Post by: Najemikon on July 04, 2010, 12:50:58 PM
I'm a bit behind and doing me reviews back to front, but it'll all come out ok. :training: ;)
Post by: Najemikon on July 04, 2010, 01:01:40 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/m.jpg)
A spate of child killings has stricken a terrified Berlin. Peter Lorre gives a legendary performance as the murderer Hans Beckert, who soon finds himself chased by all levels of society. From cinema’s first serial killer hunt, Lang pulls back to encompass social tapestry, police procedural, and underworld conspiracies in an astonishingly multi-faceted and level-headed look at a deeply incendiary topic. One of the greatest psychological thrillers of all time, M remains as fresh and startling almost 80 years on.
M is a truly great film whose influence can be felt throughout the history of cinema. Fans of Hitchcock and Kurosawa will especially enjoy the story, which is much more thrilling, and frequently funny with great little gags, than you may expect from a flagship of German Expressionism. We’re in proper full-on film nerd territory, people, and still having fun! This is one of the seeds of the cinema we watch today and when you see the masterful grasp of all the components that director Fritz Lang has, you'd be forgiven for thinking it's all downhill from here. It's the first of its kind, yet it seems effortless. A star rating is really quite cheap in this case.
Hitchcock’s history with German Expressionism is well known, and the opening scene of M would suit any of his thrillers, as a woman tenderly prepares lunch for her daughter, who is currently being led astray by Lorre’s whistling madman and a balloon. Just as with Hitchcock, the viewer has the advantage over the character, knowing exactly what is happening and the inevitable conclusion. It’s a powerful, haunting and sobering scene.
And like Kurosawa, Lang’s compositions are broad and stylish, while his social commentary is sharp and not in the least bit dated. In fact, he comments in an interview included in the superb booklet with the Blu-Ray, that he based many of the elements on true stories from news reports and was so fascinated by the idea of criminals taking to the streets to track down the murderer as well, that he worried someone else would film it first. Ironically, I can’t think of another film with such a plot used in that manner so he hardly had to rush it! And it is such a great idea, I wonder why it hasn’t been used since.
Certainly the metaphor of a sociopath and his place inside or outside society has been done frequently in a wide range of styles, but not this sharp. That’s surprising in one sense because modern plots of this sort would be claustrophobic, fascinated by the relationship between criminal and prosecutor, but M has a huge canvas by comparison. It’s an ambitious, yet assured and clearly defined view of society; how the good and bad (plus ugly! It’s the beggars that are most effective in the search) elements have to balance and how such a random murderer threatens everybody. Just when you think that thread has played out, the story takes a rather absurd turn (in a good way) to question how society should deal with such a problem. The mob-rule lynch mob angle is another element we can identify clearly with today.
Such madness permeates the film, not least in Peter Lorre’s iconic and mesmerising performance, especially as he is off-screen a lot, so he has to earn his moments. Consider how such a part would be unlikely to have been accepted within Hollywood without severe concessions and it’s easy to see how honest Lorre is being. The rest of the cast are very good too and there are a lot of memorable characters, not least Otto Wernicke as the Inspector who embodies the films theme with an entertaining relationship with the criminal fraternity.
Lang’s photography is just gorgeous. He wrenches potential out of every shot. A German being very Expressive, I suppose! There are all the founding rules of Noir to be found, in the shadows and the angles, but look also for the humour, such as the large man accusing the small man of being the murderer; it’s like a comic strip and as the poor chap peered up at his accuser, I almost expected the subtitles to read “Gulp”! There is a lot of silent film, which is partly down to how expensive sound was then, but more to do with how Lang presents the film. The silent sequences of police raids are eerie and when sound comes back in, it’s a powerful device. Editing is paramount in these moments, but is something to behold throughout, especially juxtaposing between scenes of the police and criminals having similarly problematic meetings. He plays with the narrative cleverly too, as we get scenes-within-scenes.
I can’t recommend this film any higher than must-see. It might be film nerd nirvana and historically important (no, essential), but it’s also bloody good watchable entertainment.
Post by: Najemikon on July 04, 2010, 01:11:58 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/fountain.jpg)
In this epic sci-fi tale, which spans more then a thousand years, cult director Darren Aronofsky explores the age old question "what if you could live forever?" Hugh Jackman stars as Tom Creo a man torn between three parallel lives faced with the ultimate struggle - to save the life of Izzi (Rachel Weisz) the woman he loves. Merging fantasy and science fiction in a unique way, Darren Aronofsky's visually ground breaking story addresses mans eternal struggle with mortality.
The Fountain is a simple, romantic tale of love and death and how the two are entwined. Simple. How it’s told is another matter entirely!
Hugh Jackman plays the role of Tommy and his wife Izzy is played by Rachel Weiz and the chemistry between the two is very true and believable. While Jackman is barely off-screen throughout the three incarnations, Weiz is most grounded in the modern day version of her character and she gives a heartbreaking performance. She captivates in her “other” role as Queen of Spain too. But it is Jackman who we follow and he is excellent across the board.
Interestingly, the first cast was Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett who would go on to do A Curious Case of Benjamin Button. It is possible to find similarities in the central themes of both films (both use fantasy as a metaphor), but The Fountain, while being far more ambitious, is also the more heartfelt. Maybe being cancelled once and having to eventually slash his budget helped Aronofsky, because Button has a simpler tale and clearly blows an extravagant production only to disappear firmly up its own arse.
I really enjoyed Darren Aronofsky’s production of the film. He has a very solid style, concentrating in composition and focus to create an emotional and visually sumptuous photography. It occasionally looks fantastic, but never otherworldly. Even the future incarnation with Jackman in a bubble with a tree; the focus is on making it tangible and real, through close-ups and sound. It makes for a fascinating film.
As I’m sure you’ll realise the narrative is all bendy and wobbly! Yet it isn’t a challenge to follow and if anything, it’s oddly a bit obvious. The two main strands (Modern Day and Spain/South America) both share recurring motifs and slot together beautifully, with a book written by Izzy connecting them and creating the basis for the “Space Traveller” sections too. While following the film is simple enough, understanding it is another matter!
By the end, it may be a little too enigmatic. Maybe bound too tightly to forcing a conclusion or simply unable to cohesively demonstrate the central truth, like a child trying to explain quantum physics- maybe he knows, maybe he doesn’t, but he’s making no kind of sense either way! We’re in 2001: A Space Odyssey territory to some extent, but because there is such a defined story at the heart of The Fountain, you might feel a bit abandoned in the final act.
Certainly it is too dependent on the viewer’s interpretation, but there should be no doubt in the yearning romantic passion and thriving original creativity at the centre of The Fountain. Should you be so inclined, it is a remarkable journey and the commitment of all involved makes it a very watchable one.
Post by: Najemikon on July 05, 2010, 01:14:53 AM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/bikes.jpg)
Hailed around the world as one of the greatest movies ever made, Vittorio De Sica's Academy Award-winning Bicycle Thieves defined an era in cinema. In postwar, poverty-stricken Rome, a man hoping to support his desperate family with a new job loses his bicycle, his main means of transportation for work. With his wide-eyed young son in tow, he sets off to track down the thief. Simple in construction and dazzlingly rich in human insight, Bicycle Thieves embodied all the greatest strengths of the Italian neorealist movement: emotional clarity, social righteousness, and brutal honesty.
Bicycle Thieves should be required viewing by any modern filmmaker. Without money, without hype you can still make something genuine and powerful, in fact, more so. When you think about the story, there is no escaping the misery. Antonio finally has a job, but his bicycle is essential and it’s in the pawn shop. His wife, Maria, pawns her linen, which was part of her dowry, to get the bike back. And then on Antonio’s first day, it gets nicked! The following day, he and his son Bruno traipse around the city trying to track it down, while a sense builds that this is part of a cycle (no pun intended) and the people who stole it are not malicious, but suffer the same daily problems. How long can a good man survive? And that is it so far as a plot is concerned.
Barrel of laughs that one, eh? But there is a point to Italian Neo-Realism, which is easiest thought of as the opposite of German Expressionism, which uses visual storytelling to wring potential out of every scene, usually via a set or even a scale model of a set, so every angle can be controlled. Mise en Scene becomes essential as everything is carefully tailored to express the meaning behind the story.
Neo-Realism never uses manipulation like that. Locations are real and everything is stripped back to bare essentials, to reveal a social conscience with absolute honesty. Casts are often made up of normal people and dialogue is succinct and real. Small moments normally dismissed as superfluous become huge, while a sense of mood and the tiniest gestures take on paramount importance.
In this story, while chasing that bike, you see what’s really important for Antonio (Lamberto Maggiorani). You might hardly notice on a first viewing the way his relationship with his son Bruno (Enzo Staiola) is drip-fed in with the most delicate touches and it is the same for the character who in a sense is losing focus of what’s important. Not to downplay the importance of that bicycle, it really is essential, but the longer he spends running around after it, the more likely things will get worse. So a story that on paper is sorrowful, becomes magical. The key to this is in no small part to the natural charisma of Staiola as Bruno and his expressions in the pivotal cafe scene are wonderful. If you want an emotional connection to characters, there are none better than Bicycle Thieves and you will be rewarded with a sublime ending.
It’s a technique I’d love to see used more full-blooded these days too, which is why I wanted to like Rachel Getting Married more than I did. I suppose it’s a technique that offers nowhere to hide so if the film is rubbish, you can’t rescue it in editing. It will always be crap! Bicycle Thieves is one of the reasons I get frustrated by “greatest films” lists. I love Citizen Kane, but this film, which came eight years later or so, is just as important for an entirely different approach. How can one be “better” than the other? Hitchcock, steeped in German Expressionism, nevertheless would be quicker to thank the Italians for elements of I Confess or especially The Wrong Man.
Post by: Najemikon on July 06, 2010, 05:00:44 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/nighthunter.jpg)
A tall, handsome "preacher" - his knuckles eerily tattooed with "love" and "hate" - roams the countryside, spreading the gospel...and leaving a trail of murdered women in his wake. To Reverend Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum), the work of the Lord has more to do with condemning souls than saving them, especially when his own interests are involved. Now his sights are set on $10,000 - and two little children are the only ones who know where it is. "Chill...dren!" the preacher croons to the terrified boy and girl hiding in the cold, dark cellar...innocent young lambs who refuse to be led astray.
Night of The Hunter is an odd film. A good thriller with a great villain is the basis and the hook, but the real story is about two orphans finding a home. It’s full of religious sub-text and ranges from a genuinely scary, profound brooding fairy-tale to just plain nuts. You can only decide for yourself where between the two it lies overall.
Shirley Winters doesn’t help. Maybe it’s her, maybe it’s the awful dialogue, but either way her role as John and Pearl’s mother is weak and misjudged. The story only feels like it gets going once she’s out of the way, courtesy of Robert Mitchum’s fantastic Preacher, Harry Powell.
I suppose you might consider that a spoiler, but trust me, Winters’ is such an annoying part, you’ll be hoping she’s gotten rid of, so I’m helping you enjoy the good stuff, really I am! You might also vainly hope for the untimely demise of Evelyn Warden’s Icey Spoon, another shrill horrible character, full of self-importance, but as an unwitting supporter of the preacher, Harry has no reason to do her in. Damn. The best supporting character from the first part is James Gleason as Uncle Birdie, but he is underused.
Luckily, the nature of the plot sees the two kids flee Powell by escaping down river where they are rescued by Mrs. Cooper (Lillian Gish), running a sort of make-shift orphanage for a few girls. From the moment their mother has left to their acceptance into a new home, the film is wonderful. Mitchum is a foreboding presence and a tangible threat. He gets more than a few iconic moments, be it up close as he explains the tattoos on his knuckles, or as a distant silhouette, an almost ever present shadow over the children. Billy Chapin and Sally Jane Bruce as the children do very well. Billy as John has to lead the film, essentially, and Sally is cute with some killer lines as his younger sister Pearl, who never lets the doll out of her sight. I loved her expression as she played with the money, or especially her fascination with Mitchum’s knife.
This was renowned actor Charles Laughton’s only film as director and I think he saw it as a story clearly from the kids point of view. It would make a fantastic kids book because it’s full of hope and fairy-tale darkness, with a healthy, if fervently religious, moral core. It’s only awkward until the plot is focused on the children, their nemesis (Powell), John’s guide (Uncle Birdie) and their salvation (Mrs. Cooper); and knowing Lillian Gish is keeping everything right in the world is a comforting thought for anyone! Throughout there is some wonderful imagery (like Winter’s watery grave and the gentle, lonely journey downriver) that suggests Laughton’s had a madman’s eye and could have been considered an Auteur, should he have done more.
If we could consider Winter’s exit the actual start of the film, this would be a classy, dark thriller of the highest order with a healthy dose of insanity that gives it a special, unpredictable and scary personality. Still, it is a recommended classic nonetheless.
Post by: Najemikon on July 06, 2010, 05:25:49 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/airplane.jpg)
Robert Hays’ and ‘Julie Hagerty’ join panicky passengers, inept ground controllers and an inflatable auto-pilot in the disaster-film spoof voted ‘one of the 10 funniest movies ever made’ by the ‘American Film Institute.’
What can I possibly say about Airplane!? It is one of the silliest comedies ever made, the first of Zucker and Abraham’s much loved style that in retrospect peaked early with Naked Gun and tailed off pretty quickly (Scary Movie 5?), destroying poor old Leslie Nielsen’s career in the meantime.
So maybe they have been responsible for more bad than good (it did at least stop all those bloody Airport films), but that doesn’t stop Airplane! being amongst the truly funniest and most quoted comedies of all time.
Surely I can’t be serious? You bet I am. And stop calling me Shirley.
If you’ve never seen it, I’d describe it as relentless. It seems determined to make you laugh at all costs by throwing gags at you by rapid fire. If one doesn’t work, the next one right on its tail might! You’re bound to miss things and that makes it fun to watch again. And again.
The key to it is the cast, who play it deadpan serious throughout. That’s why Nielsen found a new routine to get stereotyped in, despite his excellent work in things like Forbidden Planet, which sadly has now been forever tainted by expecting him to come out with some daft line every two minutes!
Post by: Antares on July 06, 2010, 05:56:41 PM
Night of The Hunter (1955)
4 out of 5
You know Jon, I feel that this is one of the most overrated films, from a critical viewpoint, in the history of film. I don't fault Laughton's direction, because he takes a somewhat ridiculous screenplay and makes it look really wonderful on screen. I can't fault Robert Mitchum, because he plays the preacher with such a believable menacing personality.
The fault lies with two things. First, Billy Chapin has to be one of the worst child actors in the history of cinema. Wooden and vacant in his delivery of his lines, he proves that his sister Lauren (Father Knows Best) was the talented progeny in that family.
And second, the ridiculous notion that once they meet Mrs. Cooper and she surmises the danger that the two children are in, she fails to call the police.
I've seen this film now, three times, and it gets more ridiculous with each viewing.
Post by: Antares on July 06, 2010, 06:00:34 PM
What can I possibly say about Airplane!? It is one of the silliest comedies ever made, the first of Zucker and Abraham’s much loved style that in retrospect peaked early with Naked Gun and tailed off pretty quickly (Scary Movie 5?), destroying poor old Leslie Nielsen’s career in the meantime.
Seeing as how Nielsen's career was pretty much on the downside back in 1979, I think he pretty much rode the wave of success that this film created for him.
Post by: Najemikon on July 06, 2010, 06:40:54 PM
Night of The Hunter (1955)
4 out of 5
You know Jon, I feel that this is one of the most overrated films, from a critical viewpoint, in the history of film. I don't fault Laughton's direction, because he takes a somewhat ridiculous screenplay and makes it look really wonderful on screen. I can't fault Robert Mitchum, because he plays the preacher with such a believable menacing personality.
The fault lies with two things. First, Billy Chapin has to be one of the worst child actors in the history of cinema. Wooden and vacant in his delivery of his lines, he proves that his sister Lauren (Father Knows Best) was the talented progeny in that family.
And second, the ridiculous notion that once they meet Mrs. Cooper and she surmises the danger that the two children are in, she fails to call the police.
I've seen this film now, three times, and it gets more ridiculous with each viewing.
I thought Billy Chapin did ok and I didn't find him wooden. I especially liked the scene with Uncle Birdie, where he just walks off. It can be seen as wooden, but I felt it was more like a kid thinking, "I'm off!". It can be so hit and miss with child actors, and he's still better than that strange, cross-eyed robot kid in Shane! ;) He is also better than Shelley Winters, shockingly. But he is overshadowed by the sister. When Powell says something like, "we're going to talk about secrets", I loved how even her tone changed just on the simple "no!" that she replies with. :laugh:
Regards Mrs. Cooper, she can be excused initially on the basis that Powell may be nothing more than an abusive father. She doesn't know the circumstances. She needed Powell to be caught almost red-handed and calling the police too early could allow him to charm his way out and even get custody of the kids. On the other hand, the whole plot is metaphorical, so the characters become cyphers within an enclosed world. That excuse gets severely stretched though.
I've always been fond of this film, but I do agree I see more wrong on each viewing. That just makes it even stranger though and it's a unique atmosphere.
Have you ever seen Running Scared? Strike me down for mentioning a Paul Walker movie in a serious discussion, but that also has a weird fairy-tale vibe to it that makes it worth seeing.
Post by: Achim on July 06, 2010, 06:43:45 PM
You know Jon, I feel that this is one of the most overrated films, from a critical viewpoint, in the history of film.I thought that would have been Pulp Fiction...? :P
I remember quite liking it when I saw it not all that long ago. It was tight story telling and had me quite excited throughout. I don't particularly remember the acting sticking out as a sore thumb, but I may have paid attention elsewhere.
Post by: Najemikon on July 06, 2010, 06:53:38 PM
You know Jon, I feel that this is one of the most overrated films, from a critical viewpoint, in the history of film.I thought that would have been Pulp Fiction...? :P
I remember quite liking it when I saw it not all that long ago. It was tight story telling and had me quite excited throughout. I don't particularly remember the acting sticking out as a sore thumb, but I may have paid attention elsewhere.
Don't start him off! :bag: :tease:
Post by: Antares on July 06, 2010, 08:43:40 PM
You know Jon, I feel that this is one of the most overrated films, from a critical viewpoint, in the history of film.I thought that would have been Pulp Fiction...? :P
I remember quite liking it when I saw it not all that long ago. It was tight story telling and had me quite excited throughout. I don't particularly remember the acting sticking out as a sore thumb, but I may have paid attention elsewhere.
Don't start him off! :bag: :tease:
In that case, it would have read the most overrated group of films in the history of cinema. :whistle:
Pulp Fiction, Inglourious Basterds and Kill Bill Volume shiite 1 & 2 ;)
Post by: Najemikon on July 06, 2010, 08:46:35 PM
Post by: Antares on July 06, 2010, 08:47:52 PM
Post by: Najemikon on July 06, 2010, 08:49:40 PM
Post by: Antares on July 06, 2010, 08:57:33 PM
No, not at all, clearly he is at the forefront of cinema. There's no denying his brilliant contribution to film. :P
More like the foreskin.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on July 06, 2010, 11:47:22 PM
Post by: Achim on July 07, 2010, 06:19:40 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on July 07, 2010, 07:15:28 AM
No, not at all, clearly he is at the forefront of cinema. There's no denying his brilliant contribution to film. :P
More like the foreskin.(click to show/hide)
:laugh:
No comment
Post by: Najemikon on July 07, 2010, 09:22:29 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/potter6.jpg)
As Lord Voldemort tightens his grip, Hogwarts is no longer a safe haven. Harry suspects perils within the castle, but Dumbledore is intent upon preparing him for the final battle.
I haven’t read the Potter books, but if the screenwriters have stuck to the story, they must have had a nightmare adapting it. In fact, is this the instalment I heard about that people weren’t so keen on? After all, Potter is on his own most of the time, engrossed in a potions book he has found that belonged to the mysterious “Half Blood Prince”, ignoring his friends who have nothing to do but be lovesick and frequently being very angry because of the events of Order of The Phoenix. And to cap it all, a downbeat ending that, unlike benchmark Dark Episode from the Star Wars saga, The Empire Strikes Back, promises no defined path for the part. A vague reason, but no path.
I assume all that was stronger in the book, because as if almost afraid to rock the lucrative boat, the film lacks vitality, not helped by a lack of action and being much too over-long. While Daniel Radcliffe was traditionally the weakest of the three kids, he’s grown to be on a par, but here, it’s like he’s holding back on the emotion again. It doesn’t help that the other two are nowhere to be seen in the stories handful of set-pieces. I actually think this had the potential to be one of the most interesting and powerful stories though, if they had gone for it and dialled the scale back to a lonely, hurting and dangerous hero; Harry Potter as if by Martin Scorcese!
Considering this was probably the hardest to make and stick to the tried and tested formula, I think David Yates has done a great job and I hope he has been able to build on it for The Deadly Hallows, because he deserves a blistering sequel. I like contrasts, and he brings a sure-footed elegance to the drama, but proves to still have an eye for scale in the all too few fights. Harry versus Draco in a grim, and eventually bloody, bathroom showdown; defending the Weasley house from Death Eaters; and Dumbledore’s finest moment destroying a legion of... things... about to drown Harry (plus he has just had his hardest moment of the series so far).
As I said, I think Radcliffe did ok, but was probably unsure how to tone the performance and so often appears lost and never sells the seething rage Harry must surely be feeling. Meanwhile Grint and Watson are hilarious with the various easy side-show romance shenanigans. Ron is very funny indeed when he falls victim to a love potion! Of the adults, Rickman once again works wonders with a gift of a character in Snape who keeps us guessing even now, while Gambon makes his mark with an enigmatic turn as Dumbledore. I’d love to have seen what Richard Harris would have done with the role by this point, but the unique relationship between the Professor and Harry is very well-done. Willing, classy support comes from the regular cameos (love Helena Bonham Carter!) and newbie Jim Broadbent.
I can’t think of another franchise to reach this many films, when the plot is essentially the same one throughout and so essential it leads into the next part. Different stories, of course, but the plot stays the same. It’s clearly a curse, because while this film is very well made, it suffers from familiarity and yet wanders in a no man’s land as far as the franchise is concerned. But this is the sixth film and you can excuse them losing the plot once, though it is a shame they didn’t have the confidence because it could have been something different with such room to play with.
I don’t think this is as weak as Chamber of Secrets, but so much more was expected following the truly great last few instalments as the kids had finally come almost to the front-line and now they wandered back again. This is the first film that has made me pay more attention to the books potential though. The Half Blood Prince is simply a thankless instalment to adapt. Too dependant on what came before and what will come, while leaving a big bland hole to fill with an inevitably depressing end. Despite all this negativity, I did really enjoy it, as always. Go figure!
Post by: Dragonfire on July 07, 2010, 09:26:45 PM
Post by: Critter on July 08, 2010, 01:50:21 AM
I haven’t read the Potter books,
Yeah... you have to do something about that.
Post by: Achim on July 08, 2010, 02:47:30 AM
Yes, this is the one many fans like the least. The scene at the Weasly house being one of the ones in the center of attention (it is not in the book, IIRC).
Of course the book is better, it goes over 700 pages and has loads of time to take us through. While I think it's a good idea to split the 7th book into two (less details dropped ;)) I appreciate that they didn't do so on any other of the films.
For me it was a
.
Post by: Dragonfire on July 08, 2010, 03:46:05 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 08, 2010, 10:01:35 PM
Post by: Najemikon on July 08, 2010, 10:06:34 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/kite.jpg)
Khaled Hosseini's stunning debut novel is now an acclaimed motion picture. As young boys, Amir and Hassan were inseparable friends, until one fateful act tore them apart. Years later, Amir will embark on a dangerous quest to right the wrongs of the past - and redeem himself in ways he never expected - by displaying the ultimate in courage and devotion to his friend.
After half an hour or so, I thought I had The Kite Runner pegged and it was exactly what I suspected; a kind of, Stand By Me, Afghanistan remake. It’s a charming, wonderful story about two friends growing up in a politicised, but vibrant and colourful country. Then suddenly, it’s something darker and not because of where it is set, but because of how the relationship between the two boys develops, following a dreadful event that will make you squirm, despite the lack of graphic detail.
It’s a clever film that charms you within minutes, then pulls the rug from under your feet, doubles back and asks you to sympathise with a spoilt brat of a hero on his way to an awkward redemption. Like all good screenplays, it plays with a committed confidence and never feels forced. It is intelligent and steeped in culture with some intricacies that may go over your head, but inform the screenplay and respect the people anyway. It has just the right hint of sentimentality at the right times (“For you, a thousand times over!”), with a cold, stark reality at others that keep it grounded. The dialogue is great and I found myself laughing out loud, especially when the kids go to see a dubbed Magnificent Seven. It’s great that the same film can then give you a more delicate exchange, such as when Hassan asks Amir for a story...
All the work is in the characters. Young Amir (Zekiria Ebrahimi) is the spoilt brat and I admit I felt cheated when the story moved away from his friend, Hassan! Both actors are brilliant, but Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada plays Hassan as such a selfless and honourable boy, he is an absolute charmer. Thankfully, Khalid Abdalla as the older Amir anchors the film with an understated performance. His wife is played by the gorgeous Atossa Leoni and she does well with a role she could easily have coasted through, yet she holds the focus so easily. But of all them, the best character and actor combined is Homayoun Ershadi as Amir’s father, or “Baba”. He is superb in a changeable role that is never less than absolutely engaging. It’s him and the young Hassan that make this film very special.
Director Marc Forster perfectly judges the tone throughout, while realising a depiction of a country in turmoil. I loved his visual touches, like the exciting kite tournament that uses the kites for a thrilling birds eye view of Kabul. As with Finding Neverland, he crafts truly beautiful scenes that never sacrifice relevance for imagery.
While we are focused on a rather selfish story, the background to it might just help understand the awful situation in Afghanistan. I’m not disillusioned; the depiction of Russians and Taliban is a bit too convenient for this to be a pseudo-documentary, but that should be excused considering the point of view of the author and that this is setting out to be passionate rather than political (in fact, Amir acts like he is walking on eggshells in the final part, lest he disturb anything!). But the characters are so layered and charming, they can only be seen as a positive, human depiction of the Afghan people.
My only problem with it is not even the fault of the film, but the original book. The story feels too personal for the author, Khaled Hosseini. Beyond the obvious conceit that the central character is a writer, I can’t help think this story is biographical. That he was the boy who betrayed his friend and he suffered a lifetime of guilt, so much so that he wrote it as atonement; and that the final act is a fantasy redemption that didn’t really happen. He had stood by while his friend suffered, so it seems too poetic that he should return to the country many years later and manage to find the same bully, despite the overbearing Taliban. The twist feels like a daydream that would set in motion the right turn of events to allow him to face his nemesis and might have worked better with a similar trick Atonement pulled.
But the only reason I’ve thought about this so hard is that the film is such a perfect realisation of the plot. Marc Forster continues to prove that he is one of the best directors working today, extending an already eclectic array of work with a heartfelt ode to friendship. This film is a joy, which nevertheless packs a punch.
Post by: Najemikon on July 10, 2010, 09:31:05 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/island.jpg)
Now available for the first time in its original widescreen format, this deluxe DVD presentation of "Island Of Fire" is the perfect home-video showcase for the most hard-hitting and controversial movie of Jackie Chan's prolific career. Paying homage to both "Cool Hand Luke" and "The Wild Geese", and featuring action legends Sammo Hung and Jimmy Wong Yu, the powerful action-drama recounts the experiences of four honourable men drawn together by fate in a corrupt prison regime. Fighting not only for their freedom but their lives, the stakes are raised higher and higher until one question exists. Will they survive?
Well, this is one of the oddest films I’ve seen in a while. Madder than a box of frogs! The overview is simply hilarious once you have seen the film.
Normally there is no point reviewing a plot for a Hong Kong martial arts movie. You don’t watch them for drama, but for the sheer spectacle. Perfect action movie fodder. Thing is, this weird little effort is low on kicks and high on and attempt at a plot.
It’s marketed as a Jackie Chan flick, but his is not the main story. Instead it is Andy Lau as a detective going undercover in prison for two years to solve the murder of his mentor. The murderer was killed at the scene, but fingerprints prove he was a prisoner, executed years before.
Once Lau is in prison, we meet Sammo Hung. Sammo is always fun. A large guy, but highly skilled in Kung Fu (he was schooled with Chan and was one of the “Little Dragons”). He is also one of the more charming actors from this genre and this is clearly a dramatic effort for him, because he only has one brief fight scene really in his story about multiple escapes to see his son.
Chan does get a lot more to do, but his fights are more straightforward and serious than usual, which is interesting to see, but again, I stress, this is not a Kung Fu movie. His plot concerns his efforts to raise money to pay for his girlfriends surgery following her being attacked because he didn’t throw a pool match. Yes, you read that right. A pool match being setup by gangsters. Told you it was odd, but this isn’t the half of it! He ends up accidentally killing a gangster and ends up in prison, where he is attacked by gang members trying to avenge their boss. Eventually his brother (Tony Leung) gets himself imprisoned too so he can do it himself.
Lau, Hung, Chan and Leung. Three separate plot lines put together rather awkwardly making for a gritty prison drama. Shawshank this isn’t but hey, it’s not awful. It’s a mess, but Andy Lau and Tony Leung are excellent actors and you can’t fault Sammo’s enthusiasm or Jackie Chan being serious for once. It’s occasionally funny, but has none of the usual farce that you might be used to from this era. It’s occasionally tough and poignant, but the writers are batting way out of their league. There are huge contrivances and leaps of faith to make it all plug together. Five stars for effort though.
So then we come to the final act. Erm... yeah. From out of nowhere, they remember the original premise and suddenly, we have all four principals in a huge action scene. Still no Kung-Fu to speak off, this is more The Wild Geese blood and bullets.
I can honestly say, none of these three films are terrible! ;)
Post by: Najemikon on July 10, 2010, 09:37:17 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/dirty12.jpg)
They are convicts, psychos, lunkheads, losers - and champs at the box office and in movie lore. Decades after it burst onto the scene, "The Dirty Dozen" remains a milestone among ensemble flicks. Lee Marvin portrays a tough-as-nails major volunteered in the Army way to command a squad of misfits on a suicide mission against Nazi brass. Charles Bronson, Jim Brown, John Cassavetes, Trini Lopez, Telly Savalas, Donald Sutherland and Clint Walker are among the 12 jailbirds who will earn their freedom if they survive. And Robert Aldrich ("The Longest Yard") directs, blending anti-authority gibes with explosive excitement.
The Dirty Dozen has been oft imitated, but never bettered. It was made back in the days when movies could be hugely entertaining and main stream, but still be subversive. Robert Aldritch’s film is therefore a brutal and angry anti-war protest, but masses of fun, full of great characters played by a legendary cast spouting mean dialogue. The Magnificent Seven Go To War, maybe? Possibly, except there are 12 of them, and they’re all bastards!
Lee Marvin leads as the undisciplined Major tasked with creating a suicide squad from a bunch of lifers and some destined for the gallows. Charles Bronson and John Cassevetes are most prominent, but they’re all memorable and distinctive in some way, ranging from quiet, well balanced Clint Walker, through to genuine dangerous nutcase Telly Savalas. Ernest Borgnine is amongst the top brass and Robert Ryan is an out-of-the-loop Colonel who threatens to derail the whole plan.
It starts with a nasty scene that sets the tone throughout. Three quarters of the plot is simply training, but this is an action film from a time when there had to be a reason for that action. No detail is missed as we see the Major beat and bully the squad into his “Dirty Dozen”, so named when they lose their soap and shaving privileges. All the time there is the possibility that one of them will knife the Major and do a runner, except you kind of know that will never happen. There is a bond that forms between the beatings and growling and by the time they take on Robert Ryan’s squad in a war-games exercise (with nervy George Kennedy having fun as a marshall), they’re still tough, but working together, so now they’re lethal.
The stage is set for the finale and it’s one of the great action sequences of any war film. In retrospect, not a huge amount really happens, but what does happen is loud and ruthless. It is a huge influence on a certain kind of men-on-a-mission movie, such as Where Eagles Dare and The Wild Geese, and not least on Inglourious Basterds, in which Tarantino shows how well he understood Aldritch’s message that he could retool it so well. But it's been a huge influence on the action genre too and I think it would have been a very different genre without this film. Would even Harry have been so Dirty?
There’s no beating this original though. You can’t get a cast like this anymore and I doubt audiences wouldn’t respond to it in the same way.
Post by: Najemikon on July 10, 2010, 09:41:43 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/omen2.jpg)
The chilling tale of Damien, the son of Satan whose birth was prophesised in the Book of Revelations, began with The Omen, and continues in this second compelling installment of The Omen Trilogy. Seven years have passed since Damien narrowly escaped death at the hands of his own father. Now he is 13 years old and lives with his uncle Richard Thorn (William Holden), his aunt Ann (Lee Grant) and cousin Mark. As Damien discovers his powers and how to use them, powerful protectors, the disciples of evil, watch over the boy. His uncle gradually comes to suspect that the boy is not as innocent as he appears, while his aunt steadfastly refuses to believe the warnings and protects Damien as if he were her own. But others are aware of Damien’s true nature. Time is growing short... as the forces of good and evil battle each other to a taut and terrifying end, will Damien be destroyed by one of the many who try, or will he survive and flourish as the embodiment of evil on earth?
The sequel to The Omen is what Aliens is to Alien, except there was a limit to where they could really go with it. The original was quite serious and menacing, but with an occasional wink as it played fast and loose with the Old Testament. Damien builds on that by fully recognising the limits and embracing the inherent silliness and ramping up. It still has a pretty solid plot too, as the paths are being cleared for the Anti-Christ to step into a key position in society.
It’s great fun. And I’ve always enjoyed the political and religious intrigue, so if you’re like me, you’ll get a kick out of seeing the apostles neatly placed to realise Damien’s potential. I love the start of the film, with the powerful theme and doomed Leo McKern driving like the devil was on his back. There are many varied and exuberant deaths that, while they lack gore, are still Friday night horror scenes worth cheering. Especially the lift scene! They aren’t as neat or scary as the ones in The Omen, but this film keeps the serious mood and so becomes an enjoyable romp.
Jonathan Scott-Taylor is very good as the young Damien. The original boy was great casting as he was a cherub faced toddler, but with an occasional expression to send a shiver down your spine. Jonathan is similar. He plays Damien as honest and hard-working, if spoilt and precocious, with a precise speech that betrays his arrogance. He has no idea of his destiny and once he finds out, he continues to convince, now he is in turmoil. A Michael Corleone sort of arc, if you will. Lance Henrikson is fairly underused, but particularly impressive as Damien’s platoon leader in military school, but is also one of the apostles. He strikes a balance between clearly being in awe of Damien, yet disciplining him too. William Holden brings a bit of old Hollywood style to Damien’s Uncle, suffering the same torture as Gregory Peck in the first movie, determined to ignore the evidence while the bodies pile up.
In retrospect, it would have been nice to have more substantial resistance. A suggestion that there are those on the opposite side being just as organised in thwarting the boys rise to power, rather than these poor buggers who are dealt with as soon as they realise anything. But even if you do see it as relentless and obvious, it’s still one of the best horror sequels, all things considered.
Post by: Rogmeister on July 10, 2010, 11:10:38 PM
Post by: Jimmy on July 10, 2010, 11:30:05 PM
Post by: addicted2dvd on July 10, 2010, 11:57:07 PM
(http://www.invelos.com/mpimages/02/024543004523f.jpg)
:tease:
Post by: Critter on July 11, 2010, 01:07:29 AM
I will catch up with the books one day. Probably wait now until after the films! :training:
:slaphead:
I can't even begin to start with how wrong that is, and how you are doing it all backwards! The books should always come first! But I suppose with only two more films to go you won't be able to change now.
Post by: Najemikon on July 11, 2010, 03:09:42 AM
I remember back when the first Omen movies were coming out. My dad blurted out the ending to the first to me and I vowed t onever see the movie because of that. And I never have. I also remember when the third movie came out, Daily Variety (Hollywood trade paper) in their review said it was too bad that was the last of the series...because that one was the funniest one yet! :laugh:
:hysterical: "...funniest"? Good grief!
I have always think that Damien 2 is one of the few members of the "sequel is better than the original" club. Always appreciate the twist at the end (I'm sure I ain't the only one who didn't see this coming). Just too sad the way they have ended the trilogy with the third one (Pete is the only one who believes this is a quadrilogy), Seriously Damien beaten by a little boy and some old geezers ::)
I do prefer the first one, but I know where you're coming from. I grew up with these films to some extent, as my parents always liked them. Apart from part 3 of course, and I don't think they even managed to make through part 4. I want to see 3 again, just because... I may even make it to 4. :training:
But Pete, I do remember it and I can't believe anyone finds anything to like in it. It's such an insult to the first two films. Hell, it even insults the third because at least that was trying to be part of a thread. Part 4 is nothing more than, "Oooh, Damien wasn't really the Anti-Christ! He's just an apostle himself! It's really... A GIRL!". Da-da-DAAA!
What a bloody joke. One of the worst films ever made, if there was a shred of talent involved. :thumbdown: I do find it fascinating how the Omens mirror the Alien movies: clever, defining part 1; explosive, fun and irreverent part 2; failed part 3, but at least an attempt to be different; waste of time part 4. They go on like this we'll get "Omen versus The Exorcist". :-X
I just noticed that you said this Jon.I will catch up with the books one day. Probably wait now until after the films! :training:
:slaphead:
I can't even begin to start with how wrong that is, and how you are doing it all backwards! The books should always come first! But I suppose with only two more films to go you won't be able to change now.
I know. I was once a big reader and I absolutely agree with you, especially as I recognise the films simply cannot be better. But I'm so behind on my books, it'll be a long while yet. :-[
Post by: Achim on July 11, 2010, 05:16:19 AM
...seems unavailable at Amazon :( they have the Collection including the fourth, but I'll resist that for now.
"Omen versus The Exorcist".:hmmmm: That doesn't sound all that bad... If done right, I mean.
Post by: Jimmy on July 11, 2010, 05:32:27 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 11, 2010, 01:30:12 PM
But, even £30 is two much for what might be considered only two good films and a crappy third.
Consider the DVD set I have: http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/1112476/The-Omen-Pentology-Box-Set/Product.html
It's £12.99, or even just £6.24 second hand. You get The Omen SE, plus the sequels (yes, number 4 too) and the remake. At the very least, the extras are decent throughout, though I haven't looked at the fourth.
I think that's worth a punt, despite not being Blu, as I thought the image quality when I watched Omen 2 the other night was decent. The Omen Blu-Ray gets fairly good reviews, but I don't think it's going to be jaw droppingly good and you don't get part 2.
Post by: addicted2dvd on July 11, 2010, 03:00:44 PM
:tomato:
Post by: Achim on July 11, 2010, 06:37:10 PM
I forgot that I already order The Omen on Blu, without sequels, which was a very conscious decision at the time. It's in the mail as it is and I should make no attempt ohterwise. The first one is actually really all I need. :-[
Post by: Najemikon on July 12, 2010, 12:46:03 AM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/yakuza.jpg)
Former private eye Harry Kilmer knows a lot about Japan - and gangsters whu keep an iron grip on it's gambling, prostitution and protection rackets He knows there's a right way to approach the brutal underworld. And he knows there's one thing powerful mobsters respect: greater power. Robert Mitchum is Kilmer in this haunting East-meets-West-head-on thriller powered by a team of heavy Hollywood hitters: writers Paul Schrader (Taxi Driver) and Robert Towne (Chinatown) and director Sidney Pollack (The Interpreter). Co-starring Japan's Takakura Ken and veteran character actor Brian Keith. The Yakuza is a modern film noir in which honor and loyalty become issues of life and death. Violence erupts with the speed of a Tokyo-bound bullet train. And the last thing to die is tradition.
Old man action movies! You’ve got to love them. It doesn’t always work when an aging movie star goes for one last thriller or action flick; just look at Clint Eastwood in The Dead Pool, a step too far for Harry Callaghan. With the right script though, it’s gold. Robert Mitchum is way past his prime as Harry in The Yakuza, but he holds it well and Sydney Pollack –not known for action chops- gives him some superb set-pieces with the least amount of effort, while Paul Schrader (Taxi Driver) and Robert Towne (Chinatown) deliver a clever screenplay that uses Mitchum’s natural charisma to its best. Just the delivery on one simple line as he sees his long lost love, Eiko (Keiko Kishi), again sums up his whole character: “Hello, darlin’”. Although more straightforward, The Yakuza benefits from the psychological, character-in-purgatory screenplays Schrader and Towne are good at. And Pollack brings it to life, with Mitchum providing old-school charisma you can barely find these days.
Harry has travelled to Japan where he was stationed in the military 20+ years before, at the behest of his friend, George (Brian Keith), who has got himself mixed up with Yakuza. Harry knows a Yakuza (Ken Takakura) who is in debt –or obligation, “giri”- to him. Harry is reluctant when he discovers Ken is no longer Yakuza, and especially when there is a complicated history. Ken is Eiko’s brother and demanded she stay away from Harry all those years before.
The Yakuza plot is a simple one, but adds a great deal of substance by tying it in with honour and obligation, that makes for a brilliant story with a haunting quality, despite its straightforward no-nonsense style. Pollack, as you’d expect, delivers a very solid drama, but the sporadic action is superb, ranging from gunfights to a lengthy sword duel. Bloody and brutal, in that 70s way, which isn’t quite Peckinpah, but it’s close enough to be riveting stuff and the well developed characters make you care for what happens. Look close and you’ll realise that Mitchum at least is being edited kindly, but what editing! There’s one sequence where he is armed with a rifle as he backs up sword wielding Ken, taking on about two dozen Yakuza. That followed where he cleared out a room full of thugs, bellowing his targets name and finally taking him out with Pollack framing him in a 1-2-3 step edit. One word: awesome! I’d take this lean focused brutality any day over anything Michael Bay has done and Pollack isn’t even known for action (although many of his thrillers have decent set-pieces). He just understands character and knows how to position them, even if it’s a Western style gunfight.
This sort of film is dying out with the actors who made them. Mitchum was a hellraiser and combined with being a hell of an actor, he brought a special quality to such movies.
Post by: Najemikon on July 12, 2010, 10:58:29 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/constant.jpg)
Academy Award® nominee Ralph Fiennes ('The English Patient') and Rachel Weisz ('Constantine') give electrifying performances in this gripping suspense thriller. A diplomat on the hunt for his wife's murderer uncovers a treacherous conspiracy that will destroy millions of innocent people - unless he can reveal its sinister roots. From the best-selling spy novel by John Le Carré comes this edge-of-your-seat story of murder, deception and revenge that critics are calling "...outstanding...dramatic...hair-raising..."
I love it when this happens. I’d already seen The Constant Gardener and knew I liked it, but I had an urge to watch it again and it seemed to take on a whole new level. On this occasion, I found it achingly brilliant.
Conspiracy thrillers such as this more often than not concentrate on the conspiracy, reducing the characters to fit and drive the main plot to a grand finale Where All Shall Be Revealed. There is nothing wrong with this, especially in a Bond movie where it’s merely an excuse to link up various set-pieces, but when the conspiracy is based on a grain of truth, you have to subscribe to and accept the writer’s viewpoint to fully appreciate what’s unfolding. A little bit of doubt goes a long and wrong way. Blood Diamond suffers from this.
The conspiracy at the centre of The Constant Gardener –African’s being used as unwitting test subjects for a drugs company- is developed by Jeffrey Caine from John Le Carre’s novel. It’s a fine adaptation that Le Carre has praised as “bearing little resemblance”, in a good way! It is fairly complicated, well researched, engrossing, but as with any other such plot, demanding. The clever thing in this case, is how it is hidden in a love story. As such, our belief in the politics and intrigue become secondary to our belief in Justin (Ralph Fiennes) and Tessa (Rachel Weisz), despite them being irrevocably linked.
In fact, the love story is shown in fractured memories, as it starts with the awful scene of Justin discovering his wife Tessa has been murdered. She was always the passionate driven one, determined to uncover the truth, while he is the quiet diplomat, avoiding being involved. He has to unpick his past with Tessa, coming to terms with several revelations and his own decisions, to understand how he should deal with the future. In a sense, it is a film of two halves, though beautifully fluid in their coming together. It’s such a clever and playful narrative that teases out the characters in such a way you might not be sure how to feel about them. That might be why a second viewing is in order. You know them better and the story takes on new meaning.
The photography is stunning and proves director Fernando Meirellies to be a unique talent. His previous film was City Of God, but that is no indicator of your reaction to this film. Looking at both films, he clearly has a way of matching the cameras movements to the nature of the plot. So whereas City Of God was intoxicating, sharp and powerful, The Constant Gardener has a smoother nature. His use of focus is frequently breathtaking, right from the abstract opening scene of Tessa’s vehicle coming to rest after an accident. We see only the tyre, only the conclusion of the action. Where City Of God was angry, this is poignant, full of longing.
I was reminded of this film after watching The Fountain and finally realising the brilliance of Rachel Weisz. Maybe I’m a bit slow, but The Mummy movies loudly distracted me from how good an actress she actually is! She is gorgeous and captivating in a difficult, Oscar winning role to balance. Her flirty outgoing nature supports the evidence she was having an affair; her soulful gazes at Justin diffuses it. She has to capture our imagination and indignation at once, and she does it. Ralph Fiennes has an even harder job, with a character that by nature is quiet and unassuming (preferring his plants to anything as vulgar as life!) and developing resilience, so he goes under our and the Academies radar, denied the plaudits he surely deserved (Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Capote, not withstanding). He is heartbreakingly real as he tugs the threads of his life back together and anyone who understands how tough grief is cannot fail to be overwhelmed. So much better than the obvious The English Patient. The two leads work together so well and the flashback to their first meeting an utter joy, followed by a sex scene that actually builds the characters. “Thank you... for this gift”, Justin says. “How very generous of me!”, exclaims Tessa. Dialogue throughout is brilliant, especially from Bill Nighy and Gerard McSorley.
They and the main plot comes to sharper focus in the second half and it is affecting, tense and powerful. The decision to actually film in Africa makes for a vibrant and real film, especially with a passionate cast of extras, though it never falls into the trap of becoming a faux documentary. A trust was set-up to support the areas used for filming as way of thank you and it’s a small price for such authenticity.
Ok, so I’ve gone on. A bit. But it shows how much I must regard this film when I can tell you it isn’t perfect. A couple of the supporting characters are a bit obvious, such as Justin and Tessa’s lawyer (Richard McCabe) and especially his annoying computer whizz son, Guido. Bill Nighy is fantastic, but over the top and a concluding scene might be a bit silly (still works though!). They’re balanced by perfunctory roles from Danny Houston and Herbert Kounde. Perception of them is essential to the plot though, which might explain their simple development. They are thriller characters, after all and concessions to the genre are needed somewhere!
There may be other gripes tucked away here and there, but it takes nothing away from a grown-up, ambitious film that is memorable and sublime, thanks to a passionate director and central performances that cut to the bone. Simply wonderful. Watch it, then watch it again. I certainly will.
Post by: Najemikon on July 17, 2010, 06:10:59 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/wallace.jpg)
When their town's prized produce start disappearing, our cheese-loving inventor and his savvy canine companion must use all their wildly imaginative inventions to try to capture a mysterious beast of epic and fluffy proportions!
While not as sharp as the shorts, the two lovable characters make a triumphant big screen debut. It may be their only one too, because I get the impression Nick Park is happier pottering along without confused American’s putting up the cash! Still, Curse of The Were-Rabbit is on a par with Pixar ;) and streets ahead of any Dreamworks production. Shrek and Kung-Fu Panda are great fun, but lumpy and obvious compared to this.
The secret is an easy charm. Pure and simple. The story, the characters, the way they are animated. It has that quality of the best of animation, a sense they had to throw out ten ideas for every one you see, just to keep the running time sensible. The story is very British, possibly the most identifiably British film for years. It’s more like an Ealing comedy, crossed with a Hammer horror, with a healthy dose of soap opera and a sense of theatrical fun that the audience are as much a part of the result as anything. I’ve seen this three, maybe four, times and still spot new gags. It’s stuffed with clever puns, both visual and in dialogue, which frequently have a cheeky adult appeal (Tottington holding her melons, etc!).
Peter Sallis brings Wallace to life as usual with his wonderful tone. The supporting cast is top notch, with Ralph Fiennes as Wallace’s love rival to Lady “Totty” Tottington, voiced by Helena Bonham Carter, and Peter Kay adding a little edge to the local copper. “I think this was arson... aye! Someone arson about!”
It’s very cinematic too. In the past I’ve spoken of how Anime and now Pixar have developed tricks and styles to mimic the lighting and focus of traditional film, but I’d forgotten about Wallace and Gromit; they’ve always had it, because they are real objects filmed by a real camera. You can’t under-estimate how good it looks and the fact we rather take it for granted speaks volumes.
Model based animation should always have a deserved place. You can see the work going into it and it just adds to the experience. In a way, you are aware of the performers behind the scenes, pushing and prodding their creations and it makes the result all the more astonishing. Gromit’s long suffering expressions have always been my favourite. Just watch the exchange between him and Philip (the rival dog), first when Gromit locks himself in the car and later the amazing “dog fight” in fairground planes! Philip’s purse is silly, but I was crying with laughter!
That might be the overall difference with the shorts. There are more “silly” bits, whereas we’re used to an easier laid-back approach. But that ultimately is a pointless criticism (the rabbits waving might also be silly, but they are hilarious). This film is wonderful and brilliant in all sorts of ways.
Post by: Najemikon on July 17, 2010, 06:14:42 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/general.jpg)
Buster Keaton, along with Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd and Laurel & Hardy, are amongst the finest comic actors ever. There is a purity about Keaton especially that means The General, despite being so old there wasn’t even any sound, has actually dated far less than modern contemporaries. For example, much as I enjoy a Jim Carrey performance as much as the next man (and I do find him hilarious), his work is contrived and gets old, quick. Keaton, with his dead-pan expression and casual slapstick is just so natural.
In The General, it’s particularly easy to appreciate how much his Johnnie Gray character is not an idiot, in fact, quite the opposite. So much modern comedy is based on a character being a pillock and learning not to be so much of a pillock, until he does something brilliant and then all his friends don’t mind him being a pillock... Johnnie Gray is actually intelligent, brave and good at his job, but no-one notices and don’t appreciate him. He is a train engineer and continues to be one after being stopped from enlisting when the Civil War breaks out. The General is his train and when it is stolen by Union soldiers, nothing is going to stop him getting it back. I love the irony that his fiancé, who shunned him because he didn’t enlist, had been kidnapped and she thinks he’s come for her. The merest flicker of an expression tells you, actually, he’s here for the train. Bonus she’s there, no mistake, but he wants the train back!
The comedy of him chasing The General with another engine, on his own, is superb. His fluid athletic slapstick has him running all around the damn thing like you wouldn’t believe and it’s laugh out loud funny throughout. Especially when he gets his fiancé (Marion Mack) and she’s trying to help, much to his disgust. The sequence with keeping the fire stoked is just sublime.
If you’re not sure about silent movies and have dismissed them up to now, make the effort. The General is a superb starting point. You might be surprised just how watchable and satisfying it is and it can only make you appreciate more the modern actors who have been inspired, such as Jackie Chan’s work.
Post by: Najemikon on July 17, 2010, 06:18:08 PM
2 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/lola.jpg)
Time is running out for Lola. She's just received a frantic phone call from her boyfriend Manni, who's lost a small fortune in cash belonging to his Mob boss. Now, she has to run for his life, to try and come up with the money before Manni pays the ultimate price for his mistake.
I remember this film being a lot of fun and it still is, but bloody hell it’s dated. It seems to get taken rather seriously too, which I don’t quite understand. It’s a childish premise, stretched way past breaking point and has a very strange moral centre.
The plot is simply Lola (Franke Potente) getting a call from her drug-dealing, mobster wannabe boyfriend. He’s been a prat and left 100,000 marks on a subway and a tramp has taken it. He will soon be killed by his mobster boss if he can’t replace it. So, Lola has 20 minutes to find the money (her banker father is the obvious choice) and get to Manni before he makes a foolhardy attempt to hold up the local supermarket. The sequence repeats three times, complete with flashy animation inserts, a thumping soundtrack and incidental musings on life as Lola tries different routes to the solution. Groundhog Day, basically.
So it has this philosophical view of life and death, and how fate works and how we do the right thing at the right time. Or something. Now it’s still much better than the similar pretentious sequence in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but my problems with it are thus:
Manni is a petty criminal who wants to be a proper criminal when he grows up. The money is from a drug deal. His first thought for a solution is to rob a supermarket. Because he has a gun and he’s a criminal. Am I being thick or something, but why the hell am I supposed to sympathise with his situation? It seems morally at odds with this fancy Buddhist notion of little things affecting big things and Lola’s Zen like ability to rewind time, narratively speaking (and later, save a heart attack victim by holding his hand). Letting Manni get killed and seeing how Lola handles it, with her sense of fate and reason for living, would have been much more interesting.
I might sound two-faced, after all some of the best films are about anti-heroes with questionable ethics, but the character is written as being an affable, misguided young chap, whom Lola loves beyond anything. And the film makes no effort to show him the error of his ways. No redemption. This is not Bonnie and Clyde or even Pumpkin and Honey Bunny from Pulp Fiction, which allowed them to succeed with irony.
The other problem I have, is that when Lola finally does succeed (sorry, should that be a spoiler?), what the hell did she actually do? The plot is self-serving. The only reason the first two attempts don’t work is because of her. In the end, the only thing she really does is the heart attack guy. And what’s with all the damn screaming to break glass? It’s all flash and no thunder.
Then again, while it is flashy and self-serving to point of being pointless, it’s very well done and cinematic, especially in how the heroine looks so wild and forms a natural contrast, almost like a costumed super-hero. The soundtrack is likeable if you like that sort of thing, the actors are very good and it’s concisely well-written with some nice banter. The absolute ace is Potente. Her look is striking, though strangely attractive and her delivery is excellent.
Whether it is actually any good, despite being watchable, depends entirely on your own take. I thought it was over-done bollocks.
Post by: Touti on July 17, 2010, 06:57:46 PM
Post by: Dragonfire on July 17, 2010, 09:42:12 PM
Post by: Najemikon on July 17, 2010, 10:24:33 PM
I don't have your talent for writing Jon but I agree with you on all accounts. I paid a high price for this DVD because someone kept telling me it was good. What a waste of money, I didn't even watch it completely.
Thank you, Eric. The overview bizarrely claims this was destined to be a cult classic like Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. I don't get the link. Lock Stock is overrated, but a lot better. :shrug:
I love Curse of the Were-Rabbit. Such a good movie.
So glad to hear you say that, although I know you wrote a good review before. I get the impression that it didn't do as well as hoped in the States, so I wondered how well it had translated. I think Nick Park had a great relationship with America after winning a couple of Oscars, but something didn't quite feel right with the movie. It's like they went on a couple of dates, then finally slept together, and woke up the next morning slightly confused because neither partner got what they were expecting... :laugh:
Post by: Najemikon on July 17, 2010, 11:11:49 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/sherlock.jpg)
Explosive action, baffling mystery and astonishing intrigue follow Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his trusted ally Watson (Jude Law) in a race to uncover and foil a terrifying plot that threatens to destroy the country. Director Guy Ritchie helms the all-action adventure reintroducing the great detective to the World. Robert Downey Jr. is the new Sherlock Holmes!
I wasn’t sure whether I would like Sherlock Holmes. I understood that Arthur Conan Doyle’s original books are actually far lighter and satirical than the rather serious adaptations so far, but still; blockbuster material? Really?
In truth, concessions to being a tent-pole multiplex hit do cause the script to be too obvious and over reliant on set-pieces, but it is tremendous fun, breathlessly paced and very exciting. And from Robert Downey Jr. possibly one of the best performances of the Sherlock Holmes character yet attempted, though in the context of how previous productions have been fashioned, that's impossible to put into context. Certainly I can’t think of a better depiction of the relationship with Dr. Watson, and Jude Law more than holds his own. If anything the film relies on him more as the straight man.
But this is RDJ’s show from start to finish and he is superb. Great accent, perfect timing and delivery, and with such infectious fun. He convinces as the action man and almost as the detective, though that isn’t his fault. As I said, the plot is too focused on the set-pieces to allow the audience to see Holmes actually coming to any conclusions, until at the end where he reveals everything he knew. Which is a hell of a lot. Not letting the viewer join in more is a poor mistake as it might have been something truly special. All the pieces were in place.
Along with RDJ, Jude Law completes a very strong pairing. Having Watson the more grounded character, trying to leave Holmes behind is a clever foundation on which to build the story. It gives Holmes a weakness, without spelling it out, except in what is not said between the two leads. In the books, Watson is Holmes’ rock, especially in relation to his drug addiction, which gets a tiny, but perceptive reference here. Purely from the acting perspective, the chemistry is fantastic too. It very much falls into the ‘bromance’ of action movies like Lethal Weapon. They both have girlfriends, well played by Kelly Reilly and especially Rachel McAdams who is effectively the third lead as original Conan Doyle character Irene Adler, but it’s clear there is a love that Shall Not Speak Its Name between Holmes and Watson! Mark Strong rounds out the cast with a powerful turn as the villain, Lord Blackwood. Moriaty is hinted at, so if part two doesn’t end at Reichenbach Falls, I’ll eat my hat!
The biggest revelation for me is Guy Ritchie as director. Sherlock Holmes is by far his best film, and I do like Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch very much. It’s just this is so different, requiring an eye for action cinema, and reveals both flamboyancy and restraint in expert use. Although the finale is a bit predictable, the sequence at the shipyard and the incidental fights are incredible. It’s a gorgeous looking film too, with sumptuous detail and lighting (there is a night-time scene that actually reminded me of Deliverance in that it was proper moon rather then movie lighting). Because of the attention to detail and eye for photography, this is one of the best modern movies I’ve yet seen on Blu-Ray, which so far has proved more impressive for older films.
Overall the sum of it's parts are better than the result. It hardly matters if it is a good or bad adaptation of the stories, because it's aimed at a young audience. It does exactly what it set out to do though. So bring on the sequel! Just next time, let’s have a bit of mystery that we can play along with.
Post by: Dragonfire on July 18, 2010, 12:28:27 AM
So glad to hear you say that, although I know you wrote a good review before. I get the impression that it didn't do as well as hoped in the States, so I wondered how well it had translated. I think Nick Park had a great relationship with America after winning a couple of Oscars, but something didn't quite feel right with the movie. It's like they went on a couple of dates, then finally slept together, and woke up the next morning slightly confused because neither partner got what they were expecting... :laugh:
I can't remember how well the movie did the box office now..I'm thinking it did pretty good. I seem to remember reading a lot of positive reviews on Epinions too.
Post by: addicted2dvd on July 18, 2010, 12:37:09 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on July 18, 2010, 01:13:57 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 18, 2010, 02:18:40 AM
Post by: Critter on July 18, 2010, 03:13:28 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 18, 2010, 03:28:09 AM
Post by: Critter on July 18, 2010, 03:43:37 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 18, 2010, 03:58:46 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on July 18, 2010, 04:41:03 AM
I have the shorts on DVD..and the movie. I have a few Shaun the Sheep DVDs too. I have no other items. I would be very tempted if I saw some though.
Post by: goodguy on July 18, 2010, 06:04:06 AM
Run Lola Run
2 out of 5
...
Whether it is actually any good, despite being watchable, depends entirely on your own take. I thought it was over-done bollocks.
I haven't seen this since 2003, but it seems you are a bit harsh here. Especially when followed by a four(*snicker*)-star review of "Sherlock Holmes".
Post by: Achim on July 18, 2010, 11:20:57 AM
In fact due to an unfortunate mishap, the three original Wallace and Gromit shorts and now the only three VHS tapes I still own, and I cherish them as much as my DVD's, if not more.You know that, at least in the US, they have those three plus the newer one ("A Matter of Loaf and Death"; gotta laugh the title :laugh:) on Blu-ray! Will go very well with your PS3 :P (it's apparently region free).
Post by: Najemikon on July 18, 2010, 01:22:33 PM
Run Lola Run
2 out of 5
...
Whether it is actually any good, despite being watchable, depends entirely on your own take. I thought it was over-done bollocks.
I haven't seen this since 2003, but it seems you are a bit harsh here. Especially when followed by a four(*snicker*)-star review of "Sherlock Holmes".
Why, what did I miss? Or does Lola simply inherit respect simply by not being mainstream? Should I have admonished myself for not liking it and found something good? Nah! :tease: It's pretentious crap that barely had enough good ideas to fill one 20 minutes segment, never mind three.
Have you even seen Sherlock Holmes? I wouldn't have thought it was your cup of tea from any angle, but there's incalculably more talent involved and I enjoyed it, even if the net result was a bit dumb. Key difference is, one film was trying to be clever and shot itself in the foot. And it wasn't Holmes.
But hey, the overview of Lola compares itself to another Guy Ritchie film. Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels? erm... *** at least, maybe **** :P
Have you seen The Constant Gardener? I think that one is much more up your street. In fact, it's so far up your street, it's parked in your drive and knocking on your door.
Post by: goodguy on July 18, 2010, 03:00:05 PM
Why, what did I miss? Or does Lola simply inherit respect simply by not being mainstream? Should I have admonished myself for not liking it and found something good? Nah! :tease: It's pretentious crap that barely had enough good ideas to fill one 20 minutes segment, never mind three.
Actually, yes, non-mainstream movies do get a little more respect from me by default. That's not to say they can't be crap, too. But at least you made me want to rewatch it. My L entry for the DCO marathon is still free.
Have you even seen Sherlock Holmes? I wouldn't have thought it was your cup of tea from any angle, but there's incalculably more talent involved and I enjoyed it, even if the net result was a bit dumb. Key difference is, one film was trying to be clever and shot itself in the foot. And it wasn't Holmes.
Actually, no. ;) But I have it on my wishlist and expect something entertaining on the level of the "Iron Man" movie. I even remember posting about it in the "Must-see Movies" thread after reading an early review.
Post by: Najemikon on July 18, 2010, 03:28:01 PM
Actually, yes, non-mainstream movies do get a little more respect from me by default. That's not to say they can't be crap, too. But at least you made me want to rewatch it. My L entry for the DCO marathon is still free.
Well, that's good! Look forward to seeing your comments. ;D
Actually, no. ;) But I have it on my wishlist and expect something entertaining on the level of the "Iron Man" movie. I even remember posting about it in the "Must-see Movies" thread after reading an early review.
Iron Man is exact level to pitch Sherlock Holmes at.
Post by: Tom on July 18, 2010, 03:46:46 PM
Post by: Critter on July 18, 2010, 04:46:33 PM
Post by: Najemikon on July 18, 2010, 04:49:04 PM
But if anyone else thought the same as Matthias...
...when followed by a four(*snicker*)-star review of "Sherlock Holmes".
... I expect the next ***** to get more than it's fair share of :o. It isn't finished yet, but I can simply find nothing wrong with the film so far. It sets out to achieve something and does so with such confidence and skill, I do not know how it can be improved. It's already better than it needs to be and is an important entry within its particular genre.
Right, that's the barricades manned! Review will stick it's neck out later on this evening as I haven't got time to finish it now. :shutup:
Post by: Najemikon on July 18, 2010, 10:20:23 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/2046.jpg)
'2046' continues the story of Chow Mo Wan (Tony Leung - 'Hero') from Wong Kar-Wai's previous film, 'In The Mood For Love', a few years after his ephemeral affair with Maggie Cheung's Su Li-zhen. Set in late-1960's Hong Kong, Chow is now an out of work journalist and pulp fiction writer living in a cheap hotel. Bruised and battered by love, he pursues a playboy lifestyle of zero commitment and one-night stands. He develops a passion for a beautiful call girl (Zhang ZiYi - 'House Of The Flying Daggers'), enjoys a breezy summer with the hotel manager's eldest daughter (Faye Wong), and happens across the path of a professional gambler (Gong Li) who he met in Singapore some years before. In the meantime, Chow works on a science fiction novel about a mysterious hi-tech train that transports people to the year 2046 to reclaim their lost memories.
In The Mood For Love is a very special film. The title is very apt, because it takes place over one period of time, with Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) stuck in Singapore and haunted by his love for a married woman. It is a claustrophobic film, essentially trapping the two. The music and photography work together to create a tangible sense of time and place. It is a wonderful film. This sequel does have elements of the earlier film, but takes a very different approach both to the character and the narrative. Mr. Chow is now back in Hong Kong, living in a hotel. Basically the story follows him and his affairs with several different women. The way he treats them –good or bad- and the way they affect him, and draw out his memories of the affair that still haunts him.
As a writer, he deals with those memories in a science-fiction story called 2046, which happens to be the room next door to his in the hotel (if memory serves, it might have been the room in the original too) and his story plays out to us as a film within a film. The story follows a man on a train returning from sector 2046 (which no-one usually does). The train journey is very, very long and there are android women that despite himself, he falls in love with. Clearly these women are the same ones in the hotel, with whom he has a far less devoted relationship. You might find some of the links too obvious, but it does well to keep in mind, this is the characters story and there is no indication of how good a writer he is. My take is that the film recognises he is a hack and so his voiceover makes the metaphors painfully obvious, but there are more subtle things going on for us to pick at as well.
Compared with the tight focus of the original, it makes for a sprawling, disjointed plot, but still a fascinating one. In a way I was reminded of the difference between Scorcese’s Taxi Driver and Goodfellas, in how this following film is more playful, opulant and liberated. Especially in the sex scenes, which do suit the nature of the story, but I do miss the unique sense of restraint and lust in the first film. The sci-fi scenes are very strange, but due to the nature of why they are there, they do work. I was disappointed in the use of slow motion. It worked perfectly the first time, but in this sequel, they ‘stutter’, so it doesn’t run so smooth.
Tony Leung develops the Mr. Chow character very nicely from In The Mood For Love. He is now clearly repressed and chauvinistic, while his “avatar” on the train is the one trying to recapture the love affair (Leung doesn’t play both, by the way). Of the women, though they are all different and beautifully played, Zhang Ziyi stands out the most. She is stunning and this is the best role I have seen her in. She has matured a great deal since Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and her character of Bai Ling ranges from fiercely confident to fragile. Really amazing performance.
As a film in its own right, it is quite brilliant and unique. As a sequel it is fascinating. Only in direct comparison with the peerless In The Mood For Love does it falter.
Original review of In The Mood For Love (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5638.msg97474.html#msg97474)
Post by: Najemikon on July 18, 2010, 10:34:03 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/x2.jpg)
Hatred and distrust brew between human and mutantkind. An unprovoked mutant attack on the President gives General William Stryker (Brian Cox) his long-awaited opportunity to wage all-out war against the mutants. A war that would leave only one race victorious. Xavier (Patrick Stewart), Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), Storm (Halle Berry) and the other X-Men must unite with their old adversary Magneto (Ian McKellen) to prevent a devastating confrontation that could destroy everyone on the planet.
Yeah, I know. “5 Stars!”... “What’s he on?”... etc. I simply cannot find anything wrong with X-Men 2 which is an extremely confident film, the like of which I doubt we will see again within the genre, now that the Marvel producers are in full control. It isn’t as brilliant as The Dark Knight, or as clever as Kick-Ass, but comics in their purest form are about honest entertainment and mutants throwing cars around deserve their day as much as navel-gazing wealthy Playboys or ironic satire. X-Men 2 represents why we like comics at all.
Bryan Singer’s sequel to his own X-Men improves on that film in every respect and even then, is a much better film than it needed to be. Apparently he used The Empire Strikes Back as a template and it really shows. His skill in character focused drama stops it becoming set-piece cinema. Broad and epic, full of action (the attack on the Oval Office is an incredible opening); it is a feast for the eyes and a perfect tribute to the comic in that it doesn’t pull punches. Wolverine in “berserker” mode is just astonishingly vicious. As is Magneto’s nasty but magnificent escape from the plastic prison he was left in at the end of part one.
The writing is much sharper this time around, with multiple characters and plot-lines getting a fair bite. Acting and dialogue is improved a lot too. Halle Berry as Storm is more at the forefront this time with better hair, no silly accent and no lumpy one-liners to say. Once again, heavyweights McKellen and Stewart anchor the film and their scenes are invariably brilliant, and now they are supported by Brian Cox with an excellent turn as the villain that both mutant sides must unite to defeat. He is possibly the missing link in both the other movies; an dangerous, unknown quantity with allegiance to neither Xavier nor Magneto.
Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is essentially still the central character and he is fantastic in the role. But X-Men 2 is most impressive for how all the plot strands are serviced, while focus is very much on the key characters who drive the plot forward and they all get a moment to shine, including new boy Alan Cummings as the unusual Nightcrawler. Cleverly the plot separates the adults from the teens (Anna Paquin as Rogue, etc) and gives them enough to do without compromising the story, which I think the first X-Men couldn’t avoid. The only random mutants are the kids escaping the astonishing assault on the mansion and in a wink to fans, even they are established characters (Kitty Pryde isn’t referenced by name, but that’s her running through walls).
Singer has fashioned an exceptional film for characters he clearly has immense love and respect for. The only thing that lets down his superb film is that it is clearly a “Part 2” and although stand-alone, it needs a good “Part 3” to complete the spell. Shame about that, eh? It’s an interesting situation that Singer found himself in. On the back of X-Men 2 being as brilliant as it is, he had the chance to direct Superman Returns, a dream project, but he let go of the X-Men franchise to do it. I thought his take on Superman was wonderful, but reception to that and X-Men 3 was so underwhelming, they kind of cancelled each other out. Also, Singer’s influence on the genre that he really got the ball rolling for was lost altogether.
Comic book movies have recently come of age. The Dark Knight is now probably hands down the finest example; Watchmen the most ambitious; Kick Ass the most perceptive and irreverent. Meanwhile, the less complicated Iron Man films are just having fun. But considering both Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark are wealthy nut-cases, and both formative directors Singer and Raimi losing their grip, super-freaks are no longer represented properly in the genre.
X-Men 2 was considered the pinnacle of the genre before Batman Begins came out, so by that rationale, it can still lay claim to being the finest, pure fantasy, comic book movie. It seems like I’m clutching at straws, but this is important (well... you know what I mean!). Comic book fans buy the stories week in, week out, for lavish fun that can be taken seriously within the stories own logic. Super-powers are inherently silly, but are the obvious hook that we started reading such comics for at all. The Marvel films embrace that and we should celebrate this Marvellous film because I think the genre is going to suffer for the production line approach the company is taking to its future entries.
Post by: Critter on July 19, 2010, 02:32:43 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on July 19, 2010, 02:37:19 AM
And Nightcrawler teleporting is just cool.
Oh Jon...you called Magneto Morpheus..think it was in your 3rd paragraph.
Post by: Achim on July 19, 2010, 03:06:14 AM
Oh Jon...you called Magneto Morpheus..think it was in your 3rd paragraph.Phew, I thought it was just me. Actually, it's in his second and third paragraphs.
Maybe Morpheus is magneto's real-life name...? :headscratch:
Post by: Dragonfire on July 19, 2010, 03:13:38 AM
Quote from:
Phew, I thought it was just me. Actually, it's in his second and third paragraphs.
Maybe Morpheus is magneto's real-life name...? :headscratch:
[/quote
Phew, I thought it was just me. Actually, it's in his second and third paragraphs.
Maybe Morpheus is magneto's real-life name...? :headscratch:
[/quote
Oops..I forgot to go back and double check.
Nope...his name is Eric Lehnsherr.
Though I'm thinking there is a comic book character called Morpheus...can't remember for sure though.
Post by: Achim on July 19, 2010, 03:21:01 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 19, 2010, 08:29:46 AM
From memory, I think I was one of the only people who like X Men 1 better than X Men 2. :bag: However I haven't watched the second in a very long time, so my memory of it is very hazy.
I'd have another look, Sophie. X-Men is great, but it has Toad in it and Storm delivers one of the worst lines of dialogue I have ever heard! As a whole, I do really like it and it's the film that started the recent surge in superhero flicks, but X-Men 2 is just magnificent.
Well, here is a list of Morpheus' appearances[[url]. :D
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheus_(mythology)#Appearances)
Thanks guys! He no longer appears in mine. Strange, I got it right in the first paragraph. :bag: Not his real name, Achim, you were over thinking it and giving me too much credit! :-[
Jon, I was under the impression the main reference of the number 2046 is the year; I thought the film took playce in that year or references at the least...? (2046 being the last year before Hong Kong finally looses it special status and gets 100% Chinese control.)
I thought it was 2046 the year at first too, but then if you think about it, it must be much further in the future (trains that go right round the world?). 2046 is definitely referred to as a place that people go to and rarely return from, and at one point, the Japanese man on the train has the very cold period through sectors "1268" and "1269". I think they're the right numbers, but they reference the Christmas periods in real life that Chow is spending on his own ("Dec 68") represented as a place in the future.
Post by: Critter on July 19, 2010, 10:41:32 AM
I'd have another look, Sophie. X-Men is great, but it has Toad in it and Storm delivers one of the worst lines of dialogue I have ever heard! As a whole, I do really like it and it's the film that started the recent surge in superhero flicks, but X-Men 2 is just magnificent.
Oh yes, now that you mention it I really didn't like Toad. My favourite character is Jean anyway. Which Storm line are you reffering to?
Post by: Dragonfire on July 19, 2010, 10:45:19 AM
Post by: Najemikon on July 19, 2010, 12:55:07 PM
"Know what happens to a toad when it gets hit by lightning? Same thing as everything else."
Awful! :)
Post by: goodguy on July 19, 2010, 03:03:45 PM
Run Lola Run
My own review:http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,3213.msg119988.html#msg119988 (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,3213.msg119988.html#msg119988)
A few comments on yours, I'm using spoilers just to be on the safe side.
Manni is a petty criminal who wants to be a proper criminal when he grows up. The money is from a drug deal. His first thought for a solution is to rob a supermarket. Because he has a gun and he’s a criminal. Am I being thick or something, but why the hell am I supposed to sympathise with his situation? It seems morally at odds with this fancy Buddhist notion of little things affecting big things and Lola’s Zen like ability to rewind time, narratively speaking (and later, save a heart attack victim by holding his hand).
(click to show/hide)
Letting Manni get killed and seeing how Lola handles it, with her sense of fate and reason for living, would have been much more interesting.
You are missing the point. The movie shows exactly how Lola deals with such a situation. She doesn't let it happen!
The other problem I have, is that when Lola finally does succeed (sorry, should that be a spoiler?), what the hell did she actually do? The plot is self-serving. The only reason the first two attempts don’t work is because of her. In the end, the only thing she really does is the heart attack guy. And what’s with all the damn screaming to break glass? It’s all flash and no thunder.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on July 19, 2010, 06:48:43 PM
Manni is a petty criminal who wants to be a proper criminal when he grows up. The money is from a drug deal. His first thought for a solution is to rob a supermarket. Because he has a gun and he’s a criminal. Am I being thick or something, but why the hell am I supposed to sympathise with his situation? It seems morally at odds with this fancy Buddhist notion of little things affecting big things and Lola’s Zen like ability to rewind time, narratively speaking (and later, save a heart attack victim by holding his hand).(click to show/hide)Letting Manni get killed and seeing how Lola handles it, with her sense of fate and reason for living, would have been much more interesting.
You are missing the point. The movie shows exactly how Lola deals with such a situation. She doesn't let it happen!The other problem I have, is that when Lola finally does succeed (sorry, should that be a spoiler?), what the hell did she actually do? The plot is self-serving. The only reason the first two attempts don’t work is because of her. In the end, the only thing she really does is the heart attack guy. And what’s with all the damn screaming to break glass? It’s all flash and no thunder.(click to show/hide)
I started to reply separately, but actually all these points are linked. I should say that in execution and ideas, I do like the film. It's a fundamental problem I have that essentially made me reverse the rating. By the end, it didn't sit right with me and I was left annoyed, despite the ingenuity of the production and especially the writing. This is the opposite of those rare occasions when you sit through a rather poor film and then in the final act it blossoms.
(click to show/hide)
This really is a very clever film, but I think you have to be able to sympathise with the situation enough to appreciate it, which I certainly didn't. I also naturally distrust using such a strong fantasy element in a thriller. I know that was the point, but still, I prefer more grounded logic where you can feel it has an irrevocable impact.
While it's very hard to make any sort of comparison between the two, I find while we're talking about Run Lola Run, my mind keeps wandering back to The Constant Gardener. I suppose it's because it uses a narrative that goes backwards as well as forwards, as Ralph Fiennes' character has to come to terms with not only his wife's death, but who she actually was and who he was, before he can face the future. I wanted to take something like that away from Lola, but it wasn't there to be had.
Well, not for me anyway. ;)
Post by: Achim on July 20, 2010, 03:15:14 AM
Normally I stick to the principle to ether used English titles or use Original titles in the alphabet marathon. I already decided to the former when I watched Warrior King. But, now I want to break the rule and watch Lola rennt, rather than [b]R[/b]un Lola Run since I already did R but still have L available.
:hmmmm:
I remember this film to be a
to me. While Jon getting bored with it is "fine" (we perceive different films differently), I don't remember this film being "pro-crime". I'll be more clear after I rewatched, but I thought that Lola was against Manni's criminal activities and that after the end of the film she'll have him become honest again. Apparently Tykwer did not make it strong enough (assuming I remember it correctly anyway). Maybe this is a cultural problem, this being a German film...? :hmmmm: (click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on July 20, 2010, 10:15:47 AM
Post by: goodguy on July 20, 2010, 11:52:24 AM
When watching a movie, I often can accept characters I would very much avoid in real life. I can even love insufferable characters (there is RGM again). For Manni I only care, because Lola loves him, but probably even without that, Manni being a small-time crook wouldn't bother me. The movie neither questions nor glorifies that; it is his way of getting by. And just for the record, the deal wasn't about drugs, but about diamonds.
In fact, in terms of morals, the movie is perfectly neutral. The "punishment" doesn't happen on moral grounds, it is for upsetting the universe, so to speak. Robbing the supermarket or the bank doesn't cross a moral line, but removes all options. In both cases, it was a large enough event with countless witnesses, so the most probable outcome would be to go to jail for it. But instead, the least probable thing happened, fate intervened.
Maybe you will enjoy "Der Krieger und die Kaiserin" (The Princess and the Warrior) more. Tykwer made it after Lola, the themes are again fate, chance and love, there is again a sense of fairytale or fantasy as there are elements of a thriller - but it deals with its morally ambiguous/wrong characters "properly". It is a much more conventional movie, but still a pretty great one, even if it is a step backwards, artistically. Franka Potente plays a role that calls back Lola in some ways, but also is strikingly different (and allows to show much more of her talent).
Post by: Najemikon on July 20, 2010, 07:36:02 PM
You've convinced me there is a bit more to Run Lola Run, but I still think it's inconsequential fluff by the end. I suppose much of it is disappointment because I do enjoy the themes. I'll certainly consider Der Krieger und die Kaiserin.
That again is why I keep returning to The Constant Gardener. By the end, Fiennes' character has been irrevocably changed and it makes the story live on.
Post by: Najemikon on July 20, 2010, 09:21:24 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/dragon.jpg)
Thirty years following his untimely death, Bruce Lee remains the movies' supreme martial-arts star. His masterful final film Enter the Dragon stands the test of time as the most beloved martial-arts epic in film history.
Enter The Dragon is a good film, but far from a great one. Its ace is Bruce Lee in his only American role (he died suddenly even before it was released) and if this is your first experience of his incredible skill, you’re in for a treat. He was an exceptional athlete and a lethal force of nature with singular focus. The fight scenes are frequently jaw dropping (and not even his best). His legacy casts a long shadow.
Robert Clouse’s film feels like a Bond knock-off. Lee is taking part in a tournament on an island, hosted by villainous Han (Kien Shih), but has been tasked with gathering evidence of Han’s criminal activities. He meets Roper (John Saxon) and Williams (Jim Kelly), both escaping to the tournament and getting caught up in the intrigue. Saxon and Kelly are great and add a focus point for the Western market. John Saxon at least was no martial artist, though this wasn’t obvious due to smart editing and choreography, but the Chinese cast plus Robert Wall as O’Hara make it authentic.
The plot is weak, the acting uneven and direction uninspired, but you can’t beat that cool 70s vibe and there are some cracking lines. The main reason you’ll keep watching is for Lee anyway, who had a huge influence on the production that was destined to be an even more regular action movie. Saxon and Kelly are nice surprises in an otherwise predictable film that pulls its punches when Bruce Lee, Robert Wall, Kien Shih or Angela Mao (playing Bruce’s sister in a flashback) isn’t fighting. It rather suffers from guards who are felled with single punches in a lot of scenes; though Jackie Chan had the honour of having his neck snapped! He was part of the stunt team also featuring Sammo Hung whose portly frame you see fighting Lee in the opening scene.
Enter The Dragon was a crash course in martial arts for many Western viewers when first released and even today, it has such a strong reputation that it is frequently the first martial arts movie many see. If that includes you, look up Bruce Lee’s other movies. Sadly there are not enough. Way Of The Dragon and The Big Boss stand out especially. Jackie Chan would pick up Lee’s baton so to speak, albeit with a focus on comedy, so you may already have seen his American movies. You could do a lot worse than finding some of his originals too, like Police Story or Drunken Master.
Bruce Lee’s untimely death was a huge tragedy and a great loss to action cinema. Enter The Dragon is merely ok. A three star movie, with a five star legend. We can only wonder at what he would have gone on to do, especially with the support of stars like Steve McQueen. He was as charismatic off-screen as on.
Post by: Antares on July 20, 2010, 09:32:22 PM
Post by: Najemikon on July 20, 2010, 09:36:02 PM
Post by: Rogmeister on July 20, 2010, 09:38:14 PM
Post by: Achim on July 21, 2010, 03:17:49 AM
He was as charismatic off-screen as on.I assume you have watched Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story? I enjoyed that one a lot.
Got to feel sorry for his wife. Not only did she loose Bruce at an early age, but also her son was taken from her much too early.
Post by: goodguy on July 23, 2010, 12:42:51 PM
Have you seen The Constant Gardener? I think that one is much more up your street. In fact, it's so far up your street, it's parked in your drive and knocking on your door.
Since you prodded me a few times about this, I should be at least polite and answer: No, I havent. When it came out, I dismissed it as just some John Le Carré thriller, something that doesn't interest me. Then Weisz snubbed the Oscar from Amy Adams. And finally I was underwhelmed by Winterbottom's similarly themed "A Mighty Heart".
Post by: Najemikon on July 23, 2010, 04:48:19 PM
I assume you have watched Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story? I enjoyed that one a lot.
Got to feel sorry for his wife. Not only did she loose Bruce at an early age, but also her son was taken from her much too early.
I did see Dragon a long while ago and it is pretty good, though biased, of course. I bet Linda Lee Cadwell found all the conspiracy theories tough as well, when in all likelihood both deaths were just tragic accidents.
Have you seen The Constant Gardener? I think that one is much more up your street. In fact, it's so far up your street, it's parked in your drive and knocking on your door.
Since you prodded me a few times about this, I should be at least polite and answer: No, I havent. When it came out, I dismissed it as just some John Le Carré thriller, something that doesn't interest me. Then Weisz snubbed the Oscar from Amy Adams. And finally I was underwhelmed by Winterbottom's similarly themed "A Mighty Heart".
lol... appreciated! I'm happy for anyone to talk about it. ;) I was knocked out by it on this second viewing. Keep a look out for it, Matthias, because I'd really like to hear what you think of it, considering your comments. I watched it because I liked thrillers like that, but I expected little from it. It is actually a very human story and there are very few typical thriller conventions with absolutely no set-pieces that I can think of. It opens with a car crash, but only the very end (a tyre spinning and coming to rest in a poetic way). From that first moment it follows the beat of its own drum.
I can see why you might think of A Mighty Heart belonging on the same shelf, but it really doesn't. I want to see that film, but it's a true story, probably takes itself a bit serious (Constant Gardener teases you along the way). Even the best reviews seem to find a rather plodding manner to the telling of that story.
I remember thinking that I like Rachel Weisz, but Oscar? Really? The woman from The Mummy movies? But she is marvellous and she did earn it. I haven't seen Junebug, so I'm not sure how good Amy Adams was (I'm guessing 'very'? :D), but this was such a tough role to balance. She has since gone to prove herself very much a 'proper' actress and I think she probably was all along.
Good grief, surely someone else has watched this film? :shrug:
Post by: Najemikon on July 23, 2010, 07:07:28 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/verdict.jpg)
Frank Galvin (Paul Newman) is a boozy washed-up attorney with a losing streak a mile long. So when he is handed a lucrative out-of-court settlement, everyones expects him to take the money and run. But Frank is tired of running. In a desperate bid to reclaim his self-respect, he recklessly brings the case to court - only to discover that if finding the whole truth is a little like trial and error, then finding real justice is a lot like trial by fire.
I love a good courtroom drama and The Verdict is one of the best, directed by Sidney Lumet who gave us the definitive 12 Angry Men. While it isn’t overly similar, it is a “Do The Right Thing At Any Cost” sort of story, which runs through several of Lumet’s films, such as Serpico. The modern Grisham court thrillers simply don't compare.
Lawyer Frank is the guy who needs breaking out of his rut. We first meet him as an alcoholic ‘ambulance chaser’, preying on the recently bereaved. His long suffering friend, Mickey, played by dependable Jack Warden, has lined Frank up with an easy case. A young girl has been left in a coma by doctors at a renowned hospital. A Catholic hospital no less, who are willing to settle. All he has to do is take the cheque...
What might Paul Newman’s best role be? There are loads of great ones, but you know, this might just be it. I regard this as one of the great film performances of all time; he invests Frank with such weight and he wins you over immediately, even at the start when he is at his most worthless. Every ounce of his being goes into the character and it’s the tiniest things you remember. The subtle weariness, the breaking voice, and always those famous eyes give you a glimpse of what’s left of his spirit, which usually comes to the fore in the banter with the Judge, especially the “Objection!” scene. Milo O’Shea plays him as rather lazy and condescending, yet with great charm and humour.
So all he has to do is take that cheque, but something clicks when he sees the comatose girl (beautiful moment as he takes Polaroids, which linger on the screen) and the following scene where he refuses the hospitals money is quietly powerful in his awkward dignity. What can he possibly do in a trial? And so this brings in James Mason as an all-powerful, any means necessary defence lawyer. You’ve probably already assumed what he’s like. I bet you’re wrong! Mason plays him as a cross between an old grandfather and kindly head teacher, who treats his team like family. But blimey! What a delivery, because you don’t doubt for a single second just how ruthless he could be.
The weak spot in the film is Laura (Charlotte Rampling), a beautiful mature woman who captures Frank’s imagination. Rampling is excellent and there are a couple of stand-out scenes, but ultimately, I found her character superfluous. Still she adds a haunting note at the end, so I can’t imagine the story without her! As with Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder, I also found the case itself drifts away somewhat and hinges on a slight contrivance. Again, it is unavoidable though, because elements of the trial add an important vein of irony. The story is absolutely Frank’s though and very satisfying.
Lumet’s steady direction is married with gorgeous lighting in a natural Autumnal palette, and strikingly realistic. Johnny Mandel's score is fascinating as it is frequently at odds with what is on-screen, occasionally dipping into a horror styling. Just listen when Frank visits Laura and she refuses to be sympathetic, leading to Frank having a mini panic attack in the bathroom (Newman will break you in that moment if he hasn’t already); the music is low and sinister, reminding me of Herrman’s Taxi Driver. Actually, considering the story is about redemption and starts with Frank having almost no humanity left, you might think of this as a Taxi Driver for lawyers. It isn’t abrasive though and you’ll be willing Frank to stay the course.
There is a strong sense of faith and religion running through the story of guilt and redemption, from a typically sharp, yet less showy screenplay by David Mamet. It’s not obvious (except that he is taking on a Catholic hospital) and instead simmers with quiet resolve to the expected summation, where Frank is clearly speaking of himself as much as the case. Such scenes are clichés, but certain genres need them and it is fantastic piece of writing, acting and direction as Frank delivers his plea and the films coda, that everyone has a responsibility to justice.
I may have made it sound heavy, but remember both Mamet’s and Newman’s unmistakeable style; between the writing and the acting, there’s an smooth wit that makes it very watchable. If anyone sums up the film, it’s James Mason; ambles along and you feel comfortable in his company, but with a razor sharp intellect that can cut you dead!
Post by: Najemikon on July 23, 2010, 10:02:25 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/quiet.jpg)
The acclaimed performances of Brendan Fraser (The Mummy, Bedazzled) and two-time Academy Award winner Michael Caine (Best Supporting Actor, The Cider House Rules, 1999; Hannah And Her Sisters, 1986) power a stylish political thriller where love and war collide in Southeast Asia. Set in early 1950s Vietnam - an idealistic young American (Fraser) becomes entangled in a dangerous love triangle when he falls for the beautiful mistress of a troubled British journalist (Caine). As war is waged around them, these three only sink deeper into an unsettling world of drugs, passion and betrayal where nothing is as it seems! Based on the classic novel by Graham Greene - you'll find yourself riveted by the fascinating intricacies and intrigue of this outstanding motion picture!
Sometimes the best way to learn about something big is to focus on something small. The Quiet American is a good old fashioned slab of intrigue about a British journalist Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine) stationed in Saigon during North Vietnam’s war with the French, but it concentrates on his relationship with a young Vietnamese girl Phuong (Do Thi Hai Yen) and his jealousy when a young American, Pyle (Brendan Fraser) falls in love with her. The plot starts with Pyle’s corpse following his murder and the story is told in flashback from Thomas’ jealous perspective, while the country heads for disaster.
It’s an old fashioned story in one respect, because Pyle is polite, ‘quiet’ and observes proper etiquette while openly trying to persuade Phuong to leave the much older Thomas, with whom he is actually good friends! Occasionally it borders on a very high quality soap opera, but that just strengthens the legitimacy of the story. Both elements are neatly offset by Philip Noyce’s direction and Craig Armstrong’s modern and incisive score. Noyce has a fluid, but workmanlike approach that disguises real skill. His recreation of a bomb attack on Saigon is fantastic, both in the confused execution and then in the extra little focused details Thomas remembers while relating what happened.
Of course, the story, based on Graham Greene’s 1950s novel is a metaphor and by all accounts, his book had an angry, ashamed tone, which comes through in this adaptation. Just think about the characters, all with good intentions, but still; Fowler represents colonial Europe, being manipulated while jealously trying to guard the innocent South Vietnam (Phuong). Meanwhile, in comes the idealistic America, with promises of democracy if only they abandon the Europeans, even though they understand very little... we all know how that turned out. It was filmed before, but as with many of Hollywood’s Vietnam stories, it was very pro-American! Ironic really when you see what Greene was trying to do.
The cast do an excellent job, especially Caine and Fraser. Both have hugely unlikable characteristics, yet they are likeable. There’s a sense they are doing what they think is right, while they can’t see how wrong things are going to go. Caine is particularly good, giving Thomas a haunted quality. I suppose the echoes of shame for what happened to the country coming from Greene’s original text.
The Quiet American is similar in some ways to The Constant Gardener (not just because it stars someone from The Mummy who turns out to be much better than you expect!) especially by starting with a death and running through a flashback, though more straightforward overall and perhaps a little more obvious, but that’s to the purpose of the story. It is challenging, yet a good mystery and drama, which I highly recommend.
Post by: Najemikon on July 23, 2010, 10:41:11 PM
3 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/bonner.jpg)
Still recovering from being thrown from a bull called Sunshine, Junior Bonner is on his way home to join his family for the annual Frontier Days Rodeo. However, when he arrives, he finds his house abandoned and his father, Ace (Robert Preston) in hospital. Determined to prove that he still has all the makings of a champion, Junior challenges Sunshine once again but this time he is determined to beat the bull so that his father's dream of building a ranch in Australia can become a reality.
Junior Bonner is an uneven film that by the end might seem inconsequential, but you have to appreciate its considerable style, especially with some of the awesome touches Peckinpah brings and the great cast. On the other hand, the director did surprise me with occasional clumsiness, including the dated split screen titles that make it look like a TV movie and a cheesy freeze frame montage at the end.
But let’s focus on the good. Steve McQueen is great in this Autumnal, melancholy role and the chemistry with Robert Preston as his rebellious dad, Ace, is just wonderful. If you don’t know Preston, he looks like Joel McCrea and sounds like Burt Lancaster, with cheek to match either of them.
The dialogue is probably the best part of the production. It’s full of zingers, perfectly styled to the characters, yet has an understated realistic pitch. The whole thing has a laid back style; I liked how McQueen has rivals on the rodeo circuit, but they treat each other as casual friends. There’s no silly, predictable “villain” that McQueen has to beat. Oh, hold on. That is, apart from Sunshine. He’s the BFB...
(click to show/hide)
The rodeo scenes are fantastic. Peckinpah’s use of slow motion and edits is peerless. While it started like a cheap TV film and might have descended into a pseudo documentary where the second unit just wandered around a real event getting stock footage, the tournament scenes have breathtaking power and lift it up a notch. Plus the lighter hearted “Milking” event is both very funny and impressively staged. Add in a classy cowboy barroom brawl, a lively cast, a poignant story and you have a passable couple of hours. And the film might keep coming back to you, despite its humble nature. Another overview I read claimed this was Peckinpah's favourite film of his own. While I think it is far from his best, I can well believe it. It has a good heart.
Post by: goodguy on July 24, 2010, 01:30:15 PM
I remember thinking that I like Rachel Weisz, but Oscar? Really? The woman from The Mummy movies? But she is marvellous and she did earn it. I haven't seen Junebug, so I'm not sure how good Amy Adams was (I'm guessing 'very'? :D), but this was such a tough role to balance. She has since gone to prove herself very much a 'proper' actress and I think she probably was all along.
Oh, I like her too. The funny thing is that the first time I saw her (around the time of those Mummy movies) was in the Winterbottom movie "I Want You". Well, not funny-ha-ha, but since I mentioned "A Mighty Heart"...
Post by: Najemikon on July 24, 2010, 06:07:49 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/road2.jpg)
Academy Award® nominee Viggo Mortensen leads an all star cast including Guy Pearce, Academy Award® winners Robert Duvall and Charlize Theron and an incredible debut performance from Kodi Smit-McPhee. THE ROAD is a thrilling and deeply moving tale of survival as a father and his young son journey across a barren, post apocalyptic America. Respectfully adapted from Cormac McCarthy's hallowed novel, THE ROAD boldly imagines a future in which men are pushed to the worst and the best that they are capable of — a future in which a father and his son are sustained by love.
As post-apocalyptic stories go, there are no films quite like The Road. For one thing, we have no idea what caused the apocalypse or why it was so devastating. The world is completely dead and broken and there is no infrastructure at all. It doesn’t seem remotely retrievable. Survivors are just that and nothing more. There are no aliens to regroup against and fight; no Nirvana of a hippy commune to get to where a crude society is rebuilding. The man and his son keep moving (heading for the coast is their loose aim), scavenging for food wherever they can and avoiding the gangs of cannibals who are brutal and ruthless.
John Hillcoat, directing an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s bestseller (as he did for McCarthy’s The Proposition), delivers a relentlessly bleak looking film that is brought to life by the performances of a dedicated cast. It’s a strong realisation of a dying world...
[Please read the rest of the review at Find-DVD.co.uk] (http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/blu-ray/The-Road/1099598.htm)
Post by: KinkyCyborg on July 25, 2010, 02:52:38 PM
I like the fact you mentioned it is somewhat vague and was pleased to see the trailer, while capturing my interest, did not reveal too much, unlike another of Cormac McCarthy's film adaptations, All The Pretty Horses. Yeeesh! Ever watch the trailer for that? If not, don't, otherwise you won't have to watch the movie as it tells you the whole story, ending included, in about 2 minutes and 30 seconds! :slaphead:
I shall have to move this one up my viewing queue. Great review!
KC
Post by: Najemikon on July 25, 2010, 04:42:05 PM
When Mark Kermode reviewed Precious, they had a quick chat with the director about depressing movies and seemed to conclude, there is no such thing. If you think about it, you'd have to be one screwed up bastard to go to the trouble of telling a story for two hours, just so your audience is as miserable as you! There is always something to learn and if you get to the end of a film and all you feel depressed, it's worth thinking it through and considering why. May be something you missed.
With The Road, so long as you go into it not expecting a plot and you concentrate on the central pair, it becomes clear. From the start, the fact there is no apocalypse shown or explained, just the peripheral effect, is very important. It's a story about survival, not rebuilding.
Post by: Najemikon on July 29, 2010, 11:01:02 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/zhivago.jpg)
A peerless filmmaker of substance and scale, David Lean directs Boris Pasternak's tumultuous tale of Russia divided by war and hearts torn by love. Epic images abound: revolution in the streets, an infantry charge into no-man's-land, the train ride to the Urals, an icebound dacha. Omar Sharif plays the title role, Julie Christie is his haunting, long-time love Lara and both are caught up in the tidal wave of history. Hauntingly scored by Maurice Jarre (who earned one of the film's five Academy Awards**) and full of indelible performances, Doctor Zhivago is a moviemaking wonder.
Doctor Zhivago has all the makings of a perfect David Lean epic. A broad, historical story, sweeping vistas, stunning photography, wonderful characters and a Maurice Jarre score as stirring as any. While it does have all of those, there is something not quite right and it is over-shadowed by Lawrence Of Arabia and The Bridge On The River Kwai.
The plot doesn’t help, as Lara might well be Zhivago’s great love, but their time together is fragmented, limited and actually, he already has a family. So he’s a bit of a bastard then, plus he rather meanders through the story. Things happen to him, while Lawrence made things happen.
Omar Shariff suffers nothing from these problems though and plays Zhivago as an honest and affectionate poet, the conflict in his life neatly mirroring the conflict in Russia as he is dragged into wars shaping the countries future. Shariff is marvellous, as are all the cast. Julie Christie has that captivating sexuality as Lara, while Geraldine Chaplin, as Zhivago’s wife Tonya, is hardly someone you’d kick out of bed for eating crisps either. Perhaps if she was a shovel-faced Russian body-builder pretending to be vaguely female, despite her beard, I would have empathised with Zhivago more! But no, she is gorgeous, so I found myself angered by his duality, despite its metaphor. Her father is played by the wonderful Ralph Richardson, who gives the film a lot of its humour as one of Russia’s high society being forced into a very different life when “The Party” take control. My favourite character and actor combination though is Rod Steiger. A very commanding and welcome presence in every scene he is in. Surprisingly, I found Alec Guinness almost the opposite. The man couldn’t give a bad performance if he tried (and I think he may have been trying in Star Wars!), but his is an odd character I couldn’t engage with.
It’s is still highly recommended. I mean, let’s get some perspective. The problems are fundamental, but you find the director, cast and crew at the height of their powers. The landscapes are incredible and the ice-palace an absolute stand-out. The Blu-Ray transfer is another eyeball melting one! The whole thing is a spell that will sweep you away for three hours.
Post by: Najemikon on July 29, 2010, 11:41:29 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/untouchables.jpg)
The critics and public agree Brian De Palma's THE UNTOUCHABLES is a must see masterpiece - a glorious, fierce larger-than-life depiction of the mob warlord who ruled Prohibition-era Chicago...and the law enforcer who vowed to bring him down. This classic confrontation between good and evil stars Kevin Costner as federal agent Eliot Ness, Robert De Niro as gangland kingpin Al Capone and Sean Connery as Malone, the cop who teaches Ness how to beat the mob: shoot fast and shoot first.
If The Untouchables was released today, chances are you’d ask what comic it was based on. A serious historical story, played with an exuberant panache for audacious entertainment, it is possibly Brian De Palma’s finest work, with him channelling cinema heritage to produce a modern Gangster movie, in the way L.A. Confidential would do for Film Noir ten or so years later.
You might accuse it of naivety, which would be fair in several respects, but it’s played so smoothly and without a shred of shame that you get swept up in the enthusiasm of setting a Western in Chicago and there are moments that are truly magnificent. This is old school cinema.
De Palma is being rude, really. He has at least three iconic moments in one film, which is just greedy! Not least the baby’s pram and the train station steps, which prove the magic of unpredictability in film. That scene was supposed to be a big train crash, but running low on cash, they needed a quick replacement. One tribute to Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin later and we have an exhilarating lesson in action cinema.
Everyone is well cast, with Kevin Costner finding a perfect role for his movie star image in Elliot Ness, Andy Garcia with the world at his feet before Godfather Part III (oops) and Charles Martin Smith having great fun as Wallace. He said to De Palma that he wanted to embody the audience. As a shotgun wielding accountant, whooping as he rides horseback into a gunfight on a bridge, he definitely did that! Sean Connery rounds out Ness’ Untouchables in his most memorable non-Bond role. He is fantastic and the best of the lot, despite his wavering accent! Of course, Robert De Niro was born to play Capone. The “baseball” scene at dinner is just incredible.
It is sporadically violent throughout and I miss this sort of Brian De Palma film because he demonstrates such old fashioned skill in building these set-pieces that the violence is never gratuitous. He balances the brutality with suspense to make Hitchcock proud. The station steps, again, are a perfect example of this. The way the pram wheels squeak, pulling our attention during Costner’s slow-mo gauntlet run is very clever.
The whole production is brought together by the brilliant Morricone score. Brilliant though the film is, the music is half the winning formula. The four Untouchables, striding into a post office on a liquor raid, brandishing shotguns, while the music swells like a fifth member of the team, is an abiding memory.
Post by: Antares on July 30, 2010, 01:36:54 AM
The Untouchables
5 out of 5
:stars:
Andy Garcia is one of the biggest scenery chewing actors of the last 25 years. I honestly believe he was salt cured and hickory smoked as a child, he such a glorified HAM.
This was the beginning of what I deem as De Niro's caricature stage. The actor who gave us a young, powerful Vito Corleone stooping to an over the top performance I would have expected from Al Pacino, not De Niro.
It's only a few steps above De Palma's other crime saga, Scarface. But unlike that film, you can't enjoy it for the camp factor.
I could understand you rating it 4 out of 5, but a perfect score? :slaphead:
Post by: KinkyCyborg on July 30, 2010, 04:38:09 AM
I thought Andy Garcia was rather subdued in Untouchables when compared to many of his later films. De Niro was more of a ham, whooping it up as Capone in a role that I think was a bit of a guilty pleasure for him. Sean Connery was solid, likable and deserving of the Oscar he received. For me the star was Charles Martin Smith as the cherubic accountant who suddenly has a shotgun thrust in his hand and swells in confidence tenfold. :clap:
I'd give it 4 out of 5... just.
Post by: Achim on July 30, 2010, 06:46:04 AM
Although, I always enjoyed De Niro in this, as well as in a few others of his smaller roles at the time (Angel Heart being the most memoprable to me).
There is lots of fun to be had with Untouchables, but it has too many little faults to make it a 5/5, for me.
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Najemikon on July 30, 2010, 10:08:58 PM
But to take your points:
Andy Garcia is one of the biggest scenery chewing actors of the last 25 years. I honestly believe he was salt cured and hickory smoked as a child, he such a glorified HAM.
This was the beginning of what I deem as De Niro's caricature stage. The actor who gave us a young, powerful Vito Corleone stooping to an over the top performance I would have expected from Al Pacino, not De Niro.
It's only a few steps above De Palma's other crime saga, Scarface. But unlike that film, you can't enjoy it for the camp factor.
I could understand you rating it 4 out of 5, but a perfect score? :slaphead:
Garcia: agreed; De Niro: agreed. Why does that detract from their characters? The Untouchables was the first film I saw either of them in. Garcia was a cocky gunman, but he played it quiet so he fit in, and De Niro was just scary as hell. Even now that explosion of violence is astonishing. He is definitely a caricature, but that was what was intended and it fit the story and the reasons I wanted to watch it. If he has failed to find his Godfather II/Taxi Driver mojo since, that is a problem worth criticising, but right then, it was a perfect choice.
I like Scarface, but find it overrated. It doesn't have this films enthusiasm.
I wouldn't give Untouchables a perfect score either. The biggest detractor for me was Kevin Costner who churned out another movie from his 'pretentious' phase where he felt it incumbent upon himself to grace us all with portrayals of people with historical significance... Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, Jim Garrison, Elliot Ness et al. His acting in those films, while good, was delivered with a certain amount of arrogance that just rubs me the wrong way.
I thought Andy Garcia was rather subdued in Untouchables when compared to many of his later films. De Niro was more of a ham, whooping it up as Capone in a role that I think was a bit of a guilty pleasure for him. Sean Connery was solid, likable and deserving of the Oscar he received. For me the star was Charles Martin Smith as the cherubic accountant who suddenly has a shotgun thrust in his hand and swells in confidence tenfold. :clap:
I agree with your last point absolutely, but I will never understand the level of criticism Costner got. I don't find him remotely pretentious or arrogant. Off-camera, yes, but never on. He's no Steve McQueen, but I enjoy his movies and always felt sorry for him. Some people decided they didn't like him from act one and were waiting for 'inevitable' failure. Waterworld/The Postman happened and they have been used to bury him. Most actors are afforded one cock-up or two, but he's been considered untouchable (see what I did there? :P) by the studios ever since. Shame. He didn't deserve that. As it is, he's fine as Ness. Nothing special that someone else couldn't have done, but... good enough.
...
In any film I rate 5/5, I am not looking for perfection (which is incredibly rare), I'm looking at a four star film that didn't put a foot wrong and did that little bit extra to make it unique. 5/5 simply means it did what it set out to do, can't be repeated and a niggling sense that everyone involved kind of realised and upped their game. You've all talked about things you don't like in the film (mainly the actors), but should they be judged mistakes? I think not. Plus just as you use personal preference to mark it down, I use it to mark it up. I think I've justified it, but the bottom line is, I could watch it again right now.
In other words, every film I have ever rated 5/5 at some point was good enough to make me forget I was simply watching any old film, cause a goosebump or two, and never made me groan in disappointment.
So what is the little bit of extra push? Why can't it be repeated? Costner, Garcia... good enough. But there's only one Sean Connery and he isn't rushing to make a film like this again. And how many times can a film convince us that an accountant is a shotgun cowboy? That role was a one-off.
It was made in a certain style that nowadays is only handled so well by comics. To pull off a film like that in the 80s was special. Some of De Palma's other work fits that bill too, but doesn't have the pace and confidence of The Untouchables. Plus you have unnecessary touches he always uses. He could get away with less, but the Orson Welles depth of field trick or his regular uses of the "Creeper" or top down shots add to the craft. Actually, he's overdone them since, probably why we see so little of him.
The movie peaks several times: the lift scene, the stairs sequence and Connery's apartment ("you Dago bastard!"). In between there are several more worthy of mention. This is action cinema not only at its best, but setting the bar very high. There have been other films since with arguably better staged set-pieces, but films with three or four of that standard in one? Nah. The last truly great pure action movie was The Bourne Ultimatum, but that has a relentless style that doesn't afford contrast like De Palma uses.
An then there's the score. You could get away with using anything and it might be considered good enough. But Morricone is a huge contribution. Again, a special something.
Let's try and put it in perspective. This is the only film of De Palma's I would rate so high. This is one of two, maybe at a push, three, Costner films I would rate so high.
Remember, I consider films an optimistic art form so I don't look for faults, they have to find me. And a good portion of why I watch films at all is down to film-makers who simply want to entertain. That's what gets me to films like Bicycle Thieves or Vertigo or There Will Be Blood (review coming soon!) or anything you might consider more worthy.
Post by: Najemikon on July 30, 2010, 11:21:01 PM
4 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/prestige.jpg)
Is there a secret you would kill to know? In this electrifying, suspense-packed thriller from director Christoper Nolan (Batman Begins, Memento), Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale play magicians whose cut-throat attempts to best each other plunge them into deadly deceptions. Scarlett Johanssen also stars as the stage assistant who's both a pawn and player in their rivalry. A brilliant supporting cast (including Michael Caine and David Bowie). An ingenious story. An astonishing payoff. Once you see The Prestige, you'll want to see it again. Watch closely.
Christopher Nolan’s Inception is currently receiving deserved plaudits for being the most intelligent and original blockbuster for years. For one thing, it isn’t based on anything else. But while The Prestige is adapted from Christopher Priest’s book about obsession and fame, it is no less intelligent and places absolute faith in the audience.
To say too much would spoil the film, even when talking about the cast, who seem to have all upped their game. Michael Caine brings an easy quality to the role of Cutter, a constant for both leads and a man carrying weight of responsibility. The captivating and charming Scarlett Johansson has never been better and that isn’t a back-handed compliment as she is excellent. Hugh Jackman seemed born to play Angier and he finds levels of emotional honesty other roles have denied him. Christian Bale as Borden is also arguably at his best and delivers an intriguing performance that may only truly come to light on a second viewing, even more so than Jackman’s Angier. But then that’s the best thing about Nolan’s work. It has substance that lets the film feel fresh even when you have seen it before. While I say I don’t want to spoil it, it’s important to note there are no twists as such. A reveal here or there, but no contrived plot point that the film has to balance on. “Look closely”, we are told in the opening scene by Cutter. In fact, you are better off taking a step back!
Jonathan Nolan’s screenplay cleverly folds the story in on itself, which is unnecessary to the plot, but brings a new dimension to the relationships between Angier and Borden, their women, and their obsessions that cost them so much. Those familiar with both Nolans’ themes will find them easily enough here. Love, death, grief and madness, all present and correct! Yet all their films feel so individual.
Although it is a period setting, there is no concession to that period in how it is presented. It feels very modern, with the meticulous detail not being allowed to linger just for the sake of it being there. And there is no grandstanding or empty theatrics, which in a story about performing magicians, could have been forgiven. It is first and foremost a character piece. In fact, considering the dangerous science and the body count has apparently been upped from the original book, this is actually a remixed Horror film in the British tradition of Hammer. It’s subtle and disturbing.
The Blu-Ray transfer is gorgeous. I recently said that Sherlock Holmes was the best modern film I had seen on the medium, but I think this pips it. It could have even been an influence on Guy Ritchie’s film as they both feature a period setting and meticulous detail, but Nolan’s photography is richer. The snowbound Colorado sequences in the snow -with a wonderful partnership between Andy Serkis and David Bowie- is very striking.
I find it incredible that Christopher Nolan’s grasp of technique and showmanship is so strong he can afford to twist and bend something rather ordinary into such an intriguing spell, yet never lose sight of the drama. So much so that he seems to inspire the best work of those around him. He is possibly the finest of this generation of film-makers and his work should be reassuring to anyone interested in the future of film.
Post by: Antares on July 31, 2010, 12:39:49 AM
In any film I rate 5/5, I am not looking for perfection (which is incredibly rare), I'm looking at a four star film that didn't put a foot wrong and did that little bit extra to make it unique. 5/5 simply means it did what it set out to do, can't be repeated and a niggling sense that everyone involved kind of realised and upped their game. You've all talked about things you don't like in the film (mainly the actors), but should they be judged mistakes? I think not. Plus just as you use personal preference to mark it down, I use it to mark it up. I think I've justified it, but the bottom line is, I could watch it again right now.
In other words, every film I have ever rated 5/5 at some point was good enough to make me forget I was simply watching any old film, cause a goosebump or two, and never made me groan in disappointment.
I understand why you rate that way. I guess it all boils down to this...
I respect your opinion when it comes to film, but I feel that you do yourself a disservice by rating films in this manner. If someone joins this forum or reads your blog and you rate a film such as this (a film I would be hard pressed to rate above 4) with the same rating as Ikiru, Casablanca or M, and they watch and it doesn't live up to the quality of the films I've mentioned, then you lose credibility with that person in any further review you write.
I spend a lot of time reading reviews all around the web, (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic) but I find most of the reviewers to be either condescending or pretentious. You on the other hand, are like me, a person who watches films purely for entertainment value. I enjoy reading your opinions on a film, and place a lot of stock into what you see, but it disappoints me when the prose is well written, but the rating has no sense of balance when compared to other films in that particular genre or other exceptional films in cinematic history.
I know that I could easily name 10 films in the gangster genre, and probably an additional 5 more that are better than this film. There has to be balance when someone is going to put the effort into writing film reviews, so that the reader has some way of discerning what is the cream of the crop or something good that doesn't quite reach that strata.
Maybe we write reviews for a different purpose, but foremost in my mind when I write one, is to have a person who reads it and watches the film say...He's right, I'll trust his judgment on further films.
Post by: KinkyCyborg on July 31, 2010, 02:27:19 AM
Maybe we write reviews for a different purpose, but foremost in my mind when I write one, is to have a person who reads it and watches the film say...He's right, I'll trust his judgment on further films.
If that is the expectation you have from the readers of your reviews you could be setting yourself up for disappointment.
I gave up long ago trying to write 'likable' reviews in the hopes of receiving glowing acknowledgment. Even in some tight knit forum communities where I have engaged in movie discussion the opinions and tastes vary so immensely that it becomes impossible to predict who and how many are going to share my sentiments on a film... if any! I have written reviews that I was confident would appeal to certain members whose own reviews I very much enjoy and respect only to have those individuals rip my analysis to shreds. :( On the flip side I've looked down my nose at some whom I've considered to be 'hack' reviewers who give glowing reviews to movies I thought were atrocious! Then during one of our group movie studies where we all watched the same movie and shared our thoughts afterwards, these same 'hacks' would give their assessment and it was like they read my mind.
What I now hope to achieve through my reviews is to convey to you all my own personal tastes which I concede are not for everyone! For those who share a common train of thought with me on a film I now have laid the groundwork for some talk to compare, reflect, dissect... whatever. For those who have an opposing view to my review... let the vigorous debate begin! Some of those debates have swayed my opinion in the past. :o It's all good. It's what us true movie lovers do. :thumbup:
KC
Post by: Antares on July 31, 2010, 03:08:31 AM
I gave up long ago trying to write 'likable' reviews in the hopes of receiving glowing acknowledgment.
I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I don't write a review looking for someone to heap glowing praise upon my prose. I want them to read the review, view the film, and maybe say to themselves, It's honest and to the point, he understands the highs and lows of the film and I would look forward to other films he suggests are good, and stay away from films he thinks are subpar.
I don't care if they like me or the review per se, but I do want them to respect my thoughts.
Post by: Jimmy on July 31, 2010, 03:21:23 AM
What I now hope to achieve through my reviews is to convey to you all my own personal tastes which I concede are not for everyone!KC it's a chance I don't write as much as I did, you would see that my tastes are a lot not for everybody :laugh:
Try my reviews depot to get an idea (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,695.0.html)
Post by: KinkyCyborg on July 31, 2010, 03:40:58 AM
I gave up long ago trying to write 'likable' reviews in the hopes of receiving glowing acknowledgment.
I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote. I don't write a review looking for someone to heap glowing praise upon my prose. I want them to read the review, view the film, and maybe say to themselves, It's honest and to the point, he understands the highs and lows of the film and I would look forward to other films he suggests are good, and stay away from films he thinks are subpar.
I don't care if they like me or the review per se, but I do want them to respect my thoughts.
Well said. :) The word that clarifies your intent for me is maybe. I've seen people get all pissy if even one person out of 50 aims some criticism towards their thoughts. I too feel a bit warm and fuzzy if even one person finds my insight to be useful... enough to encourage me to continue writing reviews.
Post by: Antares on July 31, 2010, 04:53:54 AM
I've seen people get all pissy if even one person out of 50 aims some criticism towards their thoughts.
If that were the case with me, then Jon and I would hate each other, because we disagree strongly on a few films and directors. But here's with the respect comes in...Though we don't always agree, Jon knows what he's talking about and I highly respect his opinion. He doesn't take it personally when I call him out on something, and neither do I when he does the same to me. That is what film discussion should be, and I'm thankful for having that kind of intellectual arrangement with Jon.
Now I criticized Jon's rating system, but he knows that that doesn't diminish my thoughts on his film knowledge or appreciation. He knows that I'm trying to bring out his best, as he does with me when I write something he finds disagreement with. It's adversarial admiration, to a degree.
Post by: Najemikon on July 31, 2010, 09:35:21 AM
I know exactly what you are saying. In this thread alone I have crossed several extreme genres and yes, giving the same rating to X-Men 2 as M seems absurd, but hopefully the way I write communicates to people the real difference that they will be looking for. I would hope people who take the time to read my reviews are doing that anyway.
The problem is that we're dealing with a very changeable medium. I review Bicycle Thieves as a progression of the art form and social commentary, but X-Men 2 as a progression of its genre and how cool comic books are! Between the two, you can split hairs on ability and technique, but at the end of the day, they are for very different audiences. To lower the rating of X-Men 2 simply because it isn't an important contribution to film as an art is elitist.
I reviewed Kick-Ass as a development of the comic book movie and an intelligent satire on modern American comedy that would communicate well with fans of both. To finish the review with "but it's no Lawrence of Arabia, so I'm only giving it 3" would insult the readers intelligence.
Action movies are a good example. I'd rate Die Hard or Bourne Ultimatum as 5/5, but are they as good or as important as Straw Dogs? No, not by a considerable margin, but give me a few months and I might be able to get someone from a hack like Michael Bay to a genius like Sam Peckinpah. And then you start considering his influences and suddenly a Transformers fan is thinking about watching something black and white, French and subtitled!
But just because someone then discovers such films, should they re-evaluate where they started? I don't think so, because films are released for their time and audience. Like you I could also name a few gangster movies "better" than The Untouchables. But in the 80s? No, the genre was dead. Plus you have to consider that De Palma wasn't trying to make a straight gangster film. It has a cartoonish enthusiasm that was really quite unique for its time considering its a period film. Personal preference accounts for a lot and I know a lot of people who love that film like myself. If I can encourage them to dig deeper from there and find Angels With Dirty Faces, then I'm happy.
My biggest regular influence regards reviews is Empire. They stick to a strict 1 through 5 rating and also can be found giving full marks to very diverse films and will occasionally re-evaluate come the DVD release. Ok, they use contributors, but there is still an editorial voice. Sadly their forums regularly attack ratings choices in either direction and it's clear the people doing it didn't read the review.
At the end of the day, ratings are a bit daft! I can understand why some don't use them, but they're fun.
Post by: Dragonfire on July 31, 2010, 09:47:25 AM
Like for example of movies I've seen in the theater in the last few months. I loved Toy Story 3, The A-Team, and Inception. Those are very different movies and I liked them for different reasons. I do think Inception is one of the best movies of the year, but that doesn't mean that I'll lower ratings on other movies because they aren't as aren't as amazing as that one. Some people may not agree with me on how I rate movies, but that's all they all...my ratings and opinions on the movies. Others can form their own opinions.
If someone can discuss a movie and back up why they like or dislike it, then I see it as a valid review. Maybe that comes from me writing and reading movie reviews at Epinions for 9 years.
Post by: Najemikon on July 31, 2010, 11:53:38 AM
Matthias is very good at that. He'll challenge a flippant statement and I don't mind standing up to it. If anything it is more important for films you might rate very low. I always get frustrated when someone says they disliked a film so much, they can't be bothered to review it! They're the best ones!
I will say this; I write reviews as much for my benefit and frequently ask myself just why do I think it should be whatever rating. When I start feeling it's a five, I put a lot more time into justifying or proving it to me first.
You've been using Epinions a long time, Marie! That's about when I was hosting Virgin.net's movie forum too. Do you get feedback on that site?
Post by: Antares on July 31, 2010, 06:46:40 PM
She gushes over this compliment, because no one has ever thought of her as breathtaking. Later in the episode, the gang is visiting a couple who have the ugliest baby in the history of mankind, and the pediatrician calls the child breathtaking also.
This elicits a look of shock on Elaine's face as she can now not understanding what connotation breathtaking means to this person.
That is what I meant in my description about the rating of films .
Post by: Najemikon on July 31, 2010, 07:58:25 PM
I don't think you're paying people enough respect. They aren't just going to watch any old film because we stuck five red stars on it! Pete likes horror and not musicals (neither do I, but ignore that for the moment. I'm not allergic to them, at least). Lets say I reviewed The Exorcist, 5/5 and Pete had never seen it. He'd read the overview, he'd read my comments and then say to himself, that it must be worth a watch. Maybe he'd ignored it before I said it was a must-see. Next day, I review The Sound Of Music and again, I give it 5/5 (we're still hypothetical here remember!). Is Pete really going to think, "oh my, even though I can't stand any form of music, Jon rated this the same as The Exorcist, so it must be just as good!". Of course he won't. Doubtful he'd have bothered reading it at all.
Also, what about people seeking an opinion on a new film they've heard of? They don't care where it fits against decades of cinema, they want to know where it fits now. So if I call Inception "breathtaking" -because it actually is in one bit at least- are you saying that undermines comments I made about Vertigo or something? Even though the two audiences might be entirely different.
It would be dishonest to rate it a 4 because it's the best film it could be right now, and then it's even a bit better. That's my criteria for five anyway.
Post by: hal9g on July 31, 2010, 11:34:30 PM
To be honest, on any two different days I could possibly give the same film two different ratings, depending on what's going on in my life at the time and possibly other movies that I had recently seen. My reviews are strictly a point in time evaluation.
As much as I love movies, and trust me I do, evaluating them kinda spoils things for me to some degree. I just like to watch, absorb and be entertained (or not) without spending a lot of time on why I did or didn't like something.
For me, knowing what a good movie is, is the same as the Supreme Court's definition of pornography....I know it when I see it!
Post by: Najemikon on July 31, 2010, 11:45:56 PM
All this about how I rate them is delaying me reviewing the last one! :training:
Post by: hal9g on August 01, 2010, 12:07:00 AM
That's true, Hal, but I do get a kick out of analysing them! :laugh:
That's very obvious given the extensive thought that you put into them. They are among the best I've read anywhere! :thumbup:
Post by: Najemikon on August 01, 2010, 03:06:16 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on August 01, 2010, 04:51:42 AM
Yeah, that's essentially how I approach it, Marie. I never shrug it off as an opinion though as I do want to stand by it and open someone elses mind to why. If anyone disagrees, as has happened here, then I want to talk it through.
Matthias is very good at that. He'll challenge a flippant statement and I don't mind standing up to it. If anything it is more important for films you might rate very low. I always get frustrated when someone says they disliked a film so much, they can't be bothered to review it! They're the best ones!
I will say this; I write reviews as much for my benefit and frequently ask myself just why do I think it should be whatever rating. When I start feeling it's a five, I put a lot more time into justifying or proving it to me first.
You've been using Epinions a long time, Marie! That's about when I was hosting Virgin.net's movie forum too. Do you get feedback on that site?
Oh I stand by what I rate movies too. I just meant that different people can feel differently about the same movies. I don't get worked up if people don't agree with what I think about a movie.
Members of Epinions can leave comments on reviews and rated them. The ratings are Very Helpful, Helpful, Somewhat Helpful and Not Helpful.
There have been a few times when I've suspected that someone rated one my reviews lower because they didn't agree with what I thought of a movie..the one time, the person left a comment about how the movie was obviously horrible based on previews and not worth watching. I enjoyed the movies in question, and I talked about why I liked them in the review, backing up my opinion. When I rate movie reviews, I don't rate lower if someone likes a movie I hated or hated one I liked. If a review is just all plot summary without some analysis, then I do rate lower. That is pretty much how most rate movie reviews there. We don't have to get into a lot of depth with the analysis, but there should be some.
Post by: Najemikon on August 01, 2010, 06:42:24 PM
5 out of 5
(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/blood.jpg)
This widely acclaimed masterpiece and must see American epic features the Academy Award®-winning performance of Daniel Day-Lewis (Best Actor, 2007). Daniel Plainview and son are independent oil men, looking for prospects in California at the turn of the 20th century. They are challenged by a young preacher, Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), whose own ambition is matched by Plainview's. Their battle forms the center of a scary, darkly comic historical journey into an abyss of madness.
Frequently listed as a decade best and occasionally one of all time, There Will Be Blood, along with The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford and No Country For Old Men (released the same year), proves American cinema is healthy and vibrant, which is reassuring considering the current CGI 3D obsession. Perhaps a simple way to introduce it is, The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre, as seen through the eyes of Robert Altman (the film is dedicated to Altman and director Paul Thomas Anderson sent a copy of John Huston’s classic to Daniel Day Lewis in preparation for the role).
The story is a simple one, but encompasses a lifetime of greed and stands a great deal of contemplation long after the credits role. Daniel Day Lewis plays Daniel Plainview (“when I say I am an oil man, I think you will agree”) and the story charts his development to oil tycoon, with his son (“and partner...”) H.W. (Dillon Freasier). It’s a parable on capitalism in conflict with religion, embodied by young Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Dano also plays Eli’s twin, but that character has one brief scene yet is essential.
I have found some of Anderson’s previous work to be too obvious and rigid (Boogie Nights was well made, but left me cold). This feels like a departure and there is a welcome playfulness here, despite the cynical Nihilism (neither capitalism nor religion come out of it well!); an abstract nature throughout, frequently underlined by the incredible score from Jonny Greenwood. The music is organic and expressive, often seeming to use all sorts of unusual sounds (one sequence of Daniel’s growing oil field has a wonderful rhythm), or even abrasive and more akin to a horror film. The changing tone unusually brings your attention to that score and for good reason. Take the very opening scene, a shot of the mountains before focusing on Daniel, mining alone. It’s accompanied by a horn that is almost a long shriek. If you knew nothing else about the story at this point, you might already consider Plainview a monster.
That is an assessment you are unlikely to lose throughout the film. Daniel Day Lewis is astonishing as Plainview. He seems to become him utterly, that every movement, every tick is beyond acting. This is Daniel Plainview. You will especially note his distinct, measured tone of voice, based somewhat on John Huston, which is so hypnotic to the characters and us the viewer. I’ve called him a monster and he is such an accomplished creation that the film, so centred on his performance, could be classed as Horror from a certain perspective. He won the Oscar for this work. Well... duh.
Every good performance needs support though and Paul Dano as Eli Sunday is fantastic. He is so much younger than Daniel, but he holds his own with a confident turn as the manipulative preacher. He is softly spoken, yet with a penchant for sermons where he appears possessed, full of fire and brimstone, that doesn’t convince Daniel for a moment. Both men are opposites, but both manipulative and see the hypocrisy in each other. And finally there is the boy, H.W., who represents an enigma in Daniel, in that this is the only person in the world he could possibly love. Young Dillon Freasier is excellent. He and Day Lewis complement each other so well that the relationship is convincing.
Take an early scene where Daniel is introducing himself to the townsfolk whose land he plans to buy. H.W. stands impassive to one side and never says a word, while Anderson’s camera gently shifts from Daniel to H.W. and back, taking our focus with it, yet Daniel’s voice is the constant. It is an incredible shot that most won’t notice (I’m sad like that!) but is worth looking out for.
It’s pacier than you might expect, and a dark plot, but beautiful. Some shots might stand out as being particularly breathtaking, but Robert Elswit’s photography is consistently striking throughout. Anderson’s direction is subtle and focused. He wisely lets Daniel Plainview do all the talking and while there are uncompromising moments that pack a punch like a oil drill bit to the head(!), he resists turning them into set-pieces and doesn’t even resort to zooms, quick edits or slow motion. It’s such a change from his usual style of bringing attention to the craft, though there isn’t anything wrong with that approach. For example, Boogie Nights had a raw Scorcese feel about it and Magnolia even had a musical number to emphasise its story of shared fate. These are fine films and when I say There Will Be Blood is better, I mean only in a consummate realisation of a larger ambition.
What few critics there are of There Will Be Blood seem to find the ending a challenge amongst other things, or even a betrayal of what has gone before. I argue they were not watching closely enough and the brilliance of that closing scene is in the contrasting absurdity. It is a terrifying scene, yet you may laugh nervously, as the film is brought to a simple and effective close with a single line of dialogue. If you do find it odd, just let it simmer on your mind for a couple of days and hopefully you’ll see what was intended; that all the threads of a life dedicated to obsession, hatred and existing on the edge of madness, are so beautifully tied off.
As I said before, The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre was a proud influence on Anderson, but it also bears a resemblance to Citizen Kane and occasionally has a Kubrick feel to it (more so than Altman, I think). That this is indelibly Anderson’s film and can stand to be compared with the very best, is testament to a visionary director who has clearly made his Masterpiece and struck black gold.
Post by: Najemikon on August 01, 2010, 06:44:00 PM
;)
Post by: Antares on August 01, 2010, 08:07:27 PM
As to the ending...I am one of those who found fault with it, because Dano's character is reduced to a babbling idiot of sorts. If Anderson had made Dano portray it with a bit less absurdity, it may have worked. But to have him appear as a petulant, whiny child with ADD , throws all sense of believabilty right out the window.
You mentioned Altman earlier, and I could see Altman doing something like this, just to throw the audience a curve ball, but as it would have with Altman, here too, it doesn't work.
Post by: Najemikon on August 02, 2010, 12:36:33 AM
Great review and a great film. As much as I liked No Country for Old Men, this was the better film that year and should have won for Best Picture.
As to the ending...I am one of those who found fault with it, because Dano's character is reduced to a babbling idiot of sorts. If Anderson had made Dano portray it with a bit less absurdity, it may have worked. But to have him appear as a petulant, whiny child with ADD , throws all sense of believabilty right out the window.
You mentioned Altman earlier, and I could see Altman doing something like this, just to throw the audience a curve ball, but as it would have with Altman, here too, it doesn't work.
Well...
(click to show/hide)
By the way, have you seen the Jesse James film? I call it the "Jesse James film", because it's easier than having to type "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"... oh. ;)
I reviewed it here: http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,886.msg73730.html#msg73730 and was pleased to see it gather some local forum support. I would have said liking any of the three (with No Country) would predispose you to the other two, but Eric shook that the other day. He happened to see There Will Be Blood the same night as me last week, but found it very boring. Shame.
In the interests of balance, Rick also reviewed Jesse James: http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,6526.msg118817.html#msg118817
Post by: Najemikon on August 02, 2010, 12:56:24 AM
Post by: Antares on August 02, 2010, 02:29:20 AM
I've seen TAoJJbtCRF a couple of times now, and the first time I watched it, I found to be laboring in its pace. But after I watched it a second time I really liked it. Would I rate it as one of the greatest westerns of all time, maybe not. But if you're in the right frame of mind for a western that takes its time and tells a good story, then I would recommend it, with that reservation about the pace.
Post by: Achim on August 02, 2010, 05:40:17 AM
The RoadI watched this last night and quite liked it. As you said, the acting is very good, the production design is marvelous and cinematography is also excellent.
The lack of a story, or I better say plot since there is a story, is a bit confusing at first.
(click to show/hide)
Quote
Why aren’t people working together? How did all the bad guys find each other and get sort of organised, but the good guys don’t?Because it all goes bad eventually... The good guys turn bad when hunger, greed or jealousy gets the better of them. So, in overall they stick to themselves to be safe.
Quote
Some dismiss it as depressing, but they were probably depressed because they couldn’t see past the lack of plot and set-pieces to find the genuine and substantial human drama within.I think the "depressing" comes from showing that bleak world, where death can always be around the next corner. Everything is terribly grey; we only see bits of color in the flashbacks and with the son's blanket (:hmmmm:). And then of course the seemingly open end of the film...
(click to show/hide)
I agree with your identification of the "carrying the fire" line being the key-point of this film. Two other great lines came from the son (I put some of it in spoilers, as it's best to discover the full extent of their meaning while watrching the film):
"I wish I could be with my mom."
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Especially the latter goes very close with what you said about the scene with Robert Duvall (his comment about the son being an angel).
Post by: Achim on August 02, 2010, 05:40:36 AM
This is the only film of De Palma's I would rate so high.:o
I respect your opinion when it comes to film, but I feel that you do yourself a disservice by rating films in this manner. If someone joins this forum or reads your blog and you rate a film such as this (a film I would be hard pressed to rate above 4) with the same rating as Ikiru, Casablanca or M, and they watch and it doesn't live up to the quality of the films I've mentioned, then you lose credibility with that person in any further review you write.I thought about this just a week ago myself. In fact, in order to use ratings from this forum for a purchase decision you must have been here for while, know what kind of films each reviewer likes and how he/she rates them. We discussed this in the past and agreed, that we want to make our rating personal.
If I were to use "real" ratings for the films I review I'd probably get more 3s rather than 4s and 5s. But, in the end it's about showing people how YOU rate the film, not how you think it should be placed within film history (which I think was the argument that let us to the result in before mentioned discussion). Actually, isn't that how you have to approach other reviews? Maybe you like films Ebert likes, but hate stuff Kael praises? Maybe films reviewed by Kermode fall in the middle? You still need to find a reviewer whose opinion matches yours.
Your reviews are clear on their purpose, as you use a different rating scale, which is placed below your reviews. Most of use our own scale, which is more about personal judgement. I guess your "complaint" is, that John uses a star rating (which indicates that he rates like you do) but then applies it in the same way the others use the smiley rating...
There Will Be BloodInteresting. Is this a real-life character...? Or did Rockstar games pay tribute to the movie in Red Dead Redemption? (There is an oil-site in the game which is called "Plainview".)
[...]
Daniel Plainview and son are independent oil men,
Post by: Najemikon on August 02, 2010, 08:27:12 PM
The RoadI watched this last night and quite liked it. As you said, the acting is very good, the production design is marvelous and cinematography is also excellent.
...(click to show/hide)
I agree with your identification of the "carrying the fire" line being the key-point of this film. Two other great lines came from the son (I put some of it in spoilers, as it's best to discover the full extent of their meaning while watrching the film):
"I wish I could be with my mom."and(click to show/hide)Son: "Yes I am the one!"(click to show/hide)
Especially the latter goes very close with what you said about the scene with Robert Duvall (his comment about the son being an angel).
Excellent use of spoilers there, Achim!
(click to show/hide)
This is the only film of De Palma's I would rate so high.:o
:laugh: I need to take another look at Carrie and Scarface (though I definitely think it is overrated, despite it's classic icon status), but otherwise he's made some fantastic movies. I'm just making the point, contrary to belief, it isn't that easy to get a high-five from me!
I thought about this just a week ago myself. In fact, in order to use ratings from this forum for a purchase decision you must have been here for while, know what kind of films each reviewer likes and how he/she rates them. We discussed this in the past and agreed, that we want to make our rating personal.
If I were to use "real" ratings for the films I review I'd probably get more 3s rather than 4s and 5s. But, in the end it's about showing people how YOU rate the film, not how you think it should be placed within film history (which I think was the argument that let us to the result in before mentioned discussion). Actually, isn't that how you have to approach other reviews? Maybe you like films Ebert likes, but hate stuff Kael praises? Maybe films reviewed by Kermode fall in the middle? You still need to find a reviewer whose opinion matches yours.
Your reviews are clear on their purpose, as you use a different rating scale, which is placed below your reviews. Most of use our own scale, which is more about personal judgement. I guess your "complaint" is, that John uses a star rating (which indicates that he rates like you do) but then applies it in the same way the others use the smiley rating...
Yep, that's how I feel. I try to write in a manner that you can make your own mind up to a degree as well. I don't want you to agree with me, just so long as you
There Will Be BloodInteresting. Is this a real-life character...? Or did Rockstar games pay tribute to the movie in Red Dead Redemption? (There is an oil-site in the game which is called "Plainview".)
[...]
Daniel Plainview and son are independent oil men,
A quick Google seems to find people concluding that this is just a smart reference to the film. It is as well... :clap:
The film is based on a book called Oil!, I believe to be a work of fiction.
Post by: Achim on August 03, 2010, 03:45:27 AM
Excellent use of spoilers there, Achim!Well, thanks. I found that the sentences themselves only carry their true meaning when seen in context with the questions/responses...
Quote
I watched it again yesterday with the audio commentary on.(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Post by: goodguy on August 03, 2010, 09:07:49 AM
The Constant Gardener
5 out of 5
...
I love it when this happens. I’d already seen The Constant Gardener and knew I liked it, but I had an urge to watch it again and it seemed to take on a whole new level. On this occasion, I found it achingly brilliant.
Just a short comment, I haven't made up my mind about it yet.
I'm deeply suspicious about commercial message movies dealing with contemporary issues of this scale. And the le Carré quote at the end just rubs me the wrong way - if the issue really matters to you, why did you end up making just a "holiday postcard"?
But I do like the visual style and I agree that Fiennes and especially Weisz are pretty good, but their love story feels a bit shorthanded and some of their flashback scenes together are just... not exactly too clichéd, but too suitable, I guess.
Post by: Najemikon on August 03, 2010, 12:06:01 PM
I'm deeply suspicious about commercial message movies dealing with contemporary issues of this scale. And the le Carré quote at the end just rubs me the wrong way - if the issue really matters to you, why did you end up making just a "holiday postcard"?
But I do like the visual style and I agree that Fiennes and especially Weisz are pretty good, but their love story feels a bit shorthanded and some of their flashback scenes together are just... not exactly too clichéd, but too suitable, I guess.
I too am suspicious of such stories and I think any plot that relies on one is instantly handicapped, hence my comments that you have to subscribe to the writers point of view to get the full benefit of their idea. What I found with this film, at least on a second viewing, is that it mattered less how convinced we were by the conspiracy and more how much we believed in Tessa. We can accept that she is dedicated to this thing for us and so we can concentrate on her. If anything, we are like Justin, not paying attention to what she does, we're more interested in who she is.
I don't want to undermine that main plot, because the film certainly doesn't, but still, I think Fernando Meirelles was sharp enough not to make us rely on it...
(click to show/hide)
One thing worth bearing in mind concerning the end quote, is that Le Carre said the film bore little resemblance to his book. He meant that as a compliment. I read a couple reviews of the book and get the feeling he did do exactly what I don't like and made the drug plot front and centre. Critics seem to feel he fell into the authors trap of doing a "Flavour of the Month" where all his research and indignation came out too obvious. So maybe his original book did justify the quote more.
I'll admit the flashback scenes did come across too brittle to me, but again, that was the first time. I know it's cheap to keep saying "second viewing", but it is true for some films. This is a very nostalgic story, so it works best when you already know it!
(click to show/hide)
Post by: Antares on August 04, 2010, 04:01:50 PM
Junior Bonner
3 out of 5
I finally got to see this film last night, courtesy of TCM. I thought it was a very entertaining film and quite a departure for Peckinpah. 3.5/5
On the other hand, the director did surprise me with occasional clumsiness, including the dated split screen titles that make it look like a TV movie and a cheesy freeze frame montage at the end.
You have to remember Jon, that the split screen imagery was still quite fresh in 1972, being only 2 years removed from the seminal documentary of Woodstock.
Plus the lighter hearted “Milking” event is both very funny and impressively staged. Add in a classy cowboy barroom brawl, a lively cast, a poignant story and you have a passable couple of hours. And the film might keep coming back to you, despite its humble nature. Another overview I read claimed this was Peckinpah's favourite film of his own. While I think it is far from his best, I can well believe it. It has a good heart.
It is definitely a film that I will revisit from time to time in the future. I wish Peckinpah would have made more films like this in his career.
Post by: Najemikon on August 04, 2010, 08:37:41 PM
You have to remember Jon, that the split screen imagery was still quite fresh in 1972, being only 2 years removed from the seminal documentary of Woodstock.
That's true, but I've never liked it and it has dated the film more than would be expected. I'm not fond of the freeze frames at the end either.
It is definitely a film that I will revisit from time to time in the future. I wish Peckinpah would have made more films like this in his career.
Me too. He brought considerable experience to a small story. Some of the rodeo scenes were incredible and I really wasn't expecting that.
Plus McQueen had such style. Have you ever seen The Hunter? Quirky, but really good. I reviewed for the last Alphathon.
Post by: Antares on August 04, 2010, 08:48:01 PM
Have you ever seen The Hunter? Quirky, but really good. I reviewed for the last Alphathon.
It's an OK film, but I've never thought it was that great. The reason for my :yawn: attitude toward it is the fact that the real Ralph Thorson could have been a stunt double in John Huston's Moby Dick for the white whale. He weighed over 400 pounds.
The story just rang hollow for me because of that fact.
Post by: Najemikon on August 04, 2010, 09:00:25 PM
Post by: Antares on August 04, 2010, 09:03:45 PM
Post by: Najemikon on August 10, 2010, 10:43:21 PM
Well. Erm... :bag:
I've done it again. :suicide: http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/news.aspx?news=640
:yahoo: :dance: :thundergod:
Post by: Antares on August 10, 2010, 10:46:43 PM
Post by: addicted2dvd on August 10, 2010, 11:03:24 PM
Post by: Kathy on August 10, 2010, 11:35:27 PM
Post by: Najemikon on August 11, 2010, 12:56:46 AM
I said last time some of you should try it, but I really think it will be limited to UK entrants. While I can't see anything to say otherwise, and the prize wouldn't be restricted, plus they do search Region 1 titles, they market, compare and promote Region 2.
Post by: Critter on August 11, 2010, 01:49:47 AM
Post by: Achim on August 11, 2010, 06:16:39 AM
Post by: Dragonfire on August 11, 2010, 08:02:43 AM
Post by: KinkyCyborg on August 12, 2010, 05:37:51 AM
Post by: hal9g on August 12, 2010, 04:11:32 PM
Keep up the great reviews! :thumbsup:
Post by: goodguy on November 12, 2010, 01:29:42 AM
Have you even seen Sherlock Holmes? I wouldn't have thought it was your cup of tea from any angle, but there's incalculably more talent involved and I enjoyed it, even if the net result was a bit dumb. Key difference is, one film was trying to be clever and shot itself in the foot. And it wasn't Holmes.
Actually, no. ;) But I have it on my wishlist and expect something entertaining on the level of the "Iron Man" movie. I even remember posting about it in the "Must-see Movies" thread after reading an early review.
Well, that was a turd that even RDJ couldn't save.
Post by: Kathy on October 20, 2012, 10:59:51 PM
The Yakuza (1974)
4 out of 5
Jon's review is credited to Brit - please fix.
Post by: Najemikon on October 21, 2012, 02:54:39 PM
Post by: Jimmy on October 21, 2012, 02:56:52 PM
Jon's review is credited to Brit - please fix.Sebastien haven't update the review list for quite a while. I think he is really busy these days.
Post by: RossRoy on October 23, 2012, 12:59:16 PM
You can say that again! :wacko:Jon's review is credited to Brit - please fix.Sebastien haven't update the review list for quite a while. I think he is really busy these days.
but it's noted for when I eventually get to it...
Post by: Jimmy on October 23, 2012, 01:24:51 PM
I missed the old regular members like Eric, Rich, James, Jon or you who visit but don't really post anymore :(