agreed that Last King of Scotland was flawed but disagreed as to how and where :). Tonight I'm gonna watch State of Play so I guess tomorrow we will again disagree on our reasons for agreeing :wacko:
Post by: Najemikon on June 23, 2011, 09:00:30 PM
Post by: Najemikon on June 23, 2011, 11:03:58 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5055201810892.4f.jpg) | Mulholland Drive *****
|
In MULHOLLAND DRIVE, David Lynch takes the viewer on a memorable neo-noir trip through Hollywood's dark underbelly in a mystery that blurs the lines between fantasy and reality and features astonishing performances from Naomi Watts and Laura Harring. Lynch dispenses with a conventional narrative in favour of a hallucinogenic assault on the senses that will stay with you long after the credits roll.
At the end of Mulholland Drive I was asking myself two questions: what on earth was all that about? And, does it matter?
I’m really on the fence about surrealism in general, because like a lot of traditional Jazz music, it seems very easy to hide mistakes and claim they were all part of the plan after the fact. Similar to when a fantasy or sci-fi writer lazily contrives some mystical object to get them out of a corner they’ve written themselves into. I don’t trust it. I like stories to have a strong narrative with a conscience and with a beginning, middle and end (not necessarily in that order or so predictable). If they start farting about, I’m likely to lose interest. But in all honesty, I can’t accuse Mulholland Drive of that.
I couldn’t help feeling it has a lot of joins being hidden, so I was all ready to cry “bullshit” and commit to my David Lynch collection starting with The Elephant Man and ending with A Straight Story. You know, his normal stuff when he was being sensible! Apparently it was to be a pilot for a TV series, so I’d found it difficult to accept that some of the seemingly half-finished threads, such as the guy in the café or the stolen phone book, were supposed to be left like that or if there are never to be seen further episodes fleshing them out. What I find fascinating though is that I can’t deny it works. In fact I don’t want to deny it. I want to see it again, dive back into the madness and swim for sanity! It’s flawed genius; but am I even qualified to call it flawed? I bloody loved this film. I don’t know why, but maybe that is why!
Part of the spell is Naomi Watts, who I have always liked. She gives a truly stunning performance. For the first half of the film, I felt she was shallow and over-acting, but then her character, an aspiring actress, gives an audition. Oh my, that scene is so clever and you see her real talent. Later on, even more layers to her role are uncovered, explaining why she was weaker in the opening scenes even, and leaving you with a superb and varied performance that carries the film. Laura Elena Harring is wonderful too and they work together very well, especially in the notorious sex scenes. It’s testament to Lynch’s skill that in a film such as this, stylised erotic (possibly part fantasy) love scenes could have been exploitive, but actually they felt necessary and substantial. Plus, they are very hot!
Seriously though, Lynch’s pacing and confidence is astonishing. There’s a musical interlude of sorts when a director (Justin Theroux) auditions singers for his film and it’s such a deceptively simple scene, but engrossing. There are other more subtle moments with similar power, plus a hint of farce, such as a hitman making a mess of a job. This confident direction helps even the strangest scenes convince; the man who doesn’t like his Espresso, or the old tourist couple. Not going to forget them in a hurry! Throughout it has a disturbing tone. You’ll want to look away, but you won’t be able to. As pure film-making goes, it is rarely this powerful and playful at the same time.
As I said earlier, I favour a traditional approach to telling a story and I was prepared for this to not follow such conventions. So I was blown away by how coherent, ambitious and clever the narrative actually is. No, I can’t tell you where the beginning, the middle or the end lie in relation to one another, but I had a sense that they do relate and in the final act it’s reflecting on your perception of the story as a whole and is quite simply, sublime. Insane, but sublime!
Perversely, while I don’t know exactly what it was about yet, it clearly does matter. It might be surreal, yet it makes a twisted sort of sense.
Post by: dfmorgan on June 23, 2011, 11:34:22 PM
A great review Jon, thanks. This a one of my favourite weird films, I must watch this again soon.
My understanding about the history of the film is that basically the first half of this was the TV pilot and that the second half was added by David Lynch when he received funding from Alain Sarde and Studio Canal. However they required the film to be completed in Europe so most of the second half was shot in Poland with Polish crews. All this used to be detailed on the David Lynch website but can I find a link nope :(
Post by: Najemikon on June 23, 2011, 11:57:00 PM
:thumbup:
A great review Jon, thanks. This a one of my favourite weird films, I must watch this again soon.
My understanding about the history of the film is that basically the first half of this was the TV pilot and that the second half was added by David Lynch when he received funding from Alain Sarde and Studio Canal. However they required the film to be completed in Europe so most of the second half was shot in Poland with Polish crews. All this used to be detailed on the David Lynch website but can I find a link nope :(
Thanks, Dave! I read something similar. Probably on Wikipedia. Something about the studio twisting his arm a bit to do some sort of ending as well! Glad they did, because it would have been impenetrable without it... :whistle:
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on June 24, 2011, 12:07:46 AM
Mulholland Drive is on and off my radar for quite some time now.
Probably have to get it finally.
Post by: Najemikon on June 24, 2011, 12:20:13 AM
Post by: Mustrum_Ridcully on June 24, 2011, 12:33:45 AM
Have you watched a proper Lynch film before?Does "Twin Peaks" count?
I really like "strange" movies and am currently viewing myself through some of the better Danish productions.
Last watch here: Reconstruction (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366943/) (My rating: (http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/3769/fourandhalf.jpg) )
Sadly I momentarily can't write as much reviews as I'd like to.
Post by: Achim on June 24, 2011, 06:21:11 AM
I also highly enjoy The Elephant Man and Wild at Heart.
I have seen Mulholland Dr. and remember liking it; maybe I need to rewatch it too. Still have Lost Highway in my unwatched pile.
If Lynch ever makes a film in 3D Mark Kermode will eat his shoe. :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on June 24, 2011, 08:22:19 AM
If anyone could pull 3D off it would surely be Lynch, but it has to be without glasses. Or maybe he could have a random character who signals you need to put the glasses on. Like whenever you see Cameron Diaz dressed as a clown and riding a goat, you think, "Ah, he's about to use 3D! I need me glasses."
By the way, could someone please make that film? I just thought of Diaz, clown, goat and somehow, I think it could work... :laugh:
Post by: Achim on June 24, 2011, 08:36:02 AM
If anyone could pull 3D off it would surely be Lynch, but it has to be without glasses. Or maybe he could have a random character who signals you need to put the glasses on. Like whenever you see Cameron Diaz dressed as a clown and riding a goat, you think, "Ah, he's about to use 3D! I need me glasses."So like in the old days? When they didn't want to make the whole film in 3D they usually used such device. I remember this from Spy-Kids 3D and Nightmare on Elm Street 7(?; the one where Freddy was supposed to die). It usually was when someone on screen put some sort of glasses on as well. Of course, one or two shots later the screen turned into a mixture of green and red and you'd know anyway :laugh:
Post by: Dragonfire on June 25, 2011, 06:41:22 AM
Post by: Najemikon on October 03, 2011, 06:49:27 PM
| (http://www.dvdcompare.net/images/reviews/2548.jpg) | The Man With The Severed Head **
|
When a jewel robbery goes horribly wrong and their leader, Jack (PAUL NASCHY) is shot in the head, a group of criminals go to extreme measures to save their friends life...
With the help of a local doctor the gang devises a uniquely gruesome plan - to kill their worst enemy, throw his body in front of an oncoming train, and use the brain from the severed head as a transplant!
The operation is a success and all seems well... that is until the brain's former owner starts living out his murderous past through Jack, turning him into a mad-man bent on death and destruction...
With a title like that, you just know you’re in for a treat! And before the film starts there’s a wonderful trailer by Arrow Films to showcase some of the stuff they’re releasing and it really sets you up for the main feature. A good old fashioned slice of nasty grindhouse exploitation, with gore and nudity! Well, that’s what I hoped for. That’s what the title insinuated and the picture on the DVD sleeve is suitably garish. And it stars Paul Naschy who had a notorious career in grotty fun like the Re-Animator sequel or enthusiastic Spanish werewolf flicks.
Grindhouse cinema has a proud history of embracing the “video nasty” stereotype and courting controversy and threats of being banned. The only reason this film should be banned is because it’s astonishingly dull. It’s not a bad premise and the story isn’t awful, but it plays out without anything worthy of note. It’s a non-event.
Naschy plays a mobster who is shot in the head during a botched robbery. His doctor understands that hospital is not an option and so takes him to a professor who has been experimenting with brain transplants in animals. The Professor claims, with his family under threat, that he will be able to save the gang’s boss. He just needs a suitable brain and so the henchmen track down their arch-enemy (promisingly called The Sadist) and bring back his head. The operation is a success! Or is it?
Right now, if you like this sort of film, I can virtually guarantee that the film you’re imagining in your head is considerably more fun than what you’ll actually see. Mad professors swapping brains, mobsters called “The Sadist”, medical experiments going nuts! That has to be a winner, eh? But it isn’t. What you actually get is a very run of the mill gangster plot that maybe The Sopranos could have built on, with no sense of the fantastic or the macabre. The Sadist is the least convincing gangster I have ever seen while the injured Naschy simply needs fixing up without regular doctors asking awkward questions. He recovers in the Prof’s house and post-op, the patient gets a headache and doesn’t “feel himself”. That’s it, really.
It’s a very poorly made film, but you kind of want that for the experience. The bad acting (including Naschy, despite his reputation), the awful script, the incompetence of the director … all of this is par for the course and complaining about it would be idiotic. But what I can’t understand is how serious it’s being taken! There’s no irony whatsoever and even less enthusiasm. No blood, no gore (except for an inventive way of decapitating a corpse), a small amount of nudity. The opening sequence with the robbery isn’t bad and overall the story is good enough to keep you watching in the vain hope they’re saving everything for a final reel blow-out. They don’t. When Naschy finally goes on his nutty rampage, it’s more of a confused walk. I gave up when a girl on a moped is surprised by him. She gets off it to run away. That’s right; she drops the perfectly functional and rather nippy escape vehicle so she can run into the woods on foot.
When the victims have to stop and wait for the villain to catch up, you know all hope is lost.
Arrow Films are to be commended for such a well presented effort in restoring an example of the much maligned exploitation genre, but it’s all for nothing. It’s a dull experience watching the film and then you see those deleted scenes… It is at this point the game is up and you slap yourself on the forehead as the mystery of why the film was so weak is revealed. The six minutes of sex scenes are clumsy, but so gratuitously filmed and overlong, it is blindingly obvious the whole intention behind The Man With The Severed Head was to produce a soft-core porn film. It is fair to say the opening scenes aren’t bad, so maybe someone thought there was enough straight material to pull off a half-decent crime movie after rescuing it from such a laughably inept nudie flick. Or perhaps it was the other way around. Either way it doesn’t matter. There is value in the cheap and nasty riotous fun of the exploitation genre, but none of it can be found here. It’s a porn film with the sex cut out and it doesn’t get much more pointless than that!
Extended & technical review available at DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2548)
Post by: Najemikon on October 03, 2011, 07:29:16 PM
| (http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/pictures/1093148.jpg) | Ip Man ****
|
Ip Man was Bruce Lee's legendary Kung Fu master, who taught him the tightly controlled Wing Chun discipline that would become the basis of Lee's Jeet Kune Do concept, still practised today. Ip Man is very important in the world of Martial Arts, but is his story intriguing enough to be a film without even mentioning his more famous disciple? Absolutely!
The first part of the film introduces Ip Man (Donnie Yen) as a highly respected and wealthy inhabitant of the Chinese city of Foshan, renowned for its multiple Martial Arts schools and their skilled Masters. Although Ip Man is recognised as the most skilled of all, he leads a quiet life, respectfully refusing to run a school or take a disciple. Still, he gets a lot of attention, much to the annoyance of his wife and young son. Soon he is forced to help rid the city of an arrogant bandit who had been challenging and embarrassing the local Masters. Life returns to normal for Ip Man, but the film picks up his story again years later during the Japanese occupation and finds him stripped of his wealth. Foshan is in poverty and the occupying General puts on cruel tournaments to test his soldiers against Chinese Kung Fu. Ip Man refuses to take part, believing his Martial Arts skills to be impractical for supporting his family, but once more, he is the only one capable of defending the honour of his friends.
To be fair, a lot of the tale is likely to be more legend than truth, but that suits the genre and works as a tribute to the Grandmaster. Martial Arts is a form that thrives on recognising its history and teachers, so a film such as this can get away with telling a few porkie pies because it's about paying respect to the man and what he represents to the students of Wing Chun and JKD today.
The first half is great fun and works as a pure Kung Fu movie, straight out of the same stable that Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and so many others made their name from. It gleefully subscribes to the same faintly ridiculous plotting to join together the fight scenes. That isn't a criticism. Director Wilson Yip simply demonstrates he knows his audience (while the shrewd screenplay has an ambitious second half up its sleeve anyway). The action sequences, choreographed by the legendary Sammo Hung, are superb; exciting and violent, but accurate with plenty of wow moments that don't resort to the slapstick that can occasionally creep into this kind of film. It's properly bone-crunching, breathless stuff that also avoids using too much wire work. This isn't one of those silly films where people fly around after being kicked! That would be disrespectful of the elegant close quarters Wing Chun style anyway, which Donnie Yen has clearly become very proficient at.
The film looks fantastic in its attention to period detail and the sets are incredible. It's essential to see this on Blu-Ray to fully appreciate the depth of that detail and photography. This is an impressive and sumptuous film that keeps you enthralled, even when the characters aren't scrapping. Apparently there was some controversy over the title because Wong Kar-wai was also developing a bio-pic about Ip Man. That film has yet to transpire if it ever will, but while Wong is a truly great director, I can't imagine the look or tone could be improved on. Wilson Yip has crafted a production to be proud of, as it confidently straddles the pure fun of Kung Fu movies and a character driven drama. Occasionally it gets out of shape when trying to sidestep clichés on both sides, but sidestep them it does.
Ironically, by doing that it actually does become a bit predictable in one sense at least. Ip Man is clearly too good. Donnie Yen plays him brilliantly and his skill is astonishing, but the character might as well be a brick wall for all the good his opponents can do! He's an immovable force and seems invincible, so where's the peril? A hero has to overcome adversity and normally that means losing once or twice, or bravely overcoming an injury, Karate Kid style, to prevail in the end. In the second half, the story cleverly gives Ip Man an awful crisis of confidence. So what if you're invincible? Kung Fu is no good in a war. What are you going to do, kick the Japanese army of town one at a time? No, of course not. Ip Man is going to do it ten at a time!
Ok, I'm being silly, but in all seriousness, despite a pissed off Ip Man challenging ten Japanese at the tournament making for the most awesome scene of all, it's still a small part of a much bigger situation he feels powerless to deal with. There is the peril, there is the adversity and it doesn't get much more thrilling.
While it occasionally over-reaches itself, the ambitious narrative is a refreshing flying kick up the back-side for the Martial Arts genre and should be seen as one of the best of its kind because while it hits the essential ingredients of being great fun and thoroughly entertaining, it can also be moving. It is so respectful of the illustrious Ip Man and the Wing Chun style, it defines the very point of Kung Fu and legitimises why these films are so popular as probably the finest form of the action genre. The naïve amongst you might see Kung Fu b-movies as poorly dubbed grown men in their pyjamas slapping each other and so Ip Man is the perfect film for you to jump on board and see how good they can be.
Check current prices at Find DVD (http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/blu-ray/IP-Man/1093148.htm)
Post by: Najemikon on October 03, 2011, 09:46:51 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5050629894417.4f.jpg) | Redbelt ***
|
REDBELT is the story of Mike Terry (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a Jiu-jitsu master who has avoided the prize fighting circuit, choosing instead to pursue an honourable life by operating a self-defence studio with a samurai's code. An accident on a dark, rainy night at Terry's studio between an off duty officer and a distraught lawyer (Emily Mortimer) puts in motion a series of events that will change Terry's life dramatically introducing him to a world of promoters (Ricky Jay, Joe Mantegna) and movie star Chet Frank (Tim Allen). Faced with this, in order to pay off his debts and regain his honour, Terry must step into the ring for the first time in his life.
David Mamet films can be a frustrating experience. As a writer, he has been responsible for several genuine modern classics as diverse as The Verdict, The Untouchables and Glengarry Glen Ross. But the films he has directed himself, while being meticulously crafted and still featuring the unmistakeably sharp writing and melodic dialogue, can nevertheless feel staged. It worked to the advantage of cool The Spanish Prisoner, but arguably to the detriment of amiable comedy State And Main. Redbelt mostly avoids this and so could be Mamet's most accomplished and satisfying work as a director.
It looks like a Martial Arts movie, but they are pure action flicks and Redbelt is a drama first, with a character based plot that occasionally feels like a Hitchcock thriller. It still has the action, but rather than being a set piece, the combat is concise and organic to the plot. It's really very clever because Mamet still builds those scenes through the characters with his usual skill and precision, reminiscent of classic Hollywood, but the choreography and editing is so smooth and dynamic, the film comes to life and avoids the occasional stiffness his work has. Fans of Hong Kong cinema will still enjoy the film, but might be confused by the lack of sound effects, never mind the higher standard of acting!
Chiwetel Ejiofor is perfectly cast as the thoughtful Mike Terry, the Jiu-Jitsu teacher with a code, not unlike a young Mr. Miyagi! His quiet, but firm presence sets the tone of the story and gives it personality. As does Emily Mortimer, who along with Max Martini and Tim Allen (in a rare straight role; he's wasted in comedy!) give solid support as the random figures that unwittingly conspire to undermine Mike's world. The real villains are Mamet regulars Joe Mantegna and Ricky Jay, along with John Machodo. Machado is a Jiu-Jitsu black belt and he isn't the only real expert in the film. If you know the world of Ultimate Fighting or Jiu-Jitsu, there are multiple cameos to spot (the Blu-Ray has substantial interviews and statistics) and they give the story legitimacy, especially in the finale set at the Ultimate Fighting contest, where Mike's training method is being used as a cheap stunt.
It is here, after a messy middle section, that Mamet really proves his skill and plays his ace. The film has turned into a sports tournament movie, like a grown-ups Karate Kid, and despite being thrilling stuff, is in danger of suffering the clichés and predictability that genre can't avoid. Yet in the final act, a neat contrivance does avoid the obvious, while still giving the viewer the exhilarating and emotional conclusion the story deserves. The brief end note is superb, as it sidesteps any form of exposition or epilogue (another Hitchcock trait wisely used). It's outrageously sentimental, but also underlines the way the story treats the sport with respect and relevance throughout.
It isn't perfect. The shifts in tone can be messy and there may be one too many threads running for too many characters (at least one seems lost by the third act and an important twist is glossed over), but the casts performance is engrossing and Mamet's direction has an assured quality. If you haven't been won over by his style before, this might be the one to do so.
Redbelt is very enjoyable. An unusual, optimistic and satisfying film with a lot of heart that deserves to be known better and it makes a nice companion piece to The Wrestler, though it pales against that films focused story of redemption.
Check current prices at Find DVD (http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/blu-ray/Redbelt/1090103.htm)
Post by: Najemikon on October 03, 2011, 10:18:28 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5050629576016.4f.jpg) | District 9 ****
|
From producer Peter Jackson (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and director Neill Blomkamp comes a startlingly original science fiction thriller. With stunning special effects this grittily realistic film plunges us into a world where aliens have landed... only to be exiled to a slum on the fringes of Johannesburg. Now, one lone human discovers the mysterious secret of the extraterrestrial weapon technology. Hunted and hounded through the bizarre back alleys of an alien shantytown, he will discover what it means to be the ultimate outsider on your own planet.
Hollywood has had an uneasy relationship with science fiction, the least structured of all the genres. Despite helping define it in a hotbed of b-movie paranoia, the studios have largely lost the initiative to comic books, animation and even games, such as Half-Life. You can count the truly definitive entries easily, like 2001, Bladerunner, Star Wars, etc, up to Children of Men. And for every one of those there are a dozen more copies demonstrating a basic misunderstanding of the material and the audience (often by the same creators; yes, I mean you, George Lucas!), resorting to cheap and tired blockbuster staples rather than themes that sell themselves to begin with.
Thankfully a new generation of film-makers has grown up understanding that problem and Weta effects wizard Neill Blomkamp is one of them. District 9, despite a strong political sub-text, feels rough and ready, like it’s leaping from 1970s British comics, via the 1950s alien invasion horrors. All it needed was a trashy title (“My Husband is a Prawn from Outer Space!”) and the love affair for generations of sci-fi fans would be complete.
A film distinctly of two halves, the first being paranoid horror and the second alien thriller, District 9 isn’t shy about its roots (The Fly and Robocop are easy spots), but as with the recent popular zombie parodies like Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland, and now superheroes with Kick-Ass, it’s a proud film made by a geek for geeks. And I mean that in the best possible sense as this is a cult film punching above its weight (Oscar nominated, no less). It’s exploitive, cartoony, and slightly nuts in the most fun way, and shot through with poignancy.
Much of that is thanks to the heartfelt and natural, but full-blooded and largely improvised performance by Sharlto Copley. In a film of broad strokes and cartoon villains, he is Blomkamp’s ace. He looks like a nerd, but acts like a live-wire, grabbing your attention immediately (important in the exhausting opening ten minutes). He could so easily have been unlikeable and predictable, being a cowardly hero with an obvious arc, but he is affecting and memorable. In all the flash bang wallop, he is likely to be what you will remember most about the story, because he sells it to you.
Not that the flash, the bang, nor the wallop should be dismissed as Blomkamp proves his talent with the effects. This is after all, technically a low-budget effort, so the CGI and model work could easily have been a low point, but they’re excellent across the board. The convincingly organic and frequently gory “Prawns” (given a nice twist with very human attitudes) are very much characters with personalities. And their technology is satisfyingly hardcore with several storming set-pieces, especially the finale and a suicidal assault on the offices of the corporate villains. The sharply contrasting palettes and a subdued, dirty landscape, come to life on Blu-Ray. It’s a real feast for the eyes.
Blomkamps decision to use a lightly handheld documentary style really helps those effects. The willingness to not focus and treat them as “real” was possibly first seen in Joss Whedon’s Firefly and then Serenity. It’s a brave thing to do, to spend significant time on effects and then not show them properly, but it makes it so much more convincing. Along with Wall-E creating traditional camera defects on purpose despite it being animation, this has created a small, but significant step for movies that shouldn’t be underestimated.
It isn’t perfect. Repeat viewings will reveal multiple plot holes and the inconsistent documentary style may jar that the fast pace largely disguises, but it’s such enthusiastic fun you will watch it over and over again anyway. It’s a loveable b-movie, complete with the poignancy and heart that those classics had too.
Check prices at Find DVD (http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/blu-ray/District-9/1097123.htm)
Post by: goodguy on October 03, 2011, 10:42:33 PM
The obvious comparison would be the underrated Spartan, Mamet's other "Samurai" movie (with an exceptional Val Kilmer). Compared to that, Redbelt is merely okay, far too lightweight and conventional to be of any significance.
Post by: Najemikon on October 03, 2011, 10:46:03 PM
Post by: Achim on October 04, 2011, 06:16:44 AM
Post by: Najemikon on October 04, 2011, 01:54:48 PM
Post by: Najemikon on October 04, 2011, 09:38:59 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5050582801552.4f.jpg) | The Warrior and The Wolf *
|
It’s hard to find truly bad films because even the worst ones are memorable. Maybe it offended you and made you angry; or perhaps you laughed at an actor attempting to rescue a terrible script. You could feel sorry for a director who is clearly trying his best with a good idea, but no budget. The whole production could even have a whiff of insanity, but at least there is something.
The Warrior and the Wolf has nothing to offer at all. I cannot find a single element that deserves highlighting! This may seem harsh, but I’m usually a very optimistic reviewer. I never give up! At the end of this I couldn’t even feel disappointed. There are no missed opportunities here, because there are no good ideas.
The plot is based on a short story called Rasai-Ki by Yasushi Inoue about a reluctant soldier who misses his simple life as a shepherd and falls in love with a tribal widow, despite the warnings they will be cursed to roam as wolves. It seems like it would make for a poetic and emotional romance. I’m sure the short novel is wonderful. The film is not short enough and it certainly isn’t wonderful.
I’m impressed I managed to glean that much of the plot after watching it, because it’s nigh on impenetrable. And if you don’t believe me, consider that on several occasions, it throws up a title card updating you on the plot! Clearly someone realised it wasn’t making any sense at all and the viewer would need help to keep up.
Whether anyone will have the courage to make so much of an effort is up for debate. It’s pure nonsense while we see the Chinese shepherd (played by Japanese Joe Odagiri) trying to be a soldier and having disagreements with his tough General (Tou Chung-hua). The General is injured and somehow, the shepherd seems to now be leading the troops (military career prospects in ancient China are clearly excellent, if ambitious). They occupy a seemingly deserted village, but he finds Maggie Q (Vietnamese American playing a Chinese widow) hiding in a hole under her hut. At this point there is a great deal of sex. The film is no longer just nonsense, but is now very grubby nonsense.
Sex scenes are hard enough to take seriously in the best films, so when I say that The Warrior and The Wolf has the worst love scenes I have ever witnessed, I’m sure you’ll accuse me of exaggeration. Let me explain: the shepherd, who we understand to be a gentle chap who never wanted to be in the army anyway and would rather have stayed at home to play with baby wolves, takes the poor, scared widow out of her hidey hole and shags her violently from behind. It isn’t pretty, it isn’t romantic and she certainly isn’t pleased, so I would assume this to be rape. Undeterred, he repeats the awful process several times, until she falls in love with him. Yeah, I know how that sounds and that’s how it is. Now bear in mind this is the centrepiece of the story; a love to conquer all others and their forbidden romance risks them being turned into wolves for eternity, or something, so I’m really struggling with the logic at this point of reaching such a profound conclusion from sweaty violation! I know China is very strict on sex scenes. In fact Maggie Q was a replacement for Tang Wei, who was banned after her performance in Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution (a very erotic film and powerfully so for the right reasons), so maybe they were trying to simplify them, but in any case, a story such as this needs time and depth for the characters to be believable and they just don’t get that.
Needless to say, the film plays out without irony or any kind of message. It’s such a mess I find it impossible to comment on the actors (beyond the inventive international casting I already referred to) or the script. Everything is just lost in an indecipherable heap of poorly filmed fight scenes, grubby sex and CGI wolves.
I was very surprised to see it was directed by Tian Zhuangzhuang who has a respected reputation. Martin Scorcese called Tian’s The Horse Thief his favourite foreign film of the 1990s. In that case, maybe the mere mention of his name alone will convince world cinema aficionados that I must have misunderstood his new film. If that’s the case, then I wish you the best of luck. You’ll need it.
Read the full review with technical specs at DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2455)
Post by: Najemikon on October 06, 2011, 10:29:28 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5027035007144.4f.jpg) | Black Heaven (L'autre monde) ****
|
Gaspard and Marion are in love and enjoying summer in the south of France... until they stumble upon a lost phone. At first they decide to track down the owner... But the game takes a much darker turn when they find him dead, in a mysterious suicide ceremony. Next, lies a half unconscious girl, Audrey. With her enigmatic Tattoo and her Gothic looks, she soon lures Gaspard into Black Hole, a dangerously addictive video game. Gaspard discovers an obscure universe, full of infinite possibilities.
I really wanted to bring this French film to more people's attention. In itself, it isn't hugely remarkable, but it seems like no-one has even heard of it and it has a few things going for it that really make it worth a look. The trailer might lead you to think of The Matrix or even Tron, but it's quite different. Makes you think a little bit and will stand up to repeat viewings, I feel...
Gaspard (Gregoire Leprince-Ringuet) and Marion (Pauline Etienne) enjoy a carefree life in the first flourishes of a romance, until they discover a lost mobile phone at the beach. The mysterious messages and photos on it suggest the owner is due to meet someone. Intrigued, they intercept and spy on the couple, following them to a quarry where they eventually find them in what appears to be a suicide pact. The man has already died, but they rescue his beautiful, blonde companion called Audrey (Louise Bourgoin), from a fume filled car. Gaspard finds a video camera on the dashboard and can’t resist taking it.
One days adventure ending with a thwarted suicide is enough for Marion, but she doesn’t realise Gaspard took the camera and is now obsessing over the owner. By coincidence, while out with friends Yann (Pierre Niney) and Ludo (Ali Marhyar), Gaspard meets the girl again and she leads him to a virtual online world called Black Hole. It’s clear her personality is split between her real life and her virtual one and Gaspard is entering a dangerous game, especially when it transpires that Audrey’s brother Vincent (Melvil Poupaud) may be manipulating her and those she contacts.
By “coincidence”, I mean “contrivance”. It’s an unlikely twist that Gaspard would run into Audrey again and it’s especially awkward here because part of Black Heaven’s appeal is a laid-back and subtle narrative that is more about mood than plot. It’s a small gripe, but a necessary twist at least, as what emerges is a clever story about obsession. Gaspard’s life with Marion is very innocent, even “naïve” as he will later call it, and note how she lives with her father who monitors the young couple very carefully; he casts a shadow of respectability. Meanwhile Audrey’s environment on and off-line is erotic and dangerous. He finds her appeal intoxicating and he risks losing his sense of reality when he starts trying to find her avatar. When he finds her, she is a “slave” or escort operating in the Black Heaven club and they start playing a perverse game that takes him ever further away from the wholesome Marion.
What’s impressive about Black Heaven is that it is an erotic thriller without being explicit. Louise Bourgoin, recently seen in The Extraordinary Adventures Of Adele Blanc-sec, is very beautiful and has a couple of tasteful nude scenes, but that’s enough to stress this is a world away from Gaspard’s normal life. There is also a scene where he sleeps with Marion, but again, it isn’t gratuitous at all. The contrast between the two lives is so stark it’s as if Hitchcock was adapting a Famous Five book! Either that or it’s merely an overblown metaphor for browsing dodgy porn sites while your girlfriend is asleep.
Certainly the choice of using an online virtual world is a clever one that means the story stays relevant and believable despite its ambition. You could easily reimagine the plot in any era and swap the game for a seedy bondage club in the rough end of town, but no matter how obsessed he was, it would be unlikely Gaspard would have the courage to visit it. Black Hole is easy for him to get into because he can do so from the deceptive safety of an Internet connection. It also allows the story to touch on the notions of identity, particularly relevant in this age of social networking.
The virtual world of Black Hole is well realised with realistic, simple almost monotone graphics, yet also a tangible sense of depth. Just look at the opening credit sequence. Black Hole has a unique atmosphere, especially when Gaspard first spies Audrey in the club and she is singing. Her voice is haunting. Also, her hands are bound and she is blindfolded... Director Gilles Marchand clearly knows more about sexual politics than he is letting on! That just makes the restraint and focus of the story all the more commendable.
Ultimately, it may be too laid back. While Black Heaven can allude to a Hitchcockian approach to duality, romance and obsession, it could also have benefitted from the Master’s focus, suspense and occasional shock for the viewer. Just as the early necessary contrivance jarred, the last act suffers slightly from needing to resolve the threads of the plot. Still, the overall commitment to that sense of pace and mood makes for a low-key film that creeps under your skin, not easily forgotten. It deserves to find a wider audience.
Read the full technical review at DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2565)
Post by: Najemikon on October 08, 2011, 02:44:29 AM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5037899011522.4f.jpg) | Praise ***
|
PRAISE tells the bizarre, erotic tale of two down-on-their-luck individuals whose passionate affair threatens to save--or destroy--both their lives. Gordon (Peter Fenton) is an apathetic, chain-smoking asthmatic living in a grubby apartment in Brisbane. When he meets barmaid Cynthia (Sacha Horler), who suffers from eczema, the two begin to have sex, play Scrabble, and confront their pathetic situations. Based on a semi-autobiographical novel by Andrew McGahan, this festival favorite is an example of Australian cinema at its most quirky and impassioned.
The first half of Praise was very good indeed. It was a typically Australian comedy of melancholy irony, beautifully directed in a naturalistic laid-back style, with great characters. If Danny Boyle was making films in Australia, they’d probably look like Praise. Unfortunately it loses momentum before the last act, becoming pointless at best and selfish at worst. By the end, I couldn’t escape the feeling of, “is that it?”. I’d wanted more from it, but it is still worth seeing.
The story follows Gordon (Peter Fenton), as he gives up on his job and feels aimless. He meets up with Cynthia (Sacha Horler), another of societies rejects and they embark on a very casual relationship. Cynthia suffers from terrible eczema and has a sex drive even more rampant than her rashes. Gordon is asthmatic, yet he smokes a great deal and really isn’t very good at the whole sex thing. Somehow they click, especially over Scrabble! It’s bizarre, but great fun and sweet natured, rather at odds with the copious amounts of sex and occasional drugs which almost make it a farce. It’s brilliant writing with a great cast of characters (especially Gordon’s neighbours) and director John Curran has a wonderful naturalistic tone, supported by Dion Beebe’s striking photography.
As with any relationship, the novelty wears off and they start to struggle to keep things going. So does the film. It isn’t as if there is a change of pace, it just seems to get bogged down and proceedings become turgid, going well past the threat of farce and into something else. The story is apparently semi-autobiographical from writer Andrew McGahan and it shows, because it becomes too centred on Gordon. Things seem to happen to Cynthia for the sake of it, without depth or challenge, simply to force Gordon into a corner. I didn’t like that, but maybe you will. Fenton and Horler had both been excellent and to be fair, Fenton is committed to the end. But poor Sacha seems helpless, straddled with a thankless role by the end. That said, it has a unique tone and we need more dramas that are as confident with real humour and real lives as Praise is. I just wish it could have rounded it off more satisfyingly.
For full technical review visit DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2446)
Post by: Najemikon on October 08, 2011, 03:04:26 AM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5060238030458.4f.jpg) | Norwegian Wood ****
|
Tokyo, the late 1960s... Students around the world are uniting to overthrow the establishment and Toru Watanabe's personal life is similarly in tumult. At heart, he is deeply devoted to his first love, Naoko, a beautiful and introspective young woman. But their complex bond has been forged by the tragic death of their best friend years before. Watanabe lives with the influence of death everywhere. That is, until Midori, a girl who is everything that Naoko is not - outgoing, vivacious, supremely self-confident - marches into his life and Watanabe must choose between his past and his future.
Toru Watanabe is a young man dealing with the loss of his best friend, who has committed suicide. They had grown up together with Kizuki's girlfriend, Naoko, and all three were close. Now he has developed feelings for Naoko, but she is also in turmoil and their awkward attempts at a relationship threaten her sanity.
So, a right barrel of laughs then? There is no escaping the fact that Anh Hung Tran's film, an adaptation of Haruki Murakami's renowned novel, is a somber and serious affair, but it is bitter-sweet and nostalgic too. Some reviews have criticized the method of adapting the novel (in particular Toru's narration), which I haven't read, so I can only comment that I found the film's measured style engrossing and moving. Eventually! It is far from perfect and when it meanders, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was sabotage, because when it's right, it's sublime and you wonder why a couple of scenes were done in a way that seems to pull you out of the story. While a beautiful film, it is also frequently slow and indulgent, with motivations of characters sometimes questionable and brief scenes that on a first viewing can cause frustration. Still, they are only human and the film's greatest strength is that those characters are very realistic and worth committing to (Kizuki's suicide is notable for the rather pathetic, human mechanics of how to sit in a car filling with fumes! It isn't dramatic or emotive; it's just quiet and awkward and seems more real for it). The story is full of ideas; love, sex, death and grief to name a few, but it tackles them all with confidence. And it isn't a challenge to watch, certainly not depressing despite the synopsis.
Eastern cinema sometimes falls into a trap of feeling contrived and sensational, with characters seemingly constructed to force the narrative (the recent Confessions is a prime example). This melancholic story takes place in that awkward, awful time following the loss of a loved one and it is suitably unpredictable, just as life can be when you are aimless and being forced to face up to an uncertain future.
It shows how well essayed the characters are when you consider that on paper, you might find Toru unlikeable. He is strongly attracted to another girl and his inability to pull himself together is hurting all concerned, but Ken'ichi Matsuyama's quiet performance perfectly captures how difficult it is for him to let go or hold on to the past as he wrestles with doing the right thing, based on his own emotions or a misplaced sense of duty.
I may have made Norwegian Wood sound indistinct, but it is actually finely constructed around the characters. Notice how they break into groups of three, with Toru the only constant. We start with him, Kizuki and Naoko. When Kizuki dies Toru moves to Tokyo and forms a new trio with a charmer and his neglected girlfriend, Hatsumi. Naoko ends up in a retreat to recover from her grief and she is helped by another patient who in turn chaperones between Toru and Naoko when he visits, so yet another group of three. Finally Midori at first seems the only loner, but her dangerous flirting and lying becomes something else when Toru meets her sick father, making the last triangular relationship.
The story is very adult, with a strong sexual element in all the characters. Toru in particular wrestles with notions of commitment, desire and the importance -or not- of sex. His experiences in Tokyo with his friend and the views of the neglected girlfriend epitomize this, while Kiko Mizuhara is superb as Midori, a girl who uses her sexuality as a defense, yet may be more brittle than she lets on. And Rinko Kikuchi, who overall gives a stunning performance in the hardest role, is very frank as Naoko, recognizing Toru may have certain needs! If you're thinking this is an explicit film, put it out of your mind. This is no Lust, Caution and in fact is much better and more adult for the lack of nudity and the films overall lack of sensationalism is at its most effective and important when the descriptions are so explicit.
Each of the three triangles represents an alternative path for Toru and it's very cleverly done, with even the seemingly secondary characters being fully fleshed out and complicated. I have only mentioned a few of the cast, but they are all excellent, relishing the intelligent roles and working with genuine chemistry between each other. The story takes place over several months, almost in a seasonal fashion, adding an essential sense of time when it could have drifted, while giving Tran plenty of opportunity to use various weather conditions to wonderful visual effect. The fantastically realized 60s atmosphere with occasional, predominantly Western music of the era (the title is a Beatles song that represents the story) completes a consummate delivery of a film, that while it can be slow, is also an excellent fusion of styles. The story and structure is very Japanese, but the meticulous detail in the characters is Kubrick or maybe Paul Thomas Anderson when one considers the catchy, period vibe (plus the effective and original score is from Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, who worked with Anderson on There Will Be Blood). It’s only let down by brief scenes that can seem lost and ineffective, but another viewing may balance those out too.
Norwegian Wood is a special film. Typically Japanese, yet modern and unpredictable, the sombre and tough subject is nevertheless engrossing and beautifully told. It occasionally lapses into indulgence, but the ending is perfect, considering the structure of the narrative in the preceding acts, and leaves you satisfied (I loved the final line of dialogue in particular).
For full technical review visit DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2523)
Post by: Najemikon on October 14, 2011, 11:31:14 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5060114150560.4f.jpg) | Our Beloved Month of August (Aquele Querido Mês de Agosto) ****
|
A tantalizing mix of documentary, fiction and everything in between, Miguel Gomes' multi-award-winning love song to rural Portugal is an intoxicating blend of visuals, sound and music. Gorgeously photographed it set one's eyes ablaze and toes tapping, but Gomes goes further to work the brain as a narrative slowly, sneakily emerges out of the (seeming) documentary melody-making.
Summoning up memories of French film-makers such as Eric Rohmer and documentarist Nicolas Philibert and in its deliberate drift from fiction into fact, echoes of Pedro Costa and Manoel de Oliviera, the film follows a self-created, evolutionary path to become something wholly individual and unique.
It’s safe to say that Our Beloved Month of August is an unusual film. Beyond that, it’s hard to pin down.
In one sense it is simply a documentary with rural Portugal and its inhabitants as its subject. Miguel Gomes films without narration or even interference of any kind and instead we just have people talking, sometimes to the camera, sometimes just to each other, framed by the beautiful Portugal landscape. Gomes favours as little editing as possible, with long shots, usually static, but occasionally daring to pan. The emphasis is on the filmmaker being invisible so what we are seeing is as close to possible as ‘fly on a wall’. We seem to be following local bands playing in different towns and steadily a story builds. For instance, we hear about a man who has become some sort of celebrity after he jumped in the river from a bridge; exactly why he did this and just how much of a celebrity he actually is depends on several different viewpoints, which are presented naturally so you come to your own conclusions. Meanwhile we come to learn more about the town and its dependency on fire wardens, who man lookouts and raise the alarm if smoke is spied. One of these wardens is a girl who also sings in one of the bands.
Meanwhile, the languid, almost invisible style of the film is occasionally interrupted by the film-makers themselves and this is where things become rather less straightforward! For instance, just a couple of minutes in, after we have briefly seen a band playing in the town, we see the crew arranging a domino display in a hut. The door is opened, the dominos fall and the camera follows the display, complete with edits. This is the opening shot of the film, a finely constructed set-piece at odds with the naturalistic tone of the documentary. When the display has completed, the director complains that it has been ruined. He planned to use it as the opening shot of the film. Which it is!
Yes, in a deadpan comedy of irony with echoes of Fellini’s 8½, we are watching the making of the very film we are already watching. It can be very funny and I particularly love the philosophical closing shots, of the director arguing with the sound man that he’s recording music no-one else can hear (except us of course)! Ok, I know that sounds dangerously close to pretentious, but even if you think it is, it’s worth seeing.
Slowly, over the course of watching the bands play we start to focus on several people, like the girl in the band who is also one of the fire wardens. We learn about her close relationship with her father and the mysterious disappearance of her mother. We see her and her friend flirt with the guitarist, and in the most graceful fashion, the mischievous narrative has gently evolved into a scripted, edited drama. These people are actors (in one of those ironic asides, we even saw one arguing about what scene he was supposed to do, long before we met his character) and this is now a love story. It’s a good one too. Sónia Bandeira who plays the attractive Tânia is fantastic, capturing your attention, even though you thought you were watching a documentary. That you don’t feel short-changed by either side of the film is testament to the skill in which it is woven together.
I had found some elements of the documentary frustrating. Occasionally you might wonder what the point of a particular long shot is, considering there is seemingly no political or social agenda, and the music can be infuriating. It seems all Portuguese folk music has the same melody with overly dramatic lyrics about love, lost love, obsessive love and marriage in between! But this just makes the drama all the more convincing when it arrives.
This shouldn’t work, but it does. Gomes is like a magician, showing us openly how his trick is done, yet still the trick catches us out. The notes in the accompanying booklet suggest the film was intended to be fiction, but delays meant Gomes and some of his crew were stranded for a time, so he just started filming what he saw, hence the documentary. I’m not sure whether to believe him, but accident or not, his film is a masterful demonstration of what can be achieved in film narrative. It makes for a fascinating end-point of the methods first explored in Italian Neo-Realism. I really didn't expect to have such a conclusion and certainly it doesn't quite fit the genre proper, but after spending some time pulling together my 1960s Italian reviews (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,7445.0.html) I couldn't help but find similarities. In any case, it's really worth seeing.
What sort of a film is Our Beloved Month of August exactly? No idea, but the transition from documentary to fiction is superbly done, strangely moving and memorable. It may be you’ll fear it is contrived, but it is so gentle and honest that even the playful scenes with the film crew convince.
For the full technical review, please visit DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2575)
Post by: Najemikon on October 14, 2011, 11:47:23 PM
| (http://www.dvdcompare.net/images/reviews/2579.jpg) | This Boy's Life ****
|
He looked like the ideal husband. He seemed like the perfect father. That's just what they needed. But that's not what they got.
In 1957, Toby (DiCaprio) and his divorced mother Caroline (Barkin) travel across America looking for a place where life will be better. Desperate to make a decent home life for her son, Caroline agrees to marry her ardent suitor Dwight (De Niro). Dwight might look, walk and talk like the perfect father, but to Caroline's horror he soon turns out to be an evil, bullying tyrant who is determined to make Toby's life as painful and miserable as possible…
It’s good to see This Boy’s Life again after all this time. It was always a good film, if not overly remarkable, but now has the added interest of seeing Leonardo Dicaprio in one of his earliest roles.
For a long time, I didn’t really rate him as an actor. It might have been Titanic that did that because it was such a high-profile, but simple role. Also, he seemed lost in the shadow of actors like Johnny Depp, who would consistently choose more interesting parts, or even the late River Phoenix, with whom his looks and style bear a resemblance, except Phoenix had such a natural talent. In recent years, Dicaprio has more than proved his worth, especially since Catch Me If You Can. I like how you can see him putting a determination into each of his roles. He’s successfully bridged the movie star/actor divide and being Martin Scorcese’s muse doesn’t hurt either.
In 1993 he acted opposite then Scorcese regular Robert De Niro, in the true life story This Boy’s Life, based on the book by Tobias Wolff. With stories like this it’s always hard to assess how much is a balanced account and how much an author is creating a revised. Certainly the story holds no real surprise or insight and from a certain perspective can sometimes feel selfishly weighted to the boy (justifies the title I suppose!). But the difference here is that the partnership of the leads, bolstered by a well-judged and generous performance from De Niro, transcends the adequate writing to find something more genuine. Meanwhile, Michael Caton-Jones could count this as his best film (Basic Instinct 2 is hardly a match!), successfully capturing the time and place with a fantastic soundtrack and wisely allowing the cast to take the reins.
The story is simple enough. Toby (Dicaprio) is a teenager struggling as typical teenagers do, and not being helped by his well-meaning mother, Caroline (Ellen Barkin). Toby has a close relationship with her, but she can’t settle, has little money and is lost between relationships (the last being Roy, played by Chris Cooper in a brief role) and jobs. After she fails one more time to make it work and Toby gets into trouble at school again, they land up in Seattle and she meets Dwight (De Niro). Caroline is determined to stay put and considers marriage. Meanwhile Toby is heading further off the rails so Caroline sends him to live with Dwight and his three other children for a while. After a few months, she joins them and marries Dwight.
While Toby is on his own with stepfather-to-be, he very quickly finds that the charming Dwight actually tends to be a bully. Toby gets on well the other children (look out for a pre-Buffy Eliza Dushku), but comes to dread the routine with their dad. Things don’t improve when Caroline joins them as she is also victimised to a lesser extent, but has no fight left, believing she really has to settle this time.
The awkward relationship is very believable. Dicaprio is excellent as Toby, struggling to keep straight and he’s fairly convincing as a troublemaker, although his boyish looks don’t quite work when he’s playing the slightly older Toby (the story jumps on two years in the last act). He gets good support from groups of friends both when he is younger and especially older (including a young Tobey Maguire). But as we see in his later work, he puts everything into realising the character of a young man struggling to keep his wits in the face of some awful abuse, with attempts to break the cycle continually frustrated. There are less violent scenes than you might expect, although one late in the film is pretty brutal. Dwight’s meanest tricks are subtle, designed to break Toby’s spirit over a long period of time. De Niro could easily have just played this as a one-note bully and keep it simple, but gives a nuanced performance that suggests Dwight is a much weaker man than he makes out.
I don’t know how much of this nuance is related in the book, but maybe Dwight was a settled family man, struggling to deal with a teenager used to running around the country with his mum, while Tobias the author might have a selective memory of his childhood. He addresses his behaviour, but read between the lines and do we find a spoilt kid who just wanted an easy ride and a stepfather who thought a hard-line was acceptable? I don’t want to make excuses for some of the stunts Dwight pulls, it’s just a testament to the cast that I can least see a possibility in their performances and it lifts the film way above average.
The last act is an emotional and satisfying conclusion, but overall I wanted the script to tell me more about Caroline (how much was her free spirit nature a factor? And some of her more interesting aspects are glossed over), Dwight’s history and the opinion of his other kids to truly understand the Toby’s perspective. There’s some great scenes with the whole family (watch Toby and Dwight setting off for Scouts, or Caroline doing a puzzle with Dwight’s daughter) and I think more of those would have made for a more colourful film.
For a full technical review, please visit DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2579)
Post by: goodguy on October 15, 2011, 02:48:11 AM
What sort of a film is Our Beloved Month of August exactly?
Exactly the kind I get excited about in anticipation. So seeing your review here is a very pleasant surprise.
Post by: Najemikon on October 15, 2011, 03:50:38 PM
What sort of a film is Our Beloved Month of August exactly?
Exactly the kind I get excited about in anticipation. So seeing your review here is a very pleasant surprise.
I thought you might catch this one! :laugh: While I was watching it I imagined this was your kind of thing. Parts of it infuriated me, but overall it is quite brilliant.
Post by: Najemikon on October 23, 2011, 06:21:28 PM
| (http://www.dvdcompare.net/images/reviews/2582.jpg) | Potiche ****
|
What a sad state cinema distribution is in. I’m resigned to the fact that art-house and foreign titles will never get the advertising exposure they deserve because they are squeezed out by the big studios, but it adds insult to injury that a film like Potiche isn’t allowed to struggle in dignified silence. No, it has to be perverted by bloody Orange and their annoying adverts, paraded on the big multiplex screens that would never dream of advertising such a niche film properly. Oh, I get the irony. Mobile phones ruin films, so Orange ruin this one too. Ha-ha, how droll. And I’m not so naïve that I don’t assume the distributor was paid handsomely for allowing the travesty to happen. The optimist in me hopes that their blood money helps some struggling film elsewhere, but let’s be realistic that the reputation of Potiche might not recover. The average audience member will forever label it “Ooh, it's that Orange film!”. That is, if it ever falls across their path by accident, because Orange and the multiplex chains have made damn sure their vision isn’t disturbed by not showing the real trailer, and therefore forever hide the fact that, yes, it is a real film. And I hope you make the effort because when you actually watch it, mobile phones are a distant memory.
Potiche is an unassuming French farce that is an absolute delight, thanks to a wonderful cast and some great dialogue. Set in the late 1970s, it features the elegant Catherine Deneuve as Suzanne Pujol, the ‘Trophy Wife’ of an ambitious factory owner, Robert Pujol (Fabrice Luchini) who thinks he loves her, but pays her little respect nor considers she misses it anyway. She seems to be taken for granted by her grown-up children too and the mayor, Maurice Babin (Gérard Depardieu), with whom she has some interesting history. It is set in a politically volatile time and Robert is forced out of the factory by striking workers and heart trouble. Suzanne takes over while he recuperates and proves her worth considerably. Building on her natural compassion and hitherto unseen business acumen, she revitalises the factory and wins over the workers, her children and even Robert’s secretary who he is having an affair with (of course!). On his return, Robert is not pleased. Feminism, decency and communism threaten his mini-empire, but he has some tricks up his sleeve.
It is fantastic fun to watch Suzanne pull this coup off, though it is no surprise to us. Deneuve plays her brilliantly pitched as a calm and elegant lady from the start, who enjoys life and seems content that others are happy, despite her own potential remaining unrealised, even to the extent that she seems fully aware of her husband’s indiscretion with the secretary Nadège (Karin Viard), but ignores it. Perhaps it keeps him quiet!
It is possible that Deneuve plays her too straight as the script does seem to attempt to express some complaints from her character, but it quickly subsides. I liked this though because it simply continues that consistent and effective view that she infects almost everyone around her so completely that even the narrative can’t bear to disturb her inspirational sense of ‘C’est la vie’!
Another one helplessly affected is the mayor. The scenes between Catherine Deneuve and Gérard Depardieu are without exception, superb. The film is as much about sexual politics as any other kind and the delicate to and froing of their characters is perfectly delivered. Touching and hilarious, often at the same time, their relationship is the heart of the film. And in another example of the playful narrative mirroring the characters, Luchini’s Robert refuses to be sidelined and fights his way back into the film! Watch out for the subtle scene in which he brings back presents for his wife and secretary. His quiet petulance is fantastic. He is great as a sort of villain, but because the ever content Suzanne never entirely condemns him, neither do we. It is here that some accuse the film of a misstep and technically, it does falter. The story seems to come to an end, so the shift into the last act can be awkward, but if you expect it and have faith in the character of Suzanne, I defy you not to end the film with a huge grin!
An overall problem with the film is that it could be seen as lacking relevance and there is a sense that it inhabits a bubble, especially when the principal characters are fairly privileged. Being set in the 1970s, the political climate it realises is long past (not that I’ve kept up with French politics! It may be seen as at least ironic in its host country) and the battle of the sexes has moved on a great deal too. So you can only take it for what it is and not find some deep meaning. Contrarily, that is to its and ours benefit because it’s thoroughly enjoyable. While it is very French, especially in the sharp dialogue and outrageous mini-twists (it certainly embraces farce!) I was pleasantly surprised to find it also had a lot in common with Ealing comedies, in particular The Man In The White Suit which had a similar conscience.
Adapted from a play that somewhat explains the reflective and neat plot, it is an actor’s film and rarely rocks that boat, but director François Ozon brilliantly evokes the 70s period. The opening titles and title font could not be more suited. And then there is the great soundtrack especially during a club scene when the mayor takes Suzanne dancing, while the score also could have been lifted straight from the period.
For a full technical review, please visit DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2582)
Post by: dfmorgan on October 23, 2011, 08:52:37 PM
I have to say that it was those horrible Orange adverts that got me interested in this. They were the only trailers I had seen for this film and would have probably ignored it in the list of forthcoming titles other wise.
Post by: Najemikon on October 23, 2011, 09:01:13 PM
Post by: dfmorgan on October 23, 2011, 09:48:13 PM
Well, I suppose that's something, but I'd rather see it be advertised on its own merits.
Too true so would I.
Quote
But, hey, this must be the first time two of us have posted reviews for the same film so close together! :laugh:
Yes it would seem so ;D
Post by: Najemikon on November 07, 2011, 11:50:08 PM
Post by: Najemikon on November 07, 2011, 11:50:28 PM
| (http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/50/5060192811049.4f.jpg) | Tracker ****
|
Set in 1903, Tracker is a tense action thriller in which Arjan (RAY WINSTONE), a guerilla survivor of the South African Boer War, lands in colonial New Zealand and is promised a huge bounty to capture Kereama (TEMUERA MORRISON) a Maori seafarer accused of killing a British soldier. What should be a simple job for Arjan, a master tracker, turns into a gripping dangerous game of cat and mouse as Kereama repeatedly escapes and is recaptured - all the while insisting on his innocence. As each man gains and loses the upper hand, they gradually get to know and respect one another. Culminating in an emotional and high risk showdown, they find they have more in common than a mutual hatred of the British.
Ray Winstone plays a Boer farmer (Arjan van Diemen) who has lost his home and family in South Africa during the Boer War, and has now arrived in New Zealand 1903, out of morbid curiosity to see what was being fought for. He is arrested on his arrival by British soldiers, veterans of the war, but is quickly released by Major Carlysle (Gareth Reeves) who is aware of this legendary figure, but has no animosity towards him. Both men are bitter in their own way, but the war is over. Meanwhile, Kereama (Temuera Morrison), a Maori, is falsely accused of murder and goes on the run. The Major will lead a hunt into the New Zealand landscape and gives van Diemen the opportunity to join them. Due to a professional disagreement with the army tracker Bryce (Andy Anderson), van Diemen catches up with Kereama first.
Tracker has a great story anyway and looks wonderful, but when Winstone and Morrison meet, it’s fantastic. It is clearly a low budget production, but it hides it well between the gorgeous landscape and the performances of these two actors in particular. I suppose you can look on it as a morality play, with an incredible stage! The middle section is little more than tit-for-tat, as Winstone catches Morrison, tables are turned, he catches him again, etc. But throughout, the wonderful dialogue is funny and moving in equal measure as the two men banter with one another and eventually open up. Winstone is at his best as the stubborn van Diemen. This might be the closest he gets to playing a True Grit type character and it bears comparison. He brings a weight of honour and grief to the role, balanced with quiet humour. He handles the Afrikaan dialect pretty well too, though I’m no expert! Morrison is an able foil. He toys with Winstone, to form an escape, but starts to reveal his own humility and they form an uneasy bond. They make an odd couple, but it works brilliantly well. The rest of the cast vary, but I really liked Reeves portrayal of the Major and he works well with Winstone too in several scenes.
Director Ian Sharp must be pinching himself. The less budget you have to work with, the more luck you need, but he made his own luck by taking actors like Winstone and Morrison to such a fantastic location. And giving them Nicolas van Pallandt’s screenplay was the final flourish. His plot is a basic manhunt Western, with a handful of set-pieces, but it has the great dialogue, a clear sense of time and place, and perhaps above all, a conscience. It has a melancholic air, tinged with grief, offset by humour and underlying optimism. The ending could have been predictable, and maybe it is, but it’s incredibly satisfying. The weakest scenes by comparison are at the start, but Sharp works them to their potential and Winstone’s arrival at the port is beautifully filmed to say it’s CGI! David Burns rounds out the production with a well-placed score. It’s genuinely memorable, which is a surprise, evoking Last Of The Mohicans. This is an area that normally suffers when the budget is being stretched. A great film that is acutely aware of both its limitations and benefits enough to present a classic story born of solid entertainment and supported by deep rooted emotion.
For a full technical review, see DVD Compare (http://www.dvdcompare.net/review.php?rid=2448)